Conference realignment

McKDaddy

Well-Known Member
Messages
8,321
Reaction score
8,574
gjkoeppen said:
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.
.
.
Click to expand...
Play well and win. that's the fairest way for the best teams to advance. Today the league is the #1 sport and there is as much parity as you can get in team sports. Those old motives don't exist anymore. people will complain about change because its change but overall it would be a better product and new rivalries would emerge.
 

McKDaddy

Well-Known Member
Messages
8,321
Reaction score
8,574
BrassCowboy said:
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)
Click to expand...

I may be in the minority but some of the biggest frustrations for me are:

1) good divisions massacring each other leaving clearly deserving teams out & the winner lower seeded than they should be
2) mediocre or better team dominating a weak division and not only getting in the playoffs but a good seeding
3) teams that have playoff spot wrapped up and coasting into the playoffs (often gifting wins which further impacts playoffs)

If teams happen to face each other again in the playoffs, its no different than when Cowboys & 49ers used to clash & you knew the winner was prohibitive favorite to win it all. Good football is my ultimate goal with teams determining their fate rather than a formula weighted toward arbitrary divisions.
Also remember that expanding the # of games would potentially allow you to schedule your division opponents and still do what i propose.
 

McKDaddy

Well-Known Member
Messages
8,321
Reaction score
8,574
Future said:
The NHL did this to a degree and everyone hates it.
Click to expand...
Don't follow the NHL so I can't draw any comparisons.

I know that seeing an 11-5 team left out of the playoffs while another team gets in as division winner just because there had to be a division winner is criminal.
 
BourbonBalz

BourbonBalz

Star4Ever
Messages
12,207
Reaction score
8,178
gjkoeppen said:
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.
.
.
Click to expand...
OK. Thanks for knowing I’m “that type of person”. I guess you should just go by Nostra*******.
 
Future

Future

Intramural Legend
Messages
27,566
Reaction score
14,714
McKDaddy said:
Don't follow the NHL so I can't draw any comparisons.

I know that seeing an 11-5 team left out of the playoffs while another team gets in as division winner just because there had to be a division winner is criminal.
Click to expand...
That doesn't really happen, and it certainly doesn't happen when that 11-5 team didn't play in a crappy division anyway.

The bigger thing is that rivalries are good for sports, and the Cowboys playing say, the Chargers more often, instead of playing the Giants twice is a lot less interesting.
 
erod

erod

Well-Known Member
Messages
37,799
Reaction score
58,346
Amarillofan82 said:
I know this is not the year to mention it or even in the near future. But what happens if the NFL decides to expand the number of teams. Or even another team moves across the country in the NFC.

I love our rivals and our matches against the Eagles, "Washington", Giants, but how would you feel in swapping conferences with the the Panthers to put us in the South and them in the East. It would create a new dynamic and change up rivals for a while.

It is something to think about, however, I don't think the Cowboys vs. Saints/Falcons/Bucs have the same rivalry as the classics. It would definitely help with travel and location based rivalries. Personally I would love a 4 team add of foreign or new markets, and moving to a 3 divisions per league division setting. Works well with the new playoff format.

I am bored, just noticed an article on this recently and it had me thinking.
Click to expand...
That would destroy the one and only reason the Cowboys are "America's Team".

Tex Schramm volunteered to be in the East for that very reason. He wanted to be in the living rooms of every major market in the country every weekend. That's why the Cowboys are so popular in the northeast.

You don't mess that tradition like that.
 
gjkoeppen

gjkoeppen

Well-Known Member
Messages
7,703
Reaction score
3,327
McKDaddy said:
Play well and win. that's the fairest way for the best teams to advance. Today the league is the #1 sport and there is as much parity as you can get in team sports. Those old motives don't exist anymore. people will complain about change because its change but overall it would be a better product and new rivalries would emerge.
Click to expand...





Here's the huge flaws in your idea. You say there's more parity in the NFL than any other team sport and that realignment would be better because of new rivalries. First things first. If there is more parity in the NFL and I do agree that there is, changing teams around doesn't take away parity. They will have the same salary cap and the same drafting system. Then realigning the league will be a better product? What will happen is the same very tiny microscopic vocal minority of all NFL fans will in a few years say they are tired of the current rivalries and start yelping for another realignment. But then the vast majority of NFL fans will ask just how does realigning the NFL become a better product? They will ask why does removing many many many long decades of history and long standing rivalries that they look forward to every year become a better product. It doesn't for the hugely vast majority of NFL fans. If watching games with the current alignment is so difficult may I suggest don't watch and then you won't have to worry about having to watch historical rivalries.
.
.
 
eromeopolk

eromeopolk

Well-Known Member
Messages
4,545
Reaction score
4,422
Amarillofan82 said:
I know this is not the year to mention it or even in the near future. But what happens if the NFL decides to expand the number of teams. Or even another team moves across the country in the NFC.

I love our rivals and our matches against the Eagles, "Washington", Giants, but how would you feel in swapping conferences with the the Panthers to put us in the South and them in the East. It would create a new dynamic and change up rivals for a while.

It is something to think about, however, I don't think the Cowboys vs. Saints/Falcons/Bucs have the same rivalry as the classics. It would definitely help with travel and location based rivalries. Personally I would love a 4 team add of foreign or new markets, and moving to a 3 divisions per league division setting. Works well with the new playoff format.

I am bored, just noticed an article on this recently and it had me thinking.
Click to expand...
First, I would keep the East. Plus the NFL is not going to move America's Team for playing games in America's most populated areas of NY, Philly, and Washington. Too much money and ratings.

However, since this is make believe, how about total realignment:
South- Dallas, New Orleans, Atlanta, and Houston
East- NY Giants, Washington, Philly, Baltimore
North - Chicago, Detroit, Minnesota, Green Bay
West - San Fran, Seattle, Rams, Chargers

South - Tennessee, Carolina, Tampa, Jacksonville
North - Cleveland, Pittsburgh, Cincy, Indy
East - NY Jets, New England, Miami , Buffalo
West - Oakland, KC, Arizona, Denver

This is my version of re-alignment without TV or financial considerations.
 
bb721

bb721

Well-Known Member
Messages
1,078
Reaction score
1,459
Amarillofan82 said:
Crazy idea but a complete realignment. Also, allows Arizona to move to Mexico city. Baltimore to move to London, or NY jets to move to Toronto.
Click to expand...

Jets move to Toronto? What are you smoking, and where can I get some?
 
JJHLH1

JJHLH1

Well-Known Member
Messages
6,312
Reaction score
14,627
big dog cowboy said:
Jerry isn't giving up 3 games in the highly populated northeast.
Click to expand...

Correct. And the big media market northeast teams aren’t giving up the league’s marquee franchise.

The NFC East won’t change, thankfully. Way too much tradition as well.
 
J-man

J-man

Well-Known Member
Messages
2,539
Reaction score
2,199
Future said:
That doesn't really happen, and it certainly doesn't happen when that 11-5 team didn't play in a crappy division anyway.

The bigger thing is that rivalries are good for sports, and the Cowboys playing say, the Chargers more often, instead of playing the Giants twice is a lot less interesting.
Click to expand...

11-5, 10-6 teams do occasionally get left out to inferior teams who won their division. So the system does have some issues that could be addressed.

Don't get me wrong I like the rivalries, I loath the igglets and love to beat their ***** every chance we get. They feel the same way I know! But the former skins are just a dumpster fire and the gmen, other than Barkley, are boring as hell. Neither of those teams are great rivalry games anymore.

But to say new match ups would be less interesting is really just your opinion. It certainly wouldn't be if you're a Charger fan using your example. I'm sure they'd love to play the Cowboys more often. I'd love to see us play the Raiders twice a year, I think that could turn into a great rivalry and quickly. KC is another one. Houston is too.
 
Future

Future

Intramural Legend
Messages
27,566
Reaction score
14,714
J-man said:
11-5, 10-6 teams do occasionally get left out to inferior teams who won their division. So the system does have some issues that could be addressed.

Don't get me wrong I like the rivalries, I loath the igglets and love to beat their ***** every chance we get. They feel the same way I know! But the former skins are just a dumpster fire and the gmen, other than Barkley, are boring as hell. Neither of those teams are great rivalry games anymore.

But to say new match ups would be less interesting is really just your opinion. It certainly wouldn't be if you're a Charger fan using your example. I'm sure they'd love to play the Cowboys more often. I'd love to see us play the Raiders twice a year, I think that could turn into a great rivalry and quickly. KC is another one. Houston is too.
Click to expand...
Sure, but it's not a glaring problem like people make it out to be. There's always a team or two good enough to be in but doesn't get in for whatever reasons.

I'm more basing it on the fact that that's how it played out in the NHL. NFL is different in the sense that there are fewer games so less fatigue, but the division games in the NHL are way more interesting. Why would the Chargers be more interested in playing the Cowboys than the Chiefs, Broncos, or Raiders? Dallas would never play the Raiders twice a year, unless they met in the Super Bowl. Rivalries ebb and flow with how good teams are, regardless of what the scheduling is like.
 
Cattle_Rancher

Cattle_Rancher

Well-Known Member
Messages
1,486
Reaction score
1,623
I like the idea of dumping division and just go two big conferences. Play everyone in NFC once and the AFC that finished in same spot as you the previous year. I think you would truly get the best teams in the playoffs no .500 or below teams hosting a playoff game.
 

McKDaddy

Well-Known Member
Messages
8,321
Reaction score
8,574
gjkoeppen said:
Here's the huge flaws in your idea. You say there's more parity in the NFL than any other team sport and that realignment would be better because of new rivalries. First things first. If there is more parity in the NFL and I do agree that there is, changing teams around doesn't take away parity. They will have the same salary cap and the same drafting system. Then realigning the league will be a better product? What will happen is the same very tiny microscopic vocal minority of all NFL fans will in a few years say they are tired of the current rivalries and start yelping for another realignment. But then the vast majority of NFL fans will ask just how does realigning the NFL become a better product? They will ask why does removing many many many long decades of history and long standing rivalries that they look forward to every year become a better product. It doesn't for the hugely vast majority of NFL fans. If watching games with the current alignment is so difficult may I suggest don't watch and then you won't have to worry about having to watch historical rivalries.
.
.
Click to expand...
First, you would still be playing the historic rivals but not necessarily twice a year. So those haven't been lost.
Second, some of the best games each year are when less frequent opponents have good battles. This would allow more of those and develop new antagonists.
Third, there are teams that have only faced each other in regular season a handful of times in 30 - 40 years. That's just crazy. This would allow all teams to face each other every two years.
Fourth, OP was talking about expansion of the league. When you add teams & rearrange divisions to accommodate them you are changing the league, traditions, rivalries. Just like when we used to play the Cardinals every year because they were in our division. People like things because its either the only way they have ever known or familiarity. Doesn't mean they won't like a different way of doing things if given the opportunity.
Fifth, all of this was about ideas for improving the league\game. No reason to try to make it about me.
 
J-man

J-man

Well-Known Member
Messages
2,539
Reaction score
2,199
I think you could start a schedule between all 32 teams, playing 16 a year. You could make it more random by having it set to play every team twice in a 4 year period. That way it's not just an every other year thing automatically. You could theoretically get one team twice in one year, or one team back to back years and maybe get another a team every other.

The problem I foresee is determining tie breakers. But it could be done, head-head, common opponents, total points scored etc.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top