PDA

View Full Version : NFL Re-do Divisions?


Ali4Real
01-07-2009, 04:02 PM
Should the NFL re-do the divisions in both the AFC and NFC to make it more geographically correct and to make competition fair? This year, the Pats went 11-5 and failed to make it to the playoffs yet the Chargers went 8-8 and were division champs and are in the playoffs :foottap:


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:US_National_Football_League_Teams_Location-en.svg

Polo
01-07-2009, 04:05 PM
Maybe they can switch out Indy and Oakland

The Pencil Neck
01-07-2009, 04:31 PM
The Chargers may have gone 8-8 but they beat the 12-4 Colts in the first round and have every hope of beating the Steelers in the next round.

Every year people want to re-arrange things for different reasons. Last year, everyone wanted to break up the AFC East because the Patriots didn't have any competition from any of the other teams in the division. This year, the Patriots go 11-5 and don't get in.

Personally, I think the wild variations and fluctations like that are a good thing. I like the fact that you might have division winners that have bad records and you have other teams left out of the wildcard even though they had great records.

Blake
01-07-2009, 04:38 PM
If they change the divisions it should only be for geographical reasons. Not because the teams aren't evenly matched.

ATX
01-07-2009, 04:43 PM
The Chargers may have gone 8-8 but they beat the 12-4 Colts in the first round and have every hope of beating the Steelers in the next round.

Every year people want to re-arrange things for different reasons. Last year, everyone wanted to break up the AFC East because the Patriots didn't have any competition from any of the other teams in the division. This year, the Patriots go 11-5 and don't get in.

Personally, I think the wild variations and fluctations like that are a good thing. I like the fact that you might have division winners that have bad records and you have other teams left out of the wildcard even though they had great records.

Totally agree. If the Texans win the division going 8-8, then that's how it is. It also makes division games that much more important.

infantrycak
01-07-2009, 04:43 PM
If they change the divisions it should only be for geographical reasons. Not because the teams aren't evenly matched.

I'm for that with the caveat the two nearest teams should if possible be in different conferences. So like it is now Houston and Dallas are in different conferences. Same with Jets and Giants, Oakland and San Fran. Then expand out and pull in the closest four teams from each conference. Dallas should not be playing all east coast teams for instance--they should be playing New Orleans, St. Louis, Arizona, etc. Keeps the flight times down. Encourages regional rivalries. Won't happen, but that's how I see it.

WesmanTexanfan
01-07-2009, 04:43 PM
ya, Indy isnt south of much....

Double Barrel
01-07-2009, 04:47 PM
[food for thought]
They need to get rid of conferences if they do anything. So many times the two best teams play during the AFC or NFC Championship games. The past few Super Bowls have been pretty good, but there were many years that it was just a bore because the teams were not comparable. Just have eight division winners and four wildcard spots. The Patriots would have made the playoffs and the Eagles would not have made the cut.
[/food for thought]

I'd leave things the way that they are right now, though. Maybe re-seed the teams after week 17 so we don't get garbage games at the end of the season and teams would have a reason to keep trying to win after they secure a playoff spot. If Baltimore and San Diego win this weekend, the 8-8 Charges would host the 11-5 Ravens. Playing in a weak division should not automatically give you a homefield advantage. But that's just a minor tweak, not any kind of overhaul to the system.

SteveSlaton20
01-07-2009, 04:54 PM
I'm for that with the caveat the two nearest teams should if possible be in different conferences. So like it is now Houston and Dallas are in different conferences. Same with Jets and Giants, Oakland and San Fran. Then expand out and pull in the closest four teams from each conference. Dallas should not be playing all east coast teams for instance--they should be playing New Orleans, St. Louis, Arizona, etc. Keeps the flight times down. Encourages regional rivalries. Won't happen, but that's how I see it.

I agreed

Indy isn't anywhere close to the south, so they should be playing in a different division than ours.

texanhead08
01-07-2009, 05:45 PM
For example St Louis is in the west and Dallas the east.

DiehardChris
01-07-2009, 06:01 PM
I did a post a while back - purely fantasy - but I would love it:

Say Jacksonville moves to Los Angeles.

Put the LA Jags in the NFC West.

Move the Rams to the NFC South. (Hey if the Colts are in the AFC South, the Rams can be in the NFC South).

Move the Saints to the AFC South. It creates two instant rivalries - Saints/Titans and Saints/Texans.

I also think if they are going to change up the divisions, it should ONLY be done if it makes geographical sense, but it should also be done to create rivalries. Rivalries are great for the game and the fans.

This of course is a ridiculous pipe dream, but I'd love to have the Saints in our division.

Anyway - the Vikings also look like a fair candidate to move to LA in a few years... either way, LA should have a team by 2012ish, and we'll have to have SOME kind of re-alignment.

infantrycak
01-07-2009, 06:04 PM
Everything you said about the Saints/Texans applies to the Cowboys/Saints without moving the Saints across conferences.

Of course we are peeing into the wind, but I really think the NFL has missed the boat on encouraging fan travel. Saints fans for example would drive to either Houston or Dallas for games. That kind of thing should be encouraged.

DiehardChris
01-07-2009, 06:09 PM
Everything you said about the Saints/Texans applies to the Cowboys/Saints without moving the Saints across conferences.

I know. It's a pipe dream - and I'm admittedly coming at this from a Texans fan point of view, not necessarily what I think is best for the NFL - it's not something I think needs to be trotted out as a great idea or anything - just some fun speculation.

Anyway, Dallas has (much as I hate to say it) earned a certain amount of respect as a franchise - they have established rivalries, and despite the ridiculous geography that it involves, they should be able to keep it if they want to.

The Saints have no such history or earned respect. They're just one of the "blah" franchises in the NFL... but moving them to our division could instantly create two solid rivalries.

ATX
01-07-2009, 06:10 PM
So which team in the NFL, geographically speaking, should not be in their division?

KC in the AFC West?
Indy in the AFC South?

Dallas in the NFC East?
St. Louis in the NFC West?

DiehardChris
01-07-2009, 06:14 PM
Everything you said about the Saints/Texans applies to the Cowboys/Saints without moving the Saints across conferences.

Of course we are peeing into the wind, but I really think the NFL has missed the boat on encouraging fan travel. Saints fans for example would drive to either Houston or Dallas for games. That kind of thing should be encouraged.

Didn't see your second paragraph - TOTALLY agree.

gtexan02
01-07-2009, 06:32 PM
Too many good rivalries would be destroyed. Cowboys Redskins, Browns Steelers, etc

Hookem Horns
01-07-2009, 08:41 PM
Indy should be where they were originally put, the AFC North. Indiana, Ohio, and western PA are close and natural rivals in other sports. The Colts would have developed an intense rivalry with the Steelers. The Bengals are practically in Indiana anyway and would have been a close rival.

The AFC South was supposed to have Baltimore, Tennessee, Houston, and Jax which makes more sense. This lineup would have also kept the Ravens, Titans, Jags rivalries going. Also Baltimore is technically south (below the Mason/Dixon line).

However the Rooneys wanted Modell in their division and lobbied to keep the Ravens with the other old AFC Central teams.

WWJD
01-08-2009, 09:08 AM
Dallas is in the NFC East because of Tex Schramm....he wanted them there because he anticipated bigger TV audiences with the teams in the division and he was right.

They'll never move out of that division unless made to do so.

BY1401
01-09-2009, 10:33 PM
Indy should be where they were originally put, the AFC North. Indiana, Ohio, and western PA are close and natural rivals in other sports. The Colts would have developed an intense rivalry with the Steelers. The Bengals are practically in Indiana anyway and would have been a close rival.

The AFC South was supposed to have Baltimore, Tennessee, Houston, and Jax which makes more sense. This lineup would have also kept the Ravens, Titans, Jags rivalries going. Also Baltimore is technically south (below the Mason/Dixon line).

However the Rooneys wanted Modell in their division and lobbied to keep the Ravens with the other old AFC Central teams.

I remember when the new divisions came out I thought it would have made more geographic sense to have Indy in the North, Baltimore in the East, and Miami in the South. But yeah, it's the old rivalries that kept some WTF in the division line-ups.

eriadoc
01-09-2009, 11:15 PM
I'm all for leaving things the way they are now, as far as competition goes. I could see a re-org with regard to regional placement, but just because some team is 8-8 and makes the playoffs, oh well.

sbalderrama
01-10-2009, 12:57 AM
you can't base realignment on strength of teams because it changes. For a while the AFC West was one of the strongest divisions in football.

Doesn't help the Texans much, true. On the plus side, if we ever manage to make it into the playoffs in this division there is a good shot we will be a pretty good team who can do some damage.

kastofsna
01-11-2009, 09:41 AM
So which team in the NFL, geographically speaking, should not be in their division?

KC in the AFC West?
Indy in the AFC South?

Dallas in the NFC East?
St. Louis in the NFC West?

Miami in the AFC East and Indy in the AFC South should be swapped