Professional Football Researchers Association Forum

Back in 2015 I made an appointment to do some researching at the Pro Football Hall of Fame on the history of tie breaks. What a great adventure that was. I said to myself that I could live in the Ralph Wilson Research and Preservation Center. Anyway, while looking up my material I came across a bunch of articles on AFL/NFL merger. Two things I remember reading was that Baltimore wanted an opportunity to play the Jets two times a season and the Cleveland move was not popular with their fans who were upset about a lost of rivals and traditions. I surprised to see that Art Modell was already somewhat unpopular with his fan base. Both teams, off the record, thought they would dominate the AFC.

With a clear head, not at all knowing yet alone never getting used to the way it turned out to be, I actually would have thought that perhaps the Saints & Falcons go to the AFC if only because they were the two newest teams - no real rivalry established between they and the others. Browns & Colts already established quite the winning tradition and Steelers, though not the case with them so far, were a much older franchise (and already established things with Cleveland). Perhaps I would have preferred this...

AFC
East: Buf, Mia, NE, NYJ,
Central: Hou, Cin, Atl, NO
West: Den, KC, Oak, SD

NFC
East: Clev, NYG, Phi, Pit, Wash
Central: Chi, Det, GB, Minn
West: Bal, Dal, LA, StL, SF

Yes, uneven but perhaps with a possible understanding that the first two expansion teams that come along the AFC will get. I'm sure there'd be a scheduling formula if however an odd, complex one to suit this.

Again, this is with a clear head if I were around then not knowing how it turned out. I likely would have preferred this. Glad it didn't go that way. Even if you're not a Dallas fan, nor a fan of any of the others in the division, the current four in the NFC East should always be together and glad that it's been that way. In hindsight, didn't mind the Cards being a part of it when they were there (if only because I became used to it), and would not have minded Texans joining the NFC East in 2002 in the event of three-divisions-per; but if neither those two, then just keep the four together. Adding Clev & Pit, but no Dallas, only ever would have made geographical sense and nothing else.

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

And until they went back to the NFC, the Seahawks used to be the answer to a trivia question-- "What NFC team never lost to an AFC team?" While in the NFC in '76, they played against each of their 13 NFC rivals, and beat Tampa Bay in their only interconference game.

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.

Being that they were only ten seasons old at the time, and were only a contender for just the past four of those years, I wonder if they going to the AFC would have made sense? Put them in the AFC East. Big markets there as well: NY, Boston, Miami...

74_75_78_79_ wrote:With a clear head, not at all knowing yet alone never getting used to the way it turned out to be, I actually would have thought that perhaps the Saints & Falcons go to the AFC if only because they were the two newest teams - no real rivalry established between they and the others. Browns & Colts already established quite the winning tradition and Steelers, though not the case with them so far, were a much older franchise (and already established things with Cleveland). Perhaps I would have preferred this...

AFC
East: Buf, Mia, NE, NYJ,
Central: Hou, Cin, Atl, NO
West: Den, KC, Oak, SD

NFC
East: Clev, NYG, Phi, Pit, Wash
Central: Chi, Det, GB, Minn
West: Bal, Dal, LA, StL, SF

Yes, uneven but perhaps with a possible understanding that the first two expansion teams that come along the AFC will get. I'm sure there'd be a scheduling formula if however an odd, complex one to suit this.

Again, this is with a clear head if I were around then not knowing how it turned out. I likely would have preferred this. Glad it didn't go that way. Even if you're not a Dallas fan, nor a fan of any of the others in the division, the current four in the NFC East should always be together and glad that it's been that way. In hindsight, didn't mind the Cards being a part of it when they were there (if only because I became used to it), and would not have minded Texans joining the NFC East in 2002 in the event of three-divisions-per; but if neither those two, then just keep the four together. Adding Clev & Pit, but no Dallas, only ever would have made geographical sense and nothing else.

I think the AFL would have balked at having to accept two virtual (with three and two years of existence at the time the realignment discussions were going on in early 1969) expansion teams in New Orleans in Atlanta as part of the 1970 realignment, but I think they might have taken the Vikings (with eight years as a franchise but only one playoff appearance in 1968) except for the fact there were still issues concerning Minnesota deciding to join the AFL in 1960 (which opened the door for Oakland) then changing their decision and instead joining the NFL in 1961 as an expansion team. The AFL wanted solid NFL teams with some sort of history to them to add to the AFC, not have a couple new expansion teams pawned off on them. This is why Baltimore and Cleveland, teams who had success in the NFL but not the long history that could be traced back to the origins of the league in either 1920 or 1933, were prime candidates to jump to the AFC. Pittsburgh, who was the doormat of the NFL from 1933-69, had nothing but misery in the NFL and wanted to start over in the AFC and got that, so moving to the AFC made sense.

nicefellow31 wrote:Back in 2015 I made an appointment to do some researching at the Pro Football Hall of Fame on the history of tie breaks. What a great adventure that was. I said to myself that I could live in the Ralph Wilson Research and Preservation Center. Anyway, while looking up my material I came across a bunch of articles on AFL/NFL merger. Two things I remember reading was that Baltimore wanted an opportunity to play the Jets two times a season and the Cleveland move was not popular with their fans who were upset about a lost of rivals and traditions. I surprised to see that Art Modell was already somewhat unpopular with his fan base. Both teams, off the record, thought they would dominate the AFC.

Yeah, Modell's stated reason for appeoving the move was because he thought they could more easily reach the Super Bowl. That was always a little disingenuous to me, since he, Rooney and Rosebloom each got $3 million to make the move, yet he never brought that up.

Modell was disliked by the old school fans for dumping Paul Brown, though the latter's time had pretty much run its course. Still, he forced Jim Brown's hand in getting to training camp in 1966 and Brown retired in response, though that blow was softened for three years by the presence of Leroy Kelly. He had numerous contract battles with players and usually traded them away, which led to his long-held image of being too cheap for the Browns to win the Super Bowl. In short, he was tolerated, with the move forever putting him on the fans' s*** list.

Browns expecting to own the AFC sort of reminds me of when Penn St joined the Big Ten. Many, even I admittedly, assumed PSU would own the conference year-after-year (kick butt and then ‘hide’ in Rose Bowl vs a PAC 10 champ). So much for that.

The NFL would not want to give up NO and ATL because that would put the entire South in the hands of the AFC. They were trying to balance. The Midwest was where the AFL was the weakest. It was always going to be teams from the Midwest.

Philly would have been unlikely because it's close to the Northeast, where the AFL was stronger. Detroit was one of the bigger Midwestern markets, the NFL wanted to keep that as well. Smaller Midwestern markets that weren't Green Bay were the most likely candidates.

Jay Z wrote:The NFL would not want to give up NO and ATL because that would put the entire South in the hands of the AFC. They were trying to balance. The Midwest was where the AFL was the weakest. It was always going to be teams from the Midwest.

Philly would have been unlikely because it's close to the Northeast, where the AFL was stronger. Detroit was one of the bigger Midwestern markets, the NFL wanted to keep that as well. Smaller Midwestern markets that weren't Green Bay were the most likely candidates.

Market sizes would later be offered as the reason why CBS's ratings were always higher than NBC's.

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.

Baltimore, Cleveland, and Pittsburgh all jumped from the NFL to the AFC in 1970. Why the Steelers moved, there were several reasons. First, there were financial incentives. Second, the Steelers had a pretty good rivalry - though one-sided at the time - with the Browns. The Rooneys and Modell enjoyed playing one another, and if one of them left the NFL, the rivalry would have largely diminished. So it was kind of a pair deal, if one went then the other really would have to have gone. Another reason that may be overlooked is, for Pittsburgh, there was also an incentive of playing in a potential division, the AFC Central, with Cleveland, Cincinnati, and Houston Oilers. The Oilers had a state of the art Astrodome Stadium and the Bengals were a relatively new franchise, coached by Paul Brown, geographically located in neighboring Ohio. The budding of a new rivalry, which has grown intense to this day.