Professional Football Researchers Association Forum

sluggermatt15 wrote:

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.

Both Pittsburgh and Cincy also had brand new stadiums in 1970.

The realignment plan that I always thought made the most sense would have been:

East: Atlanta, New Orleans, New York, Philadelphia, Washington
Central: Chicago, Detroit, Green Bay, Minnesota
West: Dallas, Los Angeles, St. Louis, San Francisco

By putting the Saints and Falcons together in the East, at least you give them each a chance at a geographic rivalry, and having Atlanta in the East would also cover the eastern seaboard. Putting the four Central teams together makes sense, and the West would have been the best division in pro football and snagged every just about every NFC wild card from 1970-77.

Dallas may not have liked it, but that's pretty good. Then, when the Seahawks come into play in 76, they can stay in the NFC West permanently. Too bad that didn't happen.

As for the AFC, here's what I think should have happened:

East: Bills, Dolphins, Jets, Patriots
Central: Bengals, Browns, Colts, Steelers
West: Broncos, Chargers, Chiefs, Oilers, Raiders

In this alignment, you keep the first nine AFL teams together, and you put the last one (Bengals) in with the three NFL teams (that would have been great for Paul Brown since he saw himself as an NFL man, and wouldn't have taken an AFL team without a merger).

Then, in 76, you put the Bucs in the AFC Central instead of the AFC West and keep them there. That would have been better for them because Tampa is closer to those cities than the NFC Central ones.

7DnBrnc53 wrote: Central: Bengals, Browns, Colts, Steelers

Modell and Rosebloom never would have gone for it, since both of their teams entered the AFC as strong teams.

7DnBrnc53 wrote:

The realignment plan that I always thought made the most sense would have been:

East: Atlanta, New Orleans, New York, Philadelphia, Washington
Central: Chicago, Detroit, Green Bay, Minnesota
West: Dallas, Los Angeles, St. Louis, San Francisco

By putting the Saints and Falcons together in the East, at least you give them each a chance at a geographic rivalry, and having Atlanta in the East would also cover the eastern seaboard. Putting the four Central teams together makes sense, and the West would have been the best division in pro football and snagged every just about every NFC wild card from 1970-77.

Dallas may not have liked it, but that's pretty good. Then, when the Seahawks come into play in 76, they can stay in the NFC West permanently. Too bad that didn't happen.

As for the AFC, here's what I think should have happened:

East: Bills, Dolphins, Jets, Patriots
Central: Bengals, Browns, Colts, Steelers
West: Broncos, Chargers, Chiefs, Oilers, Raiders

In this alignment, you keep the first nine AFL teams together, and you put the last one (Bengals) in with the three NFL teams (that would have been great for Paul Brown since he saw himself as an NFL man, and wouldn't have taken an AFL team without a merger).

Then, in 76, you put the Bucs in the AFC Central instead of the AFC West and keep them there. That would have been better for them because Tampa is closer to those cities than the NFC Central ones.

Maybe in 1976 putting the Bucs in the East, and moving Baltimore or maybe Buffalo to the Central might make better sense. This way, Miami and Tampa Bay would have a geographic rivalry. Miami managed to have good rivalries with the Bills, Jets and Patriots despite the fact they're all over 1,000 miles from Miami.

Rupert Patrick wrote: Maybe in 1976 putting the Bucs in the East, and moving Baltimore or maybe Buffalo to the Central might make better sense. This way, Miami and Tampa Bay would have a geographic rivalry. Miami managed to have good rivalries with the Bills, Jets and Patriots despite the fact they're all over 1,000 miles from Miami.

Don Weiss, Pete Rozelle's assistant, wrote a letter to Sports Illustrated about the plans for 1976 (SI had done one of their "hey what if" things in their Scorecard section)-- in my memory, I thought it had been Rozelle himself, but he just authorized it:

"Sir:
Your SCORECARD item (Dec. 22-29) regarding NFL expansion omits one important fact. As was announced at the time, Seattle and Tampa Bay were given their initial conference assignments only for standings purposes pending the completion of long-range expansion plans. After that we anticipate we will wind up with 30 teams in six five-team divisions—perhaps by realignment or by adding the 29th and 30th franchises plus Seattle and Tampa to the existing "fours."

In 1976 and 1977 the Seattle and Tampa Bay teams will play a swing schedule—meeting the 13 other teams in their conference that year plus each other. In that manner each will have played all 26 previous NFL teams once in two seasons.

To have undertaken realignment (the last one took endless meetings covering nearly a year's time prior to the 1970 single-league schedule) at this time would have been somewhat like building an extra room for an overnight guest.

There are many strong arguments pro and con on realignment according to geographical location. But one "con" becomes immediately evident: lost under your suggestion, for example, would be the Dallas-Washington home-and-home annual series in the NFC East. You have to go back to the Browns-Giants battle for the NFL Eastern Conference in the '50s and '60s to match it for game-in, game-out suspense.

I hope that clarifies the "dumb" temporary decision somewhat.
DON WEISS
National Football League
New York City"