PDA

View Full Version : NFL Re-alignment?


beatsme
Jan 10, 2007, 12:55 PM
I've long thought that the whole AFC/NFC thing is kind of stupid, especially when you look at the way the NFC teams just murdered the AFC in the Super Bowl for so many years; everybody knew that the "real" Super Bowl was the NFC Championship game. So here's my idea:

scrap the AFC and the NFC, and re-align the league thus:

NFL North
Buffalo
New England
New York Jets
New York Giants
Philadelphia
Baltimore
Washington
Pittsburgh

NFL South
Tennessee
Atlanta
Carolina
Miami
Jacksonville
Tampa Bay
New Orleans
Houston

NFL Central
Cincinnati
Cleveland
Indianapolis
Chicago
Detroit
Green Bay
Minnesota
St. Louis

NFL West
Kansas City
Dallas
Denver
Seattle
Oakland
San Francisco
San Diego
Arizona

Every team plays every other team in it's division only once per season, not twice the way it is now. That's 7 games. Then, every team plays 3 teams each from the three other divisions (nine games), so 7+9=a 16 game season.

For the playoffs, the 4 division winners get an automatic trip to the playoffs and a first round bye. The remaining 8 playoff slots are filled by the teams with the 8 best records. So this year's playoffs would be:

Division Winners
San Diego
Chicago
Baltimore
New Orleans

Playoff Teams based on the 2007 draft order
Indianapolis
New England
Philadelphia
New York Jets
Seattle
Kansas City
Dallas
Denver

note that under this scenario, Denver makes the playoffs @ 9-7, and the Giants @ 8-8 stay home.

seedings stay the same (highest seed plays lowest, etc.), and with any luck, the two best teams meet in the final game.

Any thoughts?

2nyRiggz
Jan 10, 2007, 01:06 PM
Any thoughts?

You thought real hard about this didn't you.....bless your soul;) :)



Bless

beatsme
Jan 10, 2007, 01:08 PM
You thought real hard about this didn't you.....bless your soul;) :)



Bless

not really...it took longer to type it than it did to come up with it ;)

MacNut
Jan 10, 2007, 01:12 PM
it would never happen, They are not going to put the Jets and Giants and New England in the same division. If they do what you say then the big Rivalries will go away. The system is fine the way it is.

tobefirst
Jan 10, 2007, 01:14 PM
I think that only playing the teams in your division once would serve to destroy, to some extent, the rivalries within the division, which often create the biggest headlines.

edit: Mac Nut is faster than me. (:

ShermDog
Jan 10, 2007, 01:16 PM
Very intriguing. But, with the exception of Denver making it and New York not, your system didn't really change who made it to the playoffs this year. I'm in favor of any system that results in the two best teams meeting in the championship round, regardless of conference. But you never really know. Just look at last year's NBA playoffs. Everyone and their mother thought the NBA championship would be decided when the Spurs and Mavericks played in the conference finals. Who would have thought the Heat would win the whole thing, especially since they came from the "weaker" conference?

MacNut
Jan 10, 2007, 01:16 PM
Another issue is the TV contracts, right now Fox has the NFC, CBS the AFC, and NBC the game of the week. Those contracts run till 2012 so any changes will have to wait. The NFL is making big bucks now and they don't want to change that model.

beatsme
Jan 10, 2007, 01:19 PM
I think that only playing the teams in your division once would serve to destroy, to some extent, the rivalries within the division, which often create the biggest headlines.

edit: Mac Nut is faster than me. (:

yea it would kill Washington/Dallas, Pittsburgh/Cleveland and a few others, but I'm inclined to think that the regional (and crosstown) rivalries would be just as interesting, esp. in the NFL North where so many of those teams are so close together. I also think playing your rival once per year makes the game that much bigger. Just my opinion...

yellow
Jan 10, 2007, 01:21 PM
The only reason that the NFC destroyed the AFC every year in the SB was because there was no league parity.
When the Collective Bargaining Agreement was implemented, everything changed.

Well, not the ONLY reason.. but it's a huge contributor.

dejo
Jan 10, 2007, 01:21 PM
From the mid-eigthies to the late nineties, sure, the NFC dominated in Super Bowl victories, but over the last 9 seasons, the AFC Champion has gone on to win the Super Bowl 7 times. Hardly murder for the NFC.

MacNut
Jan 10, 2007, 01:22 PM
Don't even get me started on the problems with the NBA playoff system, 16 teams make the playoffs, thats more then half the league. Then it runs 2 months before we get to the championship series.

dejo
Jan 10, 2007, 01:24 PM
Don't even get me started on the problems with the NBA playoff system, 16 teams make the playoffs, thats more then half the league. Then it runs 2 months before we get to the championship series.
For a second there, I thought you were talking about the NHL. ;)

MacNut
Jan 10, 2007, 01:25 PM
yea it would kill Washington/Dallas, Pittsburgh/Cleveland and a few others, but I'm inclined to think that the regional (and crosstown) rivalries would be just as interesting, esp. in the NFL North where so many of those teams are so close together. I also think playing your rival once per year makes the game that much bigger. Just my opinion...It kills more then that, Washington/Dallas, Giants/Dallas, Giants/Washington, Dallas/Eagles, Eagles/Washingon, Giants/Eagles.

yellow
Jan 10, 2007, 01:25 PM
Gadzooks I wish they would shrink the NHL so we can get the talent pool back.

iRachel
Jan 10, 2007, 01:26 PM
yea it would kill Washington/Dallas, Pittsburgh/Cleveland and a few others, but I'm inclined to think that the regional (and crosstown) rivalries would be just as interesting, esp. in the NFL North where so many of those teams are so close together. I also think playing your rival once per year makes the game that much bigger. Just my opinion...

I doubt the NFL would go for this plan for this reason alone. The last time they realigned the divisions, they purposely made sure the rivalries stayed in tact - how else would Dallas end up in the NFC East (when all of the teams in the south and at least one or two in the north are geographically further east than Dallas) - they're there so that that they're in the same division as Washington. I think your plan is potentially interesting, but I think if the league were to adopt it, it would likely be reworked to "protect" the long-standing rivalries.

MacNut
Jan 10, 2007, 01:30 PM
This system has been in place since the merger and I don't see the owners changing it.

beatsme
Jan 10, 2007, 01:30 PM
It kills more then that, Washington/Dallas, Giants/Dallas, Giants/Washington, Dallas/Eagles, Eagles/Washington

In this scenario, Giants, Eagles, Redskins are still in the same division. They still play annually.

But truthfully, the real flaw is that some teams would have 4 division games at home, and some would only have 3. That's a bit unfair, though you could arrange it so that the team with the weaker record gets the 4 games at home.

swiftaw
Jan 10, 2007, 01:30 PM
How about this:

Keep the 8 divisions as they are now, with the winner of each division making the playoffs.

The 4 wild cards should be the 4 non-division winners with the best records, regardless of conference.

The twelve playoff teams should be seeded in the playoffs by record, regardless of conference. Thus, the two best teams have a chance to meet in the superbowl.

Dont Hurt Me
Jan 10, 2007, 01:31 PM
From the mid-eigthies to the late nineties, sure, the NFC dominated in Super Bowl victories, but over the last 9 seasons, the AFC Champion has gone on to win the Super Bowl 7 times. Hardly murder for the NFC.Thankyou Im glad someone said this. The NFL & AFL was a joining of two seperate leagues. Now thats over and done they need to redraw the whole thing with teams competing regional and moving to a play offs. Get rid of afl & nfl and just call the whole thing the NFL. By having real regional games they could save a ton on fuel,housing &transportation. Southeast could be Miami,Tampa,Jacksonville,New Orleans & Atlanta.:) Every team is with in driving distance or a very short hop. This allows fans to follow their team with less travel costs also.

miloblithe
Jan 10, 2007, 01:31 PM
As a Washingtonian, I'll vote that an NFL season without at least 2 Redskins-Cowboys games is a season not worth watching.

More to the point, the history of the game is interesting. AFC/NFC is part of it.

MacNut
Jan 10, 2007, 01:39 PM
As a Washingtonian, I'll vote that an NFL season without at least 2 Redskins-Cowboys games is a season not worth watching.

More to the point, the history of the game is interesting. AFC/NFC is part of it.And I think the networks would agree, they want viewers and splitting the league loses that.

Manzana
Jan 10, 2007, 02:07 PM
As a Washingtonian, I'll vote that an NFL season without at least 2 Redskins-Cowboys games is a season not worth watching.

More to the point, the history of the game is interesting. AFC/NFC is part of it.

Well actually that is the problem. Just like in baseball we "get" to see Red Sox v. Yankees every two weeks.

I'm tired of it, and so is a lot of the country, it only matters in those regional markets, and the NFL is a national league. I'm tired of FOX overemphasizing NFL East matchups...it's old, the conference system should be scrapped.

I am also a huuuuuge AFC West fan (and old AFL teams), have been for 25+ years, could name you players on The Bolts (My Team), chefs, donkeys, and turds. I even know seachickin's teams from the mid '80s. Hey they left the West and the rivalries and they're a cool NFC team now.

Sometimes change is good, and with talk of placing a team abroad (mexico/canada) a single NFL to rule them all actually makes sense, and I very much support the OP's position!

yellow
Jan 10, 2007, 02:27 PM
I am a NFL fan, and though I may not be in the market, I appreciate the old rivalries and watching said games.. moreso if both teams are good.

Applespider
Jan 10, 2007, 02:48 PM
Thankyou Im glad someone said this. The NFL & AFL was a joining of two seperate leagues. Now thats over and done they need to redraw the whole thing with teams competing regional and moving to a play offs.

No... keep the history and heritage intact. Keep the NFC and AFC otherwise the Super Bowl loses its purpose and becomes just any other final. The conference rivalry should stay part of the game.

Sure, each conference has their ups and downs but what goes around comes around.

I love the way that NFL stadiums are generally 'one colour' during gameday. Having teams so much closer that larger numbers of away fans attend won't just cause havoc with home-field advantage but it can lead to more instances of crowd trouble which means segregated stadiums and a worse experience for the fan.

The 4 wild cards should be the 4 non-division winners with the best records, regardless of conference.


You can't do this unless you scrap the conferences otherwise the Superbowl stops being the game for which conference comes out on top.

yellow
Jan 10, 2007, 02:56 PM
I'm not a fan of how the BCS has slated out the college bowl situation, I really don't want something similar done to the NFL. Keep 2 conferences intact.

Tanglewood
Jan 10, 2007, 04:54 PM
I have to agree with Applespider on this one. Keeping the conferences how they are gives meaning to the Super Bowl.

Besides they already realigned the two conferences just 5 years ago.

- - -
On another note eliminating the second game against a divisional rival, gets rid of the redemption game.

Case in point the KC/Chargers series. After the KC beat the Chargers in the first game Chiefs defensive end Tamba Hali called the Chargers "a finesse team". This gave the Chargers extra motivation in their 20-9 victory over KC in December.

If the second game is removed when they play again next year, comments like Hali's have no meaning since the teams are different from year to year.

twoodcc
Jan 10, 2007, 05:43 PM
what happend to NFL East?