Professional Football Researchers Association Forum

lastcat3 wrote:Interesting. The alignment they had from 1970 to the early '00's never did make much sense geographically. It does make me wonder if the Cowboys would have become as popular of a franchise as they did if they weren't playing all those massive markets from the East twice a season. Having San Fran and Dallas in the same division would have been outstanding from a pure talent level standpoint during those thirty years but even with that I am not sure it could have reached the same level of hype as Dallas playing the New York and D.C markets all those years.



Edit. And just looked up Philly and it has a metro population of over 6 million. So yeah add Philly to that massive east market as well.

I remember hearing when the 2002 realignment happened that Dallas was prepared to sue the NFL if they were not placed in the Eastern division. This was because (even though they are in Central time zone) moving them to, say, a more western division would give them a higher number of late games as opposed to early games.

Rupert Patrick wrote:

lastcat3 wrote:Interesting. The alignment they had from 1970 to the early '00's never did make much sense geographically. It does make me wonder if the Cowboys would have become as popular of a franchise as they did if they weren't playing all those massive markets from the East twice a season. Having San Fran and Dallas in the same division would have been outstanding from a pure talent level standpoint during those thirty years but even with that I am not sure it could have reached the same level of hype as Dallas playing the New York and D.C markets all those years.



Edit. And just looked up Philly and it has a metro population of over 6 million. So yeah add Philly to that massive east market as well.

I remember hearing when the 2002 realignment happened that Dallas was prepared to sue the NFL if they were not placed in the Eastern division. This was because (even though they are in Central time zone) moving them to, say, a more western division would give them a higher number of late games as opposed to early games.

By 2002 I doubt Dallas was ever in any danger of not being placed in the same division as the Giants and Redskins. After all by the turn of the century the NFL would lose money by not putting those teams together. But in 1970 I could have seen it as a real possibility as the Cowboys were only a decade old at that time and I'm sure no one at that time could foresee how huge tv viewership would become in the following decades.

Also Rupert was it the league's decision to move the Steelers to the AFC or was it their own? Because if they had stayed in the NFC there probably would have been a pretty decent chance they would have been placed in the NFC East over Dallas. Maybe if the Steelers had gotten good just a few years earlier the league would have kept them in the NFC and had them play the New York market.


Can you imagine what a Steelers/Eagles/Giants rivalry would be like today if the Steelers had stayed in the NFC.

lastcat3 wrote:Also Rupert was it the league's decision to move the Steelers to the AFC or was it their own? Because if they had stayed in the NFC there probably would have been a pretty decent chance they would have been placed in the NFC East over Dallas. Maybe if the Steelers had gotten good just a few years earlier the league would have kept them in the NFC and had them play the New York market.


Can you imagine what a Steelers/Eagles/Giants rivalry would be like today if the Steelers had stayed in the NFC.

It made pretty logical sense about two of the teams who jumped leagues, when you think about it.

Three teams had to move from the NFL/NFC to AFL/AFC, and I doubt the AFL/AFC would have been satisfied with the likes of taking a virtual expansion team like Atlanta or New Orleans as one of the three. I doubt there was any way the Packers, Bears, Giants or Redskins would have moved to the AFC, due to the fact they were (along with the Browns, which we'll get to) were the most successful teams in the NFL since it's inception. (Detroit would have also been safe due to their rivalries with the Packers and Bears.) In addition, New York was safe, as it wouldn't have made sense for the Giants to jump to the AFC and New York City to have two AFC teams. I think it was a good bet that the Cowboys weren't going to move, since the Oilers were in Houston, and they had an AFC and NFC team in Texas, also the Cardinals were probably safe to stay, as they had an NFC and AFC team in Missouri, the middle of the country. San Francisco was also safe from moving, as that would have put two AFC teams in the Bay area.

That leaves Baltimore, Los Angeles, Minnesota, Philadelphia and Pittsburgh. I also think you can scratch Los Angeles off the list. I just don't think the NFL would give away it's second biggest TV market to the AFL. The previous logic seems to be for states to have both an AFC and NFC team, which means one of the Pennsylvania teams is a logical candidate to move. Also, Baltimore is less than 40 miles from Washington DC, so it also makes sense to put one of those teams in the AFC and one in the NFC, which means Baltimore was a logical candidate to move. There is one team left, which was Minnesota, which in late 1968-early 1969 was still one of the newer teams in the NFL and not very successful historically. However, because of the bad blood over the Vikings pulling out of an offer to join the AFL and instead joining the NFL, they might have been scratched from the list. If you think about it logically, the two most likely teams to jump leagues would be Baltimore and one of the Pennsylvania teams.

The NFL offered teams a three million dollar incentive to jump leagues, which the Colts took immediately if memory serves. The Steelers and Browns decided to go together as a package deal in order to keep their rivalry going and get the realignment process moving. The Browns were a bit of a surprise, as it made logical sense that Ohio would have had had two teams, an NFC team (Browns) and AFC team (Bengals), but the Browns were not an original NFL team, so they didn't have those ties to the 1920's and 30's. The Steelers had nothing but a legacy of losing as an NFL team and were looking for a fresh start in the AFC.

I've never heard of any alternate AFC realignment proposals for 1970, where, say, Houston would have been put in the West and Buffalo would have been put in the Central.

Were there any politics involved at all in the Seahawks moving to the NFC in the 2002 realignment? Or were all parties completely fine with the situation? The Seahawks do fit better as an NFC West team than they do an AFC West. In the AFC West they would have always been the odd team out with all the other teams having competitive rivalries going back to the founding of the AFL.

Were there any politics involved at all in the Seahawks moving to the NFC in the 2002 realignment? Or were all parties completely fine with the situation? The Seahawks do fit better as an NFC West team than they do an AFC West. In the AFC West they would have always been the odd team out with all the other teams having competitive rivalries going back to the founding of the AFL.

I have a vague memory of Seattle moving to the NFC in almost all scenarios except one, in which San Diego would move. But that was considered an unlikely longshot.

ChrisBabcock wrote:

Were there any politics involved at all in the Seahawks moving to the NFC in the 2002 realignment? Or were all parties completely fine with the situation? The Seahawks do fit better as an NFC West team than they do an AFC West. In the AFC West they would have always been the odd team out with all the other teams having competitive rivalries going back to the founding of the AFL.

I have a vague memory of Seattle moving to the NFC in almost all scenarios except one, in which San Diego would move. But that was considered an unlikely longshot.

I also remember there was no financial compensation for AFC teams to switch leagues in 2002 as an incentive in the same way NFL teams were offered cash to jump to the AFC in 1970.

I don't remember the scenarios of teams moving from the AFC to NFC, but I remember that no money was being offered to switch leagues in 2002 as an incentive in the same way it was in 1970, and there was a short list of teams who were interested in moving, and the move had to be voluntary, the league couldn't make a team switch leagues against their wishes.

Rupert Patrick wrote:

ChrisBabcock wrote:

Were there any politics involved at all in the Seahawks moving to the NFC in the 2002 realignment? Or were all parties completely fine with the situation? The Seahawks do fit better as an NFC West team than they do an AFC West. In the AFC West they would have always been the odd team out with all the other teams having competitive rivalries going back to the founding of the AFL.

I have a vague memory of Seattle moving to the NFC in almost all scenarios except one, in which San Diego would move. But that was considered an unlikely longshot.

I also remember there was no financial compensation for AFC teams to switch leagues in 2002 as an incentive in the same way NFL teams were offered cash to jump to the AFC in 1970.

I don't remember the scenarios of teams moving from the AFC to NFC, but I remember that no money was being offered to switch leagues in 2002 as an incentive in the same way it was in 1970, and there was a short list of teams who were interested in moving, and the move had to be voluntary, the league couldn't make a team switch leagues against their wishes.

So if no teams volunteered would the Texans of simply been placed into the NFC?

ChrisBabcock wrote:

Were there any politics involved at all in the Seahawks moving to the NFC in the 2002 realignment? Or were all parties completely fine with the situation? The Seahawks do fit better as an NFC West team than they do an AFC West. In the AFC West they would have always been the odd team out with all the other teams having competitive rivalries going back to the founding of the AFL.

I have a vague memory of Seattle moving to the NFC in almost all scenarios except one, in which San Diego would move. But that was considered an unlikely longshot.

What most current fans don't remember is that during their first year (1976), the Seahawks were in the NFC.

Had the NFL in 2002 stuck with the 3-div-per-conf format (6-5-5) which I truly wish they would have, then Texans-to-the-NFC would have been the most sensible option. Despite not too much of a post-season history '76-thru-'01, I feel the Seahawks forged enough a rivalry with the other AFC West teams (much more so than TB with their own division foes). Texans would have sensibly (because of Dallas) been added to the NFC East making it the six-team division of the conference in such an event.

But being that they did go the 4-4-4-4 route, yes, Seattle would have to be the odd-man-out of the AFC West and then where do you place them, in the AFC South with Colts/Jags/Titans?? Yes, NFC West obviously made the most sense in this case and has worked out well since.