Conference realignment

[McKDaddy]

forget realignment, just do away with the silliness of playing your division rivals twice. In a 16 game schedule, play 8 AFC & 8 NFC teams (3 of those division rivals). Then you have a better gauge of how everyone stacks up when playoffs roll around.
Or just play 2 teams from each division each year. Every two years, you have played everyone in the league.

If they go to 17 game season, maybe you play a second game against a division rival or play all 3 once.

 

[gjkoeppen]

Sorry, I’m interested in more than just easy wins against **** teams. But that’s just me.

No you would rather throw out 60 years of history because you don't like how a couple of teams have been down for a few years. You're the type of person that if there was a realignment and the Cowboys ended up in a much tougher division and hasn't won a title inn a few years would be one of the first to question why they did the realignment in the first place.
.
.

 

[CouchCoach]

But you risk losing ratings and how does that make good business sense? You have eight games, every single year, regardless of records, that are going to be among the most viewed spots on TV, regardless of content. TV doesn't care about spreading the wealth because there thing is selling spots and getting viewers for those spots. It's the NFL's job to spread wealth and they do that through shared revenue. That's not what TV is about. It would be very foolish of them to take a chance with something that just continues to generate money. Unless there is some kind of driver, I don't see it and it won't happen.

Not even gonna say JMO on this one because they've showed this to us for years. 60 years now and Dallas is still playing in a primarily Eastern Conference alignment. NFL isn't changing that.

Think about it, Rooney was one of the most powerful Owners in the NFL with one of the Premier Franchises and even he couldn't make it happen. Never even got serious consideration. It would take something really drastic, IMO, to have the NFL consider something like this.

They don't lose the ratings, those 4 markets will still be watching their teams. The better rated games the Cowboys have had came against GB, PIT and SF.

 

[BrassCowboy]

Cowboys said no way, and put up a stink when they wanted to move the cowboys in the last realignment. Yeah it would be more fitting geographically but guess Dallas likes the rivals it has. Maybe it makes then more money.

 

[gjkoeppen]

They don't lose the ratings, those 4 markets will still be watching their teams. The better rated games the Cowboys have had came against GB, PIT and SF.

Not so. Except for the playoffs and the Super Bowl the most watched games are the opening weekend. And the Cowboys for the past several years have opened up on Sunday night against the giants. You know NY one of the top 2 TV markets in the country. Then like last season the 2nd eagles game that would have decided who won the NFC East was a late game and seen by most of the country.
.
.

 

[J-man]

If I were in charge of realignment I would go with this:

AFC West: Chargers, Raiders, Broncos, Cheifs
AFC North: Lions, Colts, Steelers, Browns
AFC East: Patriots, Bengals, Jaguars, Jets
AFC South: Dolphins, Texans, Falcons, Panthers

NFC East: Eagles, Washington, Giants, Ravens
NFC South: Cowboys, Saints, Titans, Buccaneers
NFC West: Rams, Cardinals, 49ers, Seahawks
NFC North: Packers, Bears, Vikings, Bills

 

[ABQCOWBOY]

They don't lose the ratings, those 4 markets will still be watching their teams. The better rated games the Cowboys have had came against GB, PIT and SF.

Perhaps, but even so, Cowboy Games are still consistently among the highest rated games, win or lose, good or bad and that's not only in Dallas, that's on the road in the largest TV markets in the country. It might be that in Dallas GB, Pit and SF were higher rated but we aren't just talking about Dallas.

 

[J-man]

Or another option with more of a mix up:

AFC North: Lions, Bears, Patriots, Browns
AFC South: Dolphins, Texans, Washington, Panthers
AFC East: Steelers, Colts, Ravens, Jets
AFC West: Rams, Cards, Broncos, Cheifs

NFC North: Packers, Seahawks, Vikings, Bills
NFC South: Falcons, Saints, Titans, Buccaneers
NFC East: Eagles, Bengals, Giants, Jags
NFC West: Chargers, Raiders, 49ers, Cowboys

 

[gjkoeppen]

Or another option with more of a mix up:

AFC North: Lions, Bears, Patriots, Browns
AFC South: Dolphins, Texans, Washington, Panthers
AFC East: Steelers, Colts, Ravens, Jets
AFC West: Rams, Cards, Broncos, Cheifs

NFC North: Packers, Seahawks, Vikings, Bills
NFC South: Falcons, Saints, Titans, Buccaneers
NFC East: Eagles, Bengals, Giants, Jags
NFC West: Chargers, Raiders, 49ers, Cowboys

This thread was started because of the physical distance between the Cowboys and the other NFC East teams. Your realignment has several teams having to travel further that what they do now in their current divisions. The bears and lions having to travel farther to the patriots. The packers and vikings having to travel much further to sea hawks and bills. And not to forget the Cowboys that will travel just a little less than the NFC east teams but not enough to make that big of a difference. How about this for an idea. Since the league doesn't have a problem with the alignment they have now why don't we fans just live with it.
.
.

 

[gjkoeppen]

forget realignment, just do away with the silliness of playing your division rivals twice. In a 16 game schedule, play 8 AFC & 8 NFC teams (3 of those division rivals). Then you have a better gauge of how everyone stacks up when playoffs roll around.
Or just play 2 teams from each division each year. Every two years, you have played everyone in the league.

If they go to 17 game season, maybe you play a second game against a division rival or play all 3 once.

Here's the problem with your idea. The playoffs are based on the best teams from each conference so the majority of games need to against teams in their own conference. As it stands now each division plays 4 games from the other conference every year. By the end of the year every division has played games against every division in the other conference. The divisions rotate every year. How much more do teams need to see how one conference stacks up against the other.
.
.

 

[ABQCOWBOY]

Or another option with more of a mix up:

AFC North: Lions, Bears, Patriots, Browns
AFC South: Dolphins, Texans, Washington, Panthers
AFC East: Steelers, Colts, Ravens, Jets
AFC West: Rams, Cards, Broncos, Cheifs

NFC North: Packers, Seahawks, Vikings, Bills
NFC South: Falcons, Saints, Titans, Buccaneers
NFC East: Eagles, Bengals, Giants, Jags
NFC West: Chargers, Raiders, 49ers, Cowboys

Well, nothing personal here but this would suck. Every single division road game would be in California. You would literally have to fly half way across the country for every single division road game and not only that, to the most expensive part of the country.

No thanks.

 

[Aviano90]

Well, nothing personal here but this would suck. Every single division road game would be in California. You would literally have to fly half way across the country for every single division road game and not only that, to the most expensive part of the country.

No thanks.

We would just be going to the left coast instead of the right coast.

 

[ABQCOWBOY]

We would just be going to the left coast instead of the right coast.

Right. I mean, we are realigning to create the same situation on the other side of the Country.........

 

[J-man]

Well, nothing personal here but this would suck. Every single division road game would be in California. You would literally have to fly half way across the country for every single division road game and not only that, to the most expensive part of the country.

No thanks.

I didn't think about that. Just FYI, remember the Raiders are now in Vegas, but I get your point the same.

Did you see my other post? I like that one better anyway.

 

[ABQCOWBOY]

I didn't think about that. Just FYI, remember the Raiders are now in Vegas, but I get your point the same.

Yep, your right, I stand corrected there.

 

[J-man]

This thread was started because of the physical distance between the Cowboys and the other NFC East teams. Your realignment has several teams having to travel further that what they do now in their current divisions. The bears and lions having to travel farther to the patriots. The packers and vikings having to travel much further to sea hawks and bills. And not to forget the Cowboys that will travel just a little less than the NFC east teams but not enough to make that big of a difference. How about this for an idea. Since the league doesn't have a problem with the alignment they have now why don't we fans just live with it.
.
.

So what? The whole thing is completely hypothetical, why not just chill out and play along instead.

 

[McKDaddy]

Here's the problem with your idea. The playoffs are based on the best teams from each conference so the majority of games need to against teams in their own conference. As it stands now each division plays 4 games from the other conference every year. By the end of the year every division has played games against every division in the other conference. The divisions rotate every year. How much more do teams need to see how one conference stacks up against the other.
.
.

Agreed but the beauty of this solution is that you take the best teams regardless of division\conference. Best records make the playoffs. If that happens to be 7 NFC teams & 5 AFC teams, so be it. You eliminate a team getting in because they won a weak division while much better teams are eliminated just because they happen to be in a strong division. It also makes every game important and thus less likely that a team or teams can coast during final regular season games. Ultimately, my goal is to reward the teams that perform the best. To determine that you need to play as much of the league as you can.

 

[gjkoeppen]

So what? The whole thing is completely hypothetical, why not just chill out and play along instead.

Because this is like those that want to makeup teams selecting all the best players around the league when that won't happen either. You may like living in a fantasy world but not all of us do.
.
.

 

[gjkoeppen]

Agreed but the beauty of this solution is that you take the best teams regardless of division\conference. Best records make the playoffs. If that happens to be 7 NFC teams & 5 AFC teams, so be it. You eliminate a team getting in because they won a weak division while much better teams are eliminated just because they happen to be in a strong division. It also makes every game important and thus less likely that a team or teams can coast during final regular season games. Ultimately, my goal is to reward the teams that perform the best. To determine that you need to play as much of the league as you can.

What you're saying is the league would then be saying that some divisions just don't matter. Right now every division winner in both conferences goes to the playoffs and then starting this season the 3 teams with the best records after the divisional winners in each conference also go to the playoffs. So you're say that maybe there may be a team that doesn't get into the playoffs because the league doesn't take the stance of not caring about all divisions and saying to bad XYorZ division you don't count this season? How long do you think the owners of the teams in that division will keep quite and not demand that all divisions be represented in the playoffs? When there was just 14 teams in the entire league and it was the Eastern conference again the Western Conference for the NFL championship the owners were already squawking about some fairer way for teams to play for the championship. The fairest way is for all divisions to have a shot in the playoffs.
.
.

 

[BrassCowboy]

forget realignment, just do away with the silliness of playing your division rivals twice. In a 16 game schedule, play 8 AFC & 8 NFC teams (3 of those division rivals). Then you have a better gauge of how everyone stacks up when playoffs roll around.
Or just play 2 teams from each division each year. Every two years, you have played everyone in the league.

If they go to 17 game season, maybe you play a second game against a division rival or play all 3 once.

I did like this post, but as I sat here writing a reply as to why I think it may be a good idea, I have thought of why it is better the way it is. I see your logic, but current method plays to strength within division then within conference, four games in other conference, then a few games against rivals from recent years past. Basically you prove it against your division rivals who like you play against same conference opponents... kinda like my team represents the NFC because they won not just in playoffs but proved their worth during regular season. If they just play 8 in afc and 8 in nfc, then they just prove they can win, not represent, besides do you really wanna see the two teams in the superbowl play a second game against each other in the same year (higher chance at that with the 8 games in each conference)