Conference realignment

[McKDaddy]

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.

Yep, you would have enough info to have a better tie breaker. If you add 17th or 18th game, perhaps you could have those be flex games which serve as defacto playoff seeding games and hopefully further clarify the playoff picture.

 

[gjkoeppen]

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.

Your "facts" are fuzzy at best. There are no teams that every team hasn't played but a handful of times in 30-40 years. It's obvious you have no clue how the current alignment and scheduling works. Now each division plays 1 division in their conference and 1 division from the other conference every year. Those divisions rotate every year so every 3 years every team in the same conference has played each other and every 4 years they will have played every team in the other conference. Plus 2 games every year are based on the previous season's record and plays 1 game against a team not in the divisions they played that season in each conference.

Next part of the rivalries is playing them at both home AND away. Your talking rivalries and what fans won't miss. Do you really think the fans of the packers, vikings, bears and lions want to lose the 2 games they play each year? Many if not most rivalry games are close games because of knowing the teams so well. In other years teams that haven't been doing well tell themselves that those rivalry games they really get up for and if nothing else win those rivalry games. Because you have such a low feeling for rivalries does not in ANY WAY mean the hugely vast majority of fans feel the same way. All to often you hear fans say things like I don't care what happens this season as long as we beat and then they name a rivalry game. Why is it that every time expansion and realignment comes up with the owners it gets tabled indefinitely? Why, because they remember what it was like when there was uneven number of teams in some divisions and how it was impossible to come up with fair scheduling for ALL teams. To many owners complained that they were at a disadvantage because they had the extra team in their division therefore they had to compete against more teams to win a divisional title that the other divisions didn't have to do. They decided to add two teams every couple of years to even things out. They now feel they have a system that is fair for all.

As it is they addressed the problem of a team that didn't win their division but had a better record that one of the other divisional winners by adding another wildcard team to each conference so teams like that get into the playoffs.

You say the fans will like your idea if FORCED on them but here's a thought for you. It gets reported when the league gets a big push back on things they have done or are thinking of doing but we don't ever hear of any big outcry for the league to realign. Why, because the hugely vast majority of people don't want it. Lastly I didn't make this about you personally, but your IDEA.
.
.

 

[McKDaddy]

Your "facts" are fuzzy at best. There are no teams that every team hasn't played but a handful of times in 30-40 years. It's obvious you have no clue how the current alignment and scheduling works. Now each division plays 1 division in their conference and 1 division from the other conference every year. Those divisions rotate every year so every 3 years every team in the same conference has played each other and every 4 years they will have played every team in the other conference. Plus 2 games every year are based on the previous season's record and plays 1 game against a team not in the divisions they played that season in each conference.

Next part of the rivalries is playing them at both home AND away. Your talking rivalries and what fans won't miss. Do you really think the fans of the packers, vikings, bears and lions want to lose the 2 games they play each year? Many if not most rivalry games are close games because of knowing the teams so well. In other years teams that haven't been doing well tell themselves that those rivalry games they really get up for and if nothing else win those rivalry games. Because you have such a low feeling for rivalries does not in ANY WAY mean the hugely vast majority of fans feel the same way. All to often you hear fans say things like I don't care what happens this season as long as we beat and then they name a rivalry game. Why is it that every time expansion and realignment comes up with the owners it gets tabled indefinitely? Why, because they remember what it was like when there was uneven number of teams in some divisions and how it was impossible to come up with fair scheduling for ALL teams. To many owners complained that they were at a disadvantage because they had the extra team in their division therefore they had to compete against more teams to win a divisional title that the other divisions didn't have to do. They decided to add two teams every couple of years to even things out. They now feel they have a system that is fair for all.

As it is they addressed the problem of a team that didn't win their division but had a better record that one of the other divisional winners by adding another wildcard team to each conference so teams like that get into the playoffs.

You say the fans will like your idea if FORCED on them but here's a thought for you. It gets reported when the league gets a big push back on things they have done or are thinking of doing but we don't ever hear of any big outcry for the league to realign. Why, because the hugely vast majority of people don't want it. Lastly I didn't make this about you personally, but your IDEA.
.
.

hmm, so you never watch a game & hear the announcers say this is only the third meeting between these teams since like 1984? Or this is the first time Seattle has played in Jacksonville in 12 years (2005 & 2017)?

I understand the intent is to play at least every four years but since some games are scheduled based on previous season's record, that can get skewed. Also, wouldn't previous realignments alter the schedule?

I don't know how many ways i can address the current rivalries. if you enjoyed all those years national audiences were treated to NFC north rivalries when all 4 teams sucked, fine. If not all 4 teams in a division suck, far too often 3 of them do which means one team beats the stuffing out of them & I doubt the home crowd of the losers really enjoy that day. But regardless of what any individual preferences are, the point of competition is to identify the best teams and let them fight it out for the championship. To do that you have to make the regular season meaningful to yield meaningful records.

If you enjoy an 8-8 division winner getting in just because of an organizational chart you will probably be happy going forward because the league does very little to improve the game unless there is a large push from fans & teams. Teams don't push it because for every victim there is a beneficiary. Fans apparently are happy with the marketing job the NFL shovels on them.

 

[gjkoeppen]

hmm, so you never watch a game & hear the announcers say this is only the third meeting between these teams since like 1984? Or this is the first time Seattle has played in Jacksonville in 12 years (2005 & 2017)?

I understand the intent is to play at least every four years but since some games are scheduled based on previous season's record, that can get skewed. Also, wouldn't previous realignments alter the schedule?

I don't know how many ways i can address the current rivalries. if you enjoyed all those years national audiences were treated to NFC north rivalries when all 4 teams sucked, fine. If not all 4 teams in a division suck, far too often 3 of them do which means one team beats the stuffing out of them & I doubt the home crowd of the losers really enjoy that day. But regardless of what any individual preferences are, the point of competition is to identify the best teams and let them fight it out for the championship. To do that you have to make the regular season meaningful to yield meaningful records.

If you enjoy an 8-8 division winner getting in just because of an organizational chart you will probably be happy going forward because the league does very little to improve the game unless there is a large push from fans & teams. Teams don't push it because for every victim there is a beneficiary. Fans apparently are happy with the marketing job the NFL shovels on them.

Now I know your knowledge of NFL scheduling is VERY limited. Those games based on the previous years schedule is EXACTLY 2 games each year and are above and beyond the rotating divisions that each divisions play and those 2 games only skew the fact that a team will end up playing some teams more often. This format has been used since this alignment started. Prior to that when it was 3 divisions per conference, East, West and Central and after the divisional games again 2 games were based off of the previous years record but which could be from either conference and 2 games with each conference. This worked out that every team would play every other team at least once in a 4 year period just like now.

Here's something else you don't know or forgot about that deals with your example of not playing in a certain city in X amount of years. Lets say the NFC East is scheduled to play the NFC North and AFC West in year 1. Half of those games will be played at home and the other half away. The next time those divisions are scheduled the games that were played at home are road games and vice versa. So ya when a NFC teams plays a AFC team it will be 6 years in between visits to those cities unless they play as 1 of the 2 games based on the prior years schedule and then it might be just last season.

The last time there was a realignment was 2002 to the current 4 divisions per conference and the schedule for 2002 wasn't made UNTIL after the realignment so your realignment changing the schedule doesn't fly.

AGAIN if the majority of fans were so upset and sick and tired of the current alignment there would be many many many articles saying the league is receiving constant complaints that the fans are demanding a realignment but we don't see those. Why because fans like being able to count on the rivalries they've have for all these years. Your excuse about fans of losing teams not enjoying those games,, well guess what, if those teams are bad and losing they will still be bad and losing even in a realignment so that excuse is BS too. Also no mater how the league is aligned there will ALWAYS be a week division so to anger the majority of fans just because you don't like the current alignment again is no real reason for the league to do it. Here's another shocker for you. Why would the league want to change having the most watched team the Cowboys play against the giants from the biggest TV market twice a year with one of the games the past several years on opening weekend on the prime time SNF? Why, because the league is out to make money and so are the networks so they want to have the game that will attract the biggest audience.

I also have to laugh at your and I'll quote you "all those years national audiences were treated to NFC north rivalries when all 4 teams sucked,". From 2007 - 2019 the packers went to the playoffs 10 times with all but 1 seasons with 10 or more wins. The vikings during that same time had 8 winning seasons and went to the playoff 6 times. Ya tell us all again about how all 4 teams sucked.

Give it up. You're never going to convince me or the league to do your realignment.
..
.
.
.

 

[McKDaddy]

So ya when a NFC teams plays a AFC team it will be 6 years in between visits to those cities unless they play as 1 of the 2 games based on the prior years schedule and then it might be just last season.

Which furthers my point .... playing a team every 6 years & being 12 years between hosting is a far cry from "league" play. Go look at the nfl matchup tool & note how infrequently a team hosts some matchups. The Seattle example i provided was just one i found.

all those years national audiences were treated to NFC north rivalries when all 4 teams sucked,". From 2007 - 2019 the packers went to the playoffs 10 times

The league precedes 2007. Since the merger in 1970, the NFC North has produced 3 SB champions & 5 NFC championship game appearances with three of those via the 73, 74 & 76 Vikings. From 77 thru 95 the 85 Bears were the only team to advance to Championship game (of course winning SB as well). Yet we were often treated to these clash of titans on MNF and all the announcers could do was talk up the history because the on field product was putrid. For a more recent example, last years NFC east. People who weren't fans of the division were sick of seeing them being featured prominently. Even fans of the division realized it was just bad against bad.

Give it up. You're never going to convince me or the league to do your realignment.

said that in my last post. Course it took centuries to convince people the world wasn't flat. Just because people can't understand a better mouse trap when they see it doesn't change a thing.

 

[ChuckA1]

This should never happen. There are decades of traditions / teams competing against one another. I think it will be a mistake to lose that for unnecessary busy-work!

 

[gjkoeppen]

Which furthers my point .... playing a team every 6 years & being 12 years between hosting is a far cry from "league" play. Go look at the nfl matchup tool & note how infrequently a team hosts some matchups. The Seattle example i provided was just one i found.

The league precedes 2007. Since the merger in 1970, the NFC North has produced 3 SB champions & 5 NFC championship game appearances with three of those via the 73, 74 & 76 Vikings. From 77 thru 95 the 85 Bears were the only team to advance to Championship game (of course winning SB as well). Yet we were often treated to these clash of titans on MNF and all the announcers could do was talk up the history because the on field product was putrid. For a more recent example, last years NFC east. People who weren't fans of the division were sick of seeing them being featured prominently. Even fans of the division realized it was just bad against bad.

said that in my last post. Course it took centuries to convince people the world wasn't flat. Just because people can't understand a better mouse trap when they see it doesn't change a thing.

You really are clueless on the scheduling. Each division in the same conference play the other 3 divisions once every THREE YEARS. Of those 3 other divisions they will play a home game against half of them within 3 years and the other half within 6 years not 6 and 12 years. Teams will play home games of teams in divisions of the other conference half in 4 years and the other half in 8 years.

AGAIN you math is fuzzy, no just wrong. Since 1970 the NFC North or Central had 16 NFC Championship appearances. The NFC North or Central in that same period has had 9 Super Bowl appearances with 5 winners.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_NFC_champions
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Super_Bowl_champions


You keep telling yourself that your realignment is that better mousetrap just like the people that swear that there was a second gunman yet NOBODY has ever proved that one either. You know who you sound like, all the people that swear they were taken by aliens and spent years in their space craft where they learned their trick of reading minds. When we see many many many many articles where they say the majority of NFL fans are demanding for McKDaddy's realignment plan then you can rest assured that there is some chance of it happening, but we both know that is NEVER going to happen.
.
.

 

[robertfchew]

People act like teams are traveling in covered wagons. Don’t mess with some of the best rivalries in the nfl.

 

[StarOfGlory]

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.

Wow, you screwed Miami with travel. Switch Miami and Carolina, that’s more fair.

 

[McKDaddy]

[AGAIN you math is fuzzy, no just wrong. Since 1970 the NFC North or Central had 16 NFC Championship appearances. The NFC North or Central in that same period has had 9 Super Bowl appearances with 5 winners.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_NFC_champions
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Super_Bowl_champions

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NFC_N...assignments Year , NFC West 7 more rows

5 NFC Championships (i mistakenly left the word appearances in original post) & 3 SB winners since 1970. 85 Bears, 96 & 10 Packers.
Tampa Bay was moved to NFC South in the year they won the SB 2002.