Professional Football Researchers Association Forum

A lot of us know the story about how Pete Rozelle's secretary, Thelma Elkjer, helped determine the NFL's alignment for the next 30 years by pulling a number out of a vase. The 13 NFC owners had been gone for almost three days trying to agree on who went to which division, before Rozelle settled the question by having one of five plans picked at random. It's been almost half a century since that January 1970 owners meeting, and it wouldn't have gone that long if the St. Louis Cardinals hadn't objected to the proposal that the other 12 owners favored. But for the need for unanimous 13 to 0 approval the NFC would have looked like this:

NFC East-- Giants, Eagles, Redskins... and Falcons
NFC Central- Bears, Packers, Lions, Vikings.. and Saints
NFC West-- Rams, 49ers... and Cowboys and Cardinals

There would have been no Redskins-Cowboys rivalry, but geographically, the original plan it made the most sense. And the Cardinals and the new St. Louis team eventually ended up in the NFC West anyway.

wow. The subject of what those other alignment plans looked like has always been of interest to me. So, to sum up, if the Cardinals agreed to the above plan, this would have happened? What was their opposition to it? And also, why was the agreed upon plan SO far out of whack geographically? (Cowboys, Cardinals, Saints, Falcons) I’d love to have been a fly on the wall during those discussions and have seen what other proposals were considered.

What is interesting about Plan #3, which is the one which was drawn out of the hat, is that is the only one of the five realignment plans that had Dallas in the Eastern Division, and it was also the only one that had Minnesota in the Central Division. All the other plans had Minnesota in the East.

For the record, these were the other plans that were not chosen:

Plan 1: East — New York, Washington, Philadelphia, Atlanta, Minnesota; Central — Chicago, Green Bay, Detroit, New Orleans; West — Los Angeles, San Francisco, Dallas, St.Louis.

Plan 2: East — New York, Washington, Philadelphia, Minnesota Central — Dallas, St. Louis, New Orleans, Atlanta; West — Los Angeles, San Francisco, Chicago, Green Bay, Detroit.

Plan 4: East — New York, Washington, Philadelphia, St. Louis, Minnesota ; Central — Chicago, Green Bay, Detroit, Atlanta; West—Los Angeles, San Francisco, Dallas, New Orleans.

Plan 5: East — New York, Washington, Philadelphia, Detroit, Minnesota; Central — Chicago, Green Bay, Dallas, St. Louis; West — Los Angeles, San Francisco, New Orleans, Atlanta.

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.

ChrisBabcock wrote:wow. The subject of what those other alignment plans looked like has always been of interest to me. So, to sum up, if the Cardinals agreed to the above plan, this would have happened? What was their opposition to it? And also, why was the agreed upon plan SO far out of whack geographically? (Cowboys, Cardinals, Saints, Falcons) I’d love to have been a fly on the wall during those discussions and have seen what other proposals were considered.

What I've read is that they didn't like the idea of having to travel 1,800 miles to California, didn't like the idea of being stuck in the same division with two playoff teams (the Rams and the Cowboys), and, apparently, wanted to keep a rivalry going with the Giants.

For the better I guess, the NFC East became the NFL's centerpiece division with four football crazy massive tv markets clustered together. With 3 of the 4 teams experiencing long runs of success and Super Bowls (and Philly just being perpetually football hungry despite being up and down)

Mark L. Ford wrote:

ChrisBabcock wrote:wow. The subject of what those other alignment plans looked like has always been of interest to me. So, to sum up, if the Cardinals agreed to the above plan, this would have happened? What was their opposition to it? And also, why was the agreed upon plan SO far out of whack geographically? (Cowboys, Cardinals, Saints, Falcons) I’d love to have been a fly on the wall during those discussions and have seen what other proposals were considered.

What I've read is that they didn't like the idea of having to travel 1,800 miles to California, didn't like the idea of being stuck in the same division with two playoff teams (the Rams and the Cowboys), and, apparently, wanted to keep a rivalry going with the Giants.

Did the Cards/Giants ever have a rivalry though? They played each other twice a year for a long period of time but...there was never any hate towards them.

sheajets wrote:Did the Cards/Giants ever have a rivalry though? They played each other twice a year for a long period of time but...there was never any hate towards them.

I think the only true rival the Cardinals ever had was the Chicago Bears, and that rivalry ended when the Cardinals moved to St. Louis. Being in St. Louis, and now in Phoenix, there are no real geographic rivals.

Rupert Patrick wrote:

sheajets wrote:Did the Cards/Giants ever have a rivalry though? They played each other twice a year for a long period of time but...there was never any hate towards them.

I think the only true rival the Cardinals ever had was the Chicago Bears, and that rivalry ended when the Cardinals moved to St. Louis. Being in St. Louis, and now in Phoenix, there are no real geographic rivals.

I kind of considered Dallas something of a rival to them. I think they hated Dallas. I think Dallas paid them no mind. But since moving out of the NFC East yes they have absolutely no real rival

I often wondered as a kid in the 70's, why New Orleans and Atlanta were in the West. Kind of a head scratcher.

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.