NFL Division Realignment? [Merge]

[FightLikeSin]

I was reading an article today about the Vikings getting their bill for a new stadium rejected today and how they might be moving to L.A. I was thinking about how they could justify still being in the NFC North over in California...and how dumb some of the divisions are setup, especially for the Colts.

Am I the only one finds a dissonance with Indianapolis being in a "Southern" division?

I think it would make for better rivalries if the divisions were closer to each other. I found a before and after of what an NFL Division realignment would look like.

Current

Geographical Realignment

[shakedownstreet]

alignment has to be a fine balance between logistics & tradition. the proposed alignment in the picture 100% ignores the latter

if you think it's bad now, just look at the divisions prior to 2001

[schwamm]

Won't happen. Ever. Not like that, anyway.

[FightLikeSin]

yes yes I know...change is bad and I've committed an unforgivable sin for even mentioning the possibility. I understand the traditions. Just saying...with the history of expansion teams being added and teams moving, a realignment wouldn't be a bad idea in my opinion. College football is on the up and up with this. Growing up as a Purdue fan, I never thought about Nebraska as a rival, but after only a year...i'm used to it. I don't think it's as big of a deal as people make it.

[Thewholefnshow28]

The reallignement in college football is an utter joke and is killing some great traditional rivalries. The only thing the NFL should take from college football is how to have a better atmosphere.

There is no reason to change other then just to change. This is basically killing off some great rivalries from the NFC West and AFC North.

From a fan standpoint it would be a bit nicer because it would be easier to get to some away games.

If the NFL starts talking about expansion again whoever brings it up should be immediately fired. The talent pool in the league is all ready thin. We do not need what has happened to the NBA to happen the NFL. Heck in both leagues I would contract two or three teams.

[FightLikeSin]

The reallignement in college football is an utter joke and is killing some great traditional rivalries. The only thing the NFL should take from college football is how to have a better atmosphere.

There is no reason to change other then just to change. This is basically killing off some great rivalries from the NFC West and AFC North.

From a fan standpoint it would be a bit nicer because it would be easier to get to some away games.

If the NFL starts talking about expansion again whoever brings it up should be immediately fired. The talent pool in the league is all ready thin. We do not need what has happened to the NBA to happen the NFL. Heck in both leagues I would contract two or three teams.

Agree to disagree. Rivalries don't just die because a team moves to a different conference. Do you think the Colts/Pats will sing Kumbaya now that Peyton isn't in Indy? I don't see that happening. I will forever hate them and they aren't even in the division, yet we play them every year. History/traditions are made, broken and remade. Life goes on. The Baltim...Indianapolis Colts are a perfect example of "tradition and history" right?

[P-Money]

Agree to disagree. Rivalries don't just die because a team moves to a different conference. Do you think the Colts/Pats will sing Kumbaya now that Peyton isn't in Indy? I don't see that happening. I will forever hate them and they aren't even in the division, yet we play them every year. History/traditions are made, broken and remade. Life goes on. The Baltim...Indianapolis Colts are a perfect example of "tradition and history" right?

We only play the Patriots every year because we both always seem to finish in the same spot in the divisions. You can kiss that goodbye for awhile. That rivalry will die now that Peyton is gone anyways.

[FightLikeSin]

We only play the Patriots every year because we both always seem to finish in the same spot in the divisions. You can kiss that goodbye for awhile. That rivalry will die now that Peyton is gone anyways.

I don't think the rivalry will die at all. The Lakers and Celtics didn't stop after Bird and Johnson were gone...

I'm assuming the opponents are set two years prior then? Because it wouldn't make much sense or the Colts to play the Pats this year if it goes by where they finished in the division.

[Thewholefnshow28]

Agree to disagree. Rivalries don't just die because a team moves to a different conference. Do you think the Colts/Pats will sing Kumbaya now that Peyton isn't in Indy? I don't see that happening. I will forever hate them and they aren't even in the division, yet we play them every year. History/traditions are made, broken and remade. Life goes on. The Baltim...Indianapolis Colts are a perfect example of "tradition and history" right?

As P-Money said we only play the Pats because of where we have finished over the past decade. We do not play the Pats because the schedulers want to keep the rivalry alive. We will not be playing the Pats this season that is for sure.

The reason the Celtics/Lakers rivalry has continued thrive is because they continually play each other in meaningful games and the NBA does not have the same set schedule the NFL does. If we continue to struggle and stay at the bottom of the division while the Pats stay at the top the rivalry will diminish because we will only see each other when our two divisions have to play and that is every five years or so.

[FightLikeSin]

As P-Money said we only play the Pats because of where we have finished over the past decade. We do not play the Pats because the schedulers want to keep the rivalry alive. We will not be playing the Pats this season that is for sure.

The reason the Celtics/Lakers rivalry has continued thrive is because they continually play each other in meaningful games and the NBA does not have the same set schedule the NFL does. If we continue to struggle and stay at the bottom of the division while the Pats stay at the top the rivalry will diminish because we will only see each other when our two divisions have to play and that is every five years or so.

I understand. However, over the years I have grown to hate the Patriots and I don't see that dying. Some teams will always just give me a bad taste in my mouth. If I had to name a "rival" of the Colts, I wouldn't name anyone in the AFC South. It hasn't even been a fair fight for the past 12 years, so how could I consider them rivals?

I didn't mean for this to become a battle for the terms of tradition/rivalries. I'm clearly in the minority when it comes to the logistics of Indy being in the AFC South...it just doesn't make any sense to me.

Arguments like these are as irrelevant and meaningless as the "what should the NFL Nike Jerseys look like" discussion. There are going to be a handful of people like me that actually want progress and change, and then the majority that look at a plain jersey with two white stripes and say..."nailed it in 1960, stay there." I understand it's "classic". But it's still just a jersey. I think people get too emotional about these types of things but again, everyone is entitled to their opinions.

[schwamm]

I don't think the rivalry will die at all. The Lakers and Celtics didn't stop after Bird and Johnson were gone...

I'm assuming the opponents are set two years prior then? Because it wouldn't make much sense or the Colts to play the Pats this year if it goes by where they finished in the division.

Most of the schedule is set way in advance, based on a rotation... AFC South faces all three other teams in their own division twice every year, one other division in the AFC each year on an every 3rd year rotation, and one division in the NFC each year on an every 4th year rotation. The only matchups that aren't set well in advance are the 2 additional teams in the AFC that finished in the same position in their division, which, obviously, isn't determined until the end of the previous season. In 2012, the Colts face the AFC East, so by definition, we will face the Patriots. We will also play the NFC North, and the teams that finished 4th in the AFC North (Browns) and AFC West (Chiefs).

[FireJimCaldwell]

The geographical realignment makes perfect sense if we were talking about high schools and travel expenses and schools with limited budgets.

I doubt you'll ever see the NFL get rid of rivalries like Washington/Dallas, Pittsburgh/Cincy/Cleveland, NE/MIA, Giants/Dallas/Redskins, etc.

It makes sense for a new league.

You also have an issue of AFC vs. NFC

Some of those proposed divisions are 50/50 on AFC & NFC teams, so those could be placed in either, but I don't see it happening.

[FightLikeSin]

The geographical realignment makes perfect sense if we were talking about high schools and travel expenses and schools with limited budgets.

I doubt you'll ever see the NFL get rid of rivalries like Washington/Dallas, Pittsburgh/Cincy/Cleveland, NE/MIA, Giants/Dallas/Redskins, etc.

It makes sense for a new league.

You also have an issue of AFC vs. NFC

Some of those proposed divisions are 50/50 on AFC & NFC teams, so those could be placed in either, but I don't see it happening.

you pretty much wrapped up what I was trying to say, but much better lol. I just posted it because it's a slow news day and I think it was fun to think about. I guess the real issue is that the way the schedule works could use a little altering. As a Purdue fan, i know we play Notre Dame every year. They aren't a Big 10 school but it's an in-state rivalry that sells tickets. The NFL could stand to use that logic with the Bears vs Colts for instance. I know a lot of people that would go to that game EVERY year. Thanks for the comment.

[FireJimCaldwell]

you pretty much wrapped up what I was trying to say, but much better lol. I just posted it because it's a slow news day and I think it was fun to think about. I guess the real issue is that the way the schedule works could use a little altering. As a Purdue fan, i know we play Notre Dame every year. They aren't a Big 10 school but it's an in-state rivalry that sells tickets. The NFL could stand to use that logic with the Bears vs Colts for instance. I know a lot of people that would go to that game EVERY year. Thanks for the comment.

It's an interesting topic... I doubt it sees the light of day, but it is an interesting topic.

[Blackhawk4]

I don't think the rivalry will die at all. The Lakers and Celtics didn't stop after Bird and Johnson were gone...

I'm assuming the opponents are set two years prior then? Because it wouldn't make much sense or the Colts to play the Pats this year if it goes by where they finished in the division.

That's because the Lakers Celtics rivalry was there decades before Bird or Johnson stepped on an NBA court....

Raiders and 49ers in the same division = NFL would never allow that.

[FightLikeSin]

That's because the Lakers Celtics rivalry was there decades before Bird or Johnson stepped on an NBA court....

Raiders and 49ers in the same division = NFL would never allow that.

It would be entertaining to say the least.

[Blackhawk4]

It would be entertaining to say the least.

Not if you heard what happened last season. The violence they had at and outside the stadium caused the NFL to say no more preseason games between the two teams.

http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2011/08/22/report-49ers-raiders-will-no-longer-meet-in-preseason/

[-JJ-]

It should be re-aligned. Think of the energy savings.Not to mention the travel invloved with players especially today with all the different prime time games, short weeks etc.

Rivalries are overrated anyway. They come and go. And if there is a long standing rivalry..well they just wont play each other much but they will play.

[MIColtsFan]

We only play the Patriots every year because we both always seem to finish in the same spot in the divisions. You can kiss that goodbye for awhile. That rivalry will die now that Peyton is gone anyways.

away game with NE is on the regular schedule this year... I think rivalries can be carried on for generations.. sure it's a little different with the NFL, change of players, change of coaches.. Will I still hate NE when Belichick is gone? You betcha!

[MIColtsFan]

away game with NE is on the regular schedule this year... I think rivalries can be carried on for generations.. sure it's a little different with the NFL, change of players, change of coaches.. Will I still hate NE when Belichick is gone? You betcha!

at least that's what I read on another thread.. regarding the NE away game... we'll see when skd comes out tonight

[shakedownstreet]

at least that's what I read on another thread.. regarding the NE away game... we'll see when skd comes out tonight

no, only thing we'll find out when the schedule is released is the dates. the opponents and venues are set in stone

[Buck Showalter]

I'm assuming the opponents are set two years prior then? Because it wouldn't make much sense or the Colts to play the Pats this year if it goes by where they finished in the division.

yes the rotation of schedule is set. Just dumb luck that the year Brady was out with his injury we still played the Pats the following year due to rotation, and this year after Peyton was out, we still play the Pats due to rotation...

Doubt we play them next year though....

Outside of two games, you know who you play every year..

[Superman]

Logistically, the Colts would be in the AFC North, the Ravens in the AFC East, and the Dolphins in the AFC South. But that doesn't seem to be how they align the divisions.

[chad72]

I was reading an article today about the Vikings getting their bill for a new stadium rejected today and how they might be moving to L.A. I was thinking about how they could justify still being in the NFC North over in California...and how dumb some of the divisions are setup, especially for the Colts.

Am I the only one finds a dissonance with Indianapolis being in a "Southern" division?

I think it would make for better rivalries if the divisions were closer to each other. I found a before and after of what an NFL Division realignment would look like.

Current

Geographical Realignment

The Vikings issue - move the LA Vikings to NFC West (keep the Vikes an NFC team), Seattle to AFC West, Chiefs to AFC North (keep the Chiefs an AFC team), and Browns to NFC North.

Will that work?

[FightLikeSin]

The Vikings issue - move the LA Vikings to NFC West (keep the Vikes an NFC team), Seattle to AFC West, Chiefs to AFC North (keep the Chiefs an AFC team), and Browns to NFC North.

Will that work?

NO! Not allowed to change anything apparently, even if it makes way too much sense.

[chad72]

NO! Not allowed to change anything apparently, even if it makes way too much sense.

LOL.

I tried to keep traditional franchises like Vikings and Chiefs in the same conference as it would be impossible to keep them in the same division. Seahawks and Browns are newcomers who will not mind changing conferences, hence that suggestion above without total revamp.

[bahhummbug]

yes yes I know...change is bad and I've committed an unforgivable sin for even mentioning the possibility. I understand the traditions. Just saying...with the history of expansion teams being added and teams moving, a realignment wouldn't be a bad idea in my opinion. College football is on the up and up with this. Growing up as a Purdue fan, I never thought about Nebraska as a rival, but after only a year...i'm used to it. I don't think it's as big of a deal as people make it.

I have no problems with change,have always been taught change is good.Should we still be using leather helmets?No booth reviews?Or NOOO televiseds football games?Im with you i do not mind division realignments at all.

[schwamm]

I have no problems with change,have always been taught change is good.Should we still be using leather helmets?No booth reviews?Or NOOO televiseds football games?Im with you i do not mind division realignments at all.

Change can definitely be a great thing, and as a long time Colts fan, it would be easy to embrace. Fact is that our "history" in the AFC South is a short one, and we've largely dominated the division to the point that we really haven't developed any serious rivalries with any of the other three teams. Talk to a lifelong Giants fan about the Cowboys, Eagles or Skins, though. Or talk to a Bears fan about the Packers or Vikings. We aren't really in a position to question what we haven't yet had.

[Dan]

Chiefs, Rams and Browns, sounds good to me!

[Andy]

Doubt the change happens. Doubt they move to LA, and I doubt they realign it. It's not like NE is moving to LA.

[RGIII]

You just don't mess with long-standing division rivalries. The modern AFC West doesn't quite have the same long, contentious history that you see in most conferences because it's composed of a bunch of newer and/or relocated teams. Gotta consider the perspective of fans of teams who have been duking it out with the same division rivals going all the way back to the merger.

[JCPatriot]

You just don't mess with long-standing division rivalries. The modern AFC West doesn't quite have the same long, contentious history that you see in most conferences because it's composed of a bunch of newer and/or relocated teams. Gotta consider the perspective of fans of teams who have been duking it out with the same division rivals going all the way back to the merger.

You mean like the AFC West teams?

[jvan1973]

Agree to disagree. Rivalries don't just die because a team moves to a different conference. Do you think the Colts/Pats will sing Kumbaya now that Peyton isn't in Indy? I don't see that happening. I will forever hate them and they aren't even in the division, yet we play them every year. History/traditions are made, broken and remade. Life goes on. The Baltim...Indianapolis Colts are a perfect example of "tradition and history" right?

The Colts and Pats were in the same division not that long ago

[NagelHausForge]

Lets throw a real monkey wrench into things....

I say each AFC team should play every other AFC team once a year, same with NFC teams... the best 6 records in each conference go to the playoffs.... BAM! If they expand to a 18 game season then you add in 2 cross conference games per team. If there are tied records then you go into sudden death thumb wrestling elimination match ups!

Just thought I'd throw that in there. Rivalries stay in tact, unless they cross from AFC-NFC.

[schwamm]

Lets throw a real monkey wrench into things....

I say each AFC team should play every other AFC team once a year, same with NFC teams... the best 6 records in each conference go to the playoffs.... BAM! If they expand to a 18 game season then you add in 2 cross conference games per team. If there are tied records then you go into sudden death thumb wrestling elimination match ups!

Just thought I'd throw that in there. Rivalries stay in tact, unless they cross from AFC-NFC.

Not a terrible idea, but the problems I'd have with this are:

1. Playing all other teams in the conference would be 15 games, not 16.

2. How would the cross conference games would be determined?

3. At first glance, it looks too much like the NBA, which I HATE (personal opinion, I realize).

4. The point of divisional matchups are to enhance rivalries. It works in many divisions even where it hasn't yet in the AFC South.

[subvet]

Am I the only one finds a dissonance with Indianapolis being in a "Southern" division?

Just as bad a having the Dolphins in the east. I figure the change with those two teams were because the Colts and the Pats were the two best teams in the NFL and they wanted them to split up. Even if it sin't the reason, I like the thought.

[schwamm]

Just as bad a having the Dolphins in the east. I figure the change with those two teams were because the Colts and the Pats were the two best teams in the NFL and they wanted them to split up. Even if it sin't the reason, I like the thought.

At least Miami is, in fact, "in the east".

[NagelHausForge]

Not a terrible idea, but the problems I'd have with this are:

1. Playing all other teams in the conference would be 15 games, not 16.

2. How would the cross conference games would be determined?

3. At first glance, it looks too much like the NBA, which I HATE (personal opinion, I realize).

4. The point of divisional matchups are to enhance rivalries. It works in many divisions even where it hasn't yet in the AFC South.

Hmmm good points....

1. Teams would play their first opponents twice... first and last game of the season.

2. Cross conference games would be random draw.

3. I dont watch basketball so I dont know how their games go...

4. Rivalries would still exist as each team would play every other team... plus they may meet in the playoffs...

[schwamm]

Hmmm good points....

1. Teams would play their first opponents twice... first and last game of the season.

2. Cross conference games would be random draw.

3. I dont watch basketball so I dont know how their games go...

4. Rivalries would still exist as each team would play every other team... plus they may meet in the playoffs...

I guess I prefer the logic of the current rotational system. Totally random determination would allow for far more complaining by fans when they perceive that their opponents have an "unfair" scheduling advantage.

The NBA comparison has more to do with the elimination (for the most part) of divisional structure, and a straight "top 6" ranking system. I suppose I may be in the minority, but I really like the idea that a mediocre team might occassionally squeek into the playoffs as a divisional champ of a really crappy division (like Seattle a couple years ago), and really good teams might miss the playoffs because they didn't close the deal and win their division (like the Pats a couple years ago). To me, it makes the whole playoff scene more exciting.

[subvet]

At least Miami is, in fact, "in the east".

Using that logic Jacksonville is in the North, as is Tampa Bay!