Professional Football Researchers Association Forum

single wing wrote:With St.Louis, San Diego, and Oakland all losing their teams the NFL should Expand from 32 !

There hasn't been any expansion talk in over a decade, but with the first round of franchise moving since 1995-96, I think we will start hearing about it. I for one would like to see the NFL expand. I think with the population increases the league can add two teams every 10-15 years and not dilute the talent base. There were teams in the 50's, 60's and 70's who were starting bad QB's week after week and it was due more to poor management than the lack of good QB's. There are those owners who will oppose it, but they don't understand that although their share of the pie gets a little smaller, the size of the pie gets larger. 32 is a nice round number, but I think it is time to expand. If I were Commissioner I would dictate that if there is an expansion, that St. Louis, San Diego or Oakland should only be allowed to get one of the new franchises. The other expansion franchise would go to a new city, somebody who has never had their own NFL team like San Antonio or Memphis or someplace like that.

But I think the NFL will first have to deal with their drop (was it eight percent) in TV ratings this season, and figure out the cause and how to deal with it. There were a number of things going on that could have contributed to the ratings drop - the Kaepernick thing I'm sure turned some people off, and many people were following the election instead of football. I hope the NFL doesn't over correct somehow, I think a lot of these fans will be back next season when these stories have blown over.

I don't think that there should be expansion, but if they want to include San Antonio, I hope they don't let Jerry Jones do to them what Dollar Bill Wirtz did to Milwaukee's NHL expansion bids. It is a crime that there isn't an NHL team in Wisconsin. Hockey is so popular in Wisconsin that even the women's teams get a lot of attention, from what I hear.

The 1984 49ers' 15-1 record and their gaudy stats I thought were inflated by a very soft schedule.

Washington in week 2 was their only win against a team that win 10 or more games until the NFC-CG.

CSKreager wrote:The 1984 49ers' 15-1 record and their gaudy stats I thought were inflated by a very soft schedule.

Washington in week 2 was their only win against a team that win 10 or more games until the NFC-CG.

I agree. They only played five games against teams that finished above .500. Also, their division was shaky. The Rams shouldn't have made the playoffs, and Atlanta and NO weren't very good.

7DnBrnc53 wrote:

CSKreager wrote:The 1984 49ers' 15-1 record and their gaudy stats I thought were inflated by a very soft schedule.

Washington in week 2 was their only win against a team that win 10 or more games until the NFC-CG.

I agree. They only played five games against teams that finished above .500. Also, their division was shaky. The Rams shouldn't have made the playoffs, and Atlanta and NO weren't very good.

Well those opinions would certainly be unpopular in my neck of the woods.

The 1984 49ers had the #2 Offense and #1 Defense in the NFL.
Joe Montana was at the height of his amazing career and many of the young Niners who had first tasted success with the 1981 team were maturing and peaking.
Pro Bowl players were in abundance.

As to the opposition:
The Saints were a .500 team excluding their losses to San Francisco.
The Bengals would've had a winning record if S.F. hadn't beat them.
The Niners beat the Giants (a playoff team) in the regular season (in addition to the 'Skins as mentioned above)
The Niners demolished the Bears 23-0 in the NFCCG and dismantled the NFL's "Best" Offense (Randy Cross' statement notwithstanding) in the Super Bowl, winning 38-16.

http://www.pro-football-reference.com/years/1984/
http://www.pro-football-reference.com/t ... o/1984.htm

They may not have been as good as they've been made out to be by an overzealous modern media (and really, who could be?) but that 49ers team was pretty damn good.

JuggernautJ wrote:
They may not have been as good as they've been made out to be by an overzealous modern media (and really, who could be?) but that 49ers team was pretty damn good.

The two best teams in 1984 met in the Super Bowl and the best team won.

In the 1984 regular season, Joe Montana was the second best QB in the NFL. And when the stakes were highest, he raised his game up even higher. I don't think the 49ers defense receives enough credit. The allowed as many touchdowns in the postseason as the 1985 Bears and the 2000 Ravens; 1. (I will acknowledge that the Ravens played 4 postseason games, not 3, and the Bears; only touchdown allowed was when the game was a blowout.) While the Chicago offense was below average without McMahon, the Miami offense was well above average, and I think that balances things out.

single wing wrote:With St.Louis, San Diego, and Oakland all losing their teams the NFL should Expand from 32 !

I hope it always stays at 32 teams. I think that the policy of "expand to Cleveland, expand to Houston, expand every time an owner leaves town" only fueled the phenomenon of stadium extortion. I think that someday, some owner will take a low-attendance NFL team and farm its eight home games out to some of these orphan cities, calling his club "The Nomads" and having two games a year in St. Louis, two a year in San Diego, two in Oakland, two in some other place that wants to pay obscene amounts just to host a couple of events, kind of like Shahid Khan did with the Jaguars at Wembley Stadium, or like Ralph Wilson did with the Bills in Toronto.

Mark L. Ford wrote:

single wing wrote:With St.Louis, San Diego, and Oakland all losing their teams the NFL should Expand from 32 !

I think that someday, some owner will take a low-attendance NFL team and farm its eight home games out to some of these orphan cities, calling his club "The Nomads" and having two games a year in St. Louis, two a year in San Diego, two in Oakland, two in some other place that wants to pay obscene amounts just to host a couple of events, kind of like Shahid Khan did with the Jaguars at Wembley Stadium, or like Ralph Wilson did with the Bills in Toronto.

In 1926, the Los Angeles Buccaneers entire regular season was a collection of road games. Only after the season ended did they return to California (and warm weather) to play seven exhibitions:

http://www.profootballarchives.com/1926nflla.html

A popular opinion is that the domination of the 1946-49 All-America Conference (AAFC) by the Cleveland Browns is what ruined that league. I don't agree. The AAFC would have folded even if the Browns were one of the weaker teams in that league, IMO. About the only difference is probably only 2 teams (49ers and Colts) would have ended up in the NFL in 1950, if that.

What ruined the AAFC was lack of TV revenue and owners (of the weaker teams) were not willing to continue to lose money. There was also some mismanagement. There was also mismanagement in the 1960's AFL, but TV revenue helped to keep them going when things were tough.

The AFL owners in 1960 bought into the idea that Cleveland's domination is what ruined the AAFC, and tried mostly for equality among the teams, which included a draft right in the first year. The AAFC did not have a draft in 1946 which allowed teams like Cleveland, the 49ers, and the New York Yankees to pretty much hand pick the players for their teams. Other teams did also, but not so well.

Despite the draft and maybe other efforts to insure equality with the AFL teams, the early league was dominated by the Houston Oilers, playing in the first 3 championship games and winning the first 2, and the San Diego Chargers, who played in 5 of the first 6 championship games.

Houston's AFL championship run may have lasted longer, but they changed head coaches 3 times in the first 3 years. In 1963, injuries to key players (Billy Cannon, Don Floyd, and Al Jamison) and maybe the coaching changes contributed to the end of Houston's domination of the AFL's Eastern Division. Houston's 3rd head coach, Pop Ivy, was fired after the 1963 season.

The Los Angeles/San Diego Chargers did win the AFL Western Division 5 of the first 6 years of the league's existence, and may have made it 6 for 6 if not for a blunder by the coaching staff or someone, putting their star quarterback, Jack Kemp, on waivers after the 1961 season. He was picked up by the Buffalo Bills. The Chargers had to go with rookie quarterback John Hadl in 1962 and only won 4 games that year. In 1963, San Diego picked up veteran quarterback Tobin Rote, who led them to the AFL title. In the mean time, Hadl improved and became a good quarterback.

While the Cleveland Browns did win the AAFC title 4 times in 4 years, it was never that easy. They had 2 tough championship games in 1946 and 1947 with the New York Yankees and had some pretty stiff competition in their own division with the rival San Francisco 49ers in 1948 and 1949.