Professional Football Researchers Association Forum

As I've stated before in previous posts, I do wish it would go back to 3 divisions per (still 6 playoff teams though) primarily to reduce the chances of 8-8 or even 7-win teams getting in. If it happens once or twice every so many years as was the case with '85 Browns/'90 Saints/'91 Jets, no sweat, but since '02 it has been happening quite more frequently and it's due to the 4-team divisions across-the-board.

Of course if the league ever goes back to the 3-div-per-conf format, it would mean 6-5-5 apiece which would make it less fun for the schedule-maker; but I'm sure a balanced-enough formula could be created as was the case from '99-thru-'01 with an uneven 31 teams. So what if two teams may possibly go more than 8 years without playing each other; that's what would make it fun again - the whole 'finally' playing each other again (enter Eagles/Chiefs).

If the league ever did go back to 3 divisions per, what would be your realignment preference?

Mine, personally, would be throwing both Tennessee and Jacksonville back into what would go back to being named the AFC Central. That Steelers/Jags rivalry developed rather quick in the '90s, and Ravens/Titans weren't a bad one either. Place the Colts back in the AFC East and throw the Texans into the West. KC not far from Denver, Houston not far from KC. Plus, it'd be an interesting idea to have both the Chiefs and Texans in the same division for obvious nostalgic (AFL) reasons.

In the NFC...why not throw Cards and Bucs back into the East and (back to being named) Central respectively although neither team (especially TB) played all that well pre-'02 to forge any true blue division rivalries. Make the West the six-team division of the conference. Despite distance, both Saints and Falcons had quite a rivalry with the Niners as well as with the Rams even when they were in LA (which they very well may return to anyway). Carolina and SF weren't having themselves all that bad a sudden-rivalry themselves in those early Capers years.

Any of you think that in such an event that Seattle should switch back to the AFC (West)? Would any of you disagree with Cards and/or Bucs going back to their old divisions? Perhaps another team filling the slot instead? What would be a proper, balanced scheduling formula for this format?

I think for scheduling sake it would be difficult to find a simpler, more elegant system than the current 32 teams in 2 conferences of 4 divisions with four teams.

If one insisted on three divisions per conference then perhaps the simplest thing to do would be to go back to the pre-realignment err.... alignment and just add the new team (Texans) to one of the NFC Divisions (West?).

JuggernautJ wrote:I think for scheduling sake it would be difficult to find a simpler, more elegant system than the current 32 teams in 2 conferences of 4 divisions with four teams.

If one insisted on three divisions per conference then perhaps the simplest thing to do would be to go back to the pre-realignment err.... alignment and just add the new team (Texans) to one of the NFC Divisions (West?).

It'll never happen, but the most simple, elegant and fair approach is 2 conferences of 16 teams where every team plays every other team in the conference once and plays one rivalry game against a team in the other conference. This way there essentially is no scheduling, each team's strength of schedule is practically the same. You can maintain or build a rivalry (say Steelers / Eagles, Cowboys / Texans, Raiders / 49ers, Giants / Jets).

I was hoping when they went to 8 divisions of 14 teams each in 2002 that it would start another round of expansion, maybe add two teams every eight years to get to 40 teams. It seems the NFL is content with 32 teams and would rather move franchises around, but if Oakland or San Diego or St. Louis loses their franchise to LA, I worry there will be a groundswell of support to get them a new franchise, especially if a new ownership group comes thru with a new stadium in one of those cities, it could set off more expansion. I still believe with the increase in population that you could add two new teams every ten years and there will be no dropoff in overall quality.

Rupert Patrick wrote:I was hoping when they went to 8 divisions of 14 teams each in 2002 that it would start another round of expansion, maybe add two teams every eight years to get to 40 teams. It seems the NFL is content with 32 teams and would rather move franchises around, but if Oakland or San Diego or St. Louis loses their franchise to LA, I worry there will be a groundswell of support to get them a new franchise, especially if a new ownership group comes thru with a new stadium in one of those cities, it could set off more expansion. I still believe with the increase in population that you could add two new teams every ten years and there will be no dropoff in overall quality.

I don't know about that. There are fans that say that the NFL isn't as good as it used to be. I think that two teams should be contracted (Jacksonville, and either the Jets or Bills [if their chances of getting a new stadium in Buffalo are nil]). Then, they should move the Raiders or Chargers to LA (either one. Just get an AFC presence in LA. If they move the Chargers to LA, I would like to see the Raiders go to Sacramento), and they should move the Panthers to the AFC.

This would be the alignment:

AFC East: Bills (or Jets), Colts, Dolphins, Panthers, Patriots
AFC Central: Bengals, Browns, Steelers, Ravens, Titans
AFC West: Broncos, Chargers, Chiefs, Raiders, Texans
NFC East: Cowboys, Eagles, Falcons, Giants, Redskins
NFC Central: Bears, Bucs, Lions, Packers, Vikings
NFC West: Cardinals, 49ers, Rams, Saints, Seahawks

7DnBrnc53 wrote:

Rupert Patrick wrote:I was hoping when they went to 8 divisions of 14 teams each in 2002 that it would start another round of expansion, maybe add two teams every eight years to get to 40 teams. It seems the NFL is content with 32 teams and would rather move franchises around, but if Oakland or San Diego or St. Louis loses their franchise to LA, I worry there will be a groundswell of support to get them a new franchise, especially if a new ownership group comes thru with a new stadium in one of those cities, it could set off more expansion. I still believe with the increase in population that you could add two new teams every ten years and there will be no dropoff in overall quality.

I don't know about that. There are fans that say that the NFL isn't as good as it used to be.

No matter which decade you go back to, you can always find a number of teams with bad (fill in the blank - coaching, quarterbacking, receivers, runners) talent and other teams with backups sitting on their benches who were better than the starters on other teams. The percentages of teams forced to play subpar talent, I would wager, have always been consistent thru pro football history except for WWII and expansion teams for their first 3-4 seasons. It just seems like there are more now because there are more teams in the league than before, but there were bum QB's in every decade, and 50 years from now there will still be bum QB's who will be starting every Sunday.

I am reminded of one of the Bill James historical Baseball Abstracts, I think it was the first one from the mid 80's, when he reprinted newspaper articles from sportswriters and players from each decade since the advent of professional baseball about how the modern guys didn't hustle as well or play as fundamentally well as the players in the previous generation(s), and how "the modern game isn't as good as it was when I played". I think the calibre of athletes the NFL gets are getting better every year, and while I can do without the showboating and the commercialism, the hard play and artistry and strategy make for as thrilling a collective game as I have ever seen. I think those who say the game isn't as good as it used to be are just upset that their team is no longer the one on top, or their favorite players are no longer playing, and they yearn for the good old days.

Another solution would be to have four eight-team divisions-- combine the NFC East and NFC South, the NFC North and NFC West, the AFC East and AFC North, and the AFC South and the AFC West. Fourteen of the 16 games would be division games, and you would have a rotation for the other two:


NFC Southeast Cowboys, Eagles, Giants, Redskins, Panthers, Falcons, Buccaneers, Saints
NFC Northwest Packers, Lions, Vikings, Bears, Seahawks, Cardinals, 49ers, Rams
AFC Northeast Patriots, Bills, Dolphins, Jets, Steelers, Bengals, Ravens, Browns
AFC Southwest Broncos, Chiefs, Chargers, Raiders, Colts, Texans, Jaguars, Titans

Mark L. Ford wrote:Another solution would be to have four eight-team divisions-- combine the NFC East and NFC South, the NFC North and NFC West, the AFC East and AFC North, and the AFC South and the AFC West. Fourteen of the 16 games would be division games, and you would have a rotation for the other two:


NFC Southeast Cowboys, Eagles, Giants, Redskins, Panthers, Falcons, Buccaneers, Saints
NFC Northwest Packers, Lions, Vikings, Bears, Seahawks, Cardinals, 49ers, Rams
AFC Northeast Patriots, Bills, Dolphins, Jets, Steelers, Bengals, Ravens, Browns
AFC Southwest Broncos, Chiefs, Chargers, Raiders, Colts, Texans, Jaguars, Titans

Now the Browns can finish eighth annually.

7DnBrnc53 wrote:

Rupert Patrick wrote:I was hoping when they went to 8 divisions of 14 teams each in 2002 that it would start another round of expansion, maybe add two teams every eight years to get to 40 teams. It seems the NFL is content with 32 teams and would rather move franchises around, but if Oakland or San Diego or St. Louis loses their franchise to LA, I worry there will be a groundswell of support to get them a new franchise, especially if a new ownership group comes thru with a new stadium in one of those cities, it could set off more expansion. I still believe with the increase in population that you could add two new teams every ten years and there will be no dropoff in overall quality.

I don't know about that. There are fans that say that the NFL isn't as good as it used to be. I think that two teams should be contracted (Jacksonville, and either the Jets or Bills [if their chances of getting a new stadium in Buffalo are nil]). Then, they should move the Raiders or Chargers to LA (either one. Just get an AFC presence in LA. If they move the Chargers to LA, I would like to see the Raiders go to Sacramento), and they should move the Panthers to the AFC.

This would be the alignment:

AFC East: Bills (or Jets), Colts, Dolphins, Panthers, Patriots
AFC Central: Bengals, Browns, Steelers, Ravens, Titans
AFC West: Broncos, Chargers, Chiefs, Raiders, Texans
NFC East: Cowboys, Eagles, Falcons, Giants, Redskins
NFC Central: Bears, Bucs, Lions, Packers, Vikings
NFC West: Cardinals, 49ers, Rams, Saints, Seahawks

While I might like the Jets being contracted (I am a Jets fan and would then be allowed/forced to root for another team and thereby increase my odds of ever seeing my team in a Super Bowl let alone win one), it would make no sense for the league to contract a NY/NJ team. The Jets are one of the more valuable franchises to the league.

Just based upon simple geography...

Western Conference
1... Bears, Colts, Lions, Packers & Vikings
2... Broncos, Chiefs, Cowboys, Rams, Saints & Texans
3... 49ers, Cardinals, Chargers, Raiders & Seahawks

Eastern Conference
4... Bengals, Bills, Browns, Eagles & Steelers
5... Buccaneers, Dolphins, Falcons, Jaguars, Panthers & Titans
6... Giants, Jets, Patriots, Ravens & R*dskins