DawgTalkers.net Forums DawgTalk Pure Football Forum Regionalize the NFL

This is a long-standing issue that I've had with the NFL. Ever since the Modell-owned Browns moved to Baltimore I've hoped that the league would consider resetting the current configuration of teams to keep division teams as close as possible.

This model would allow fans of teams to easily travel to see their team play their rivals regularly and would be good for attendance for teams that have seats to sell.

In a world where there aren't enough seats for home teams makes this notion irrelevant, but in a down economy where seats sit empty, this would be good for the league.

I'm opening this thread because I'd like to get feedback.

Let's say the configuration by geography was:

AFC North
Cleveland
Cincinnati
Detroit
Indianapolis

AFC East

NY Jets
NY Giants
New England
Buffalo

AFC South

Jacksonville
Miami
Tampa Bay
Carolina

AFC West

Oakland
San Francisco
San Diego
Seattle

NFC North

Chicago
Green Bay
Minnesota
St. Louis

NFC East

Philly
Baltimore
Washington
Pittsburgh

NFC South

Atlanta
New Orleans
Tennessee
Kansas City

NFC West

Denver
Dallas
Houston
Arizona

That's one man's attempt...I tried to group like cities within close geography with the omission of Pit who I'd like to keep but it makes more sense IMO for them in their grouping.

But IMO the NFL should prepare for bad times now....when they're on the precipice of the curve....and for those that don't believe that the NFL is in trouble you should take a long look at what's going on with ticket sales, the CBA and more.

A regionalized NFL would be a very healthy change for the league.

Your thoughts? Would you travel to Indy and Detroit to see the Browns? For the many fans that are elsewhere do you have friends that would travel more in a regionalized world?

It's a long offseason.....what do you think?

Hey hey hey! He's just putting what he thinks out there on front street to be judged by one and all there no call for that....

OH WAIT...

He has us playing Indy twice a year! Yep he's nuts!

I have often though they could do something like that, but it probably wouldn't work.

I don't think you could have the 2 NY teams in the same division. (They may even be sharing a stadium....no?)

Without pulling up the current splits....the Dallas placement probably doesn't make sense, and possibly the Miami placement is out of kilter as far as geography is concerned...

I have a different idea - one that would fit very well with the idea of the 17 game season they've been throwing around. Its not perfect, but it only took me 5 minutes...

East
NY Jets
NY Giants
New England
Buffalo
Philly
Baltimore
Pittsburgh
Cincinnati

South
Jacksonville
Miami
Tampa Bay
Carolina
Atlanta
New Orleans
Tennessee
Washington

Midwest
Chicago
Green Bay
Minnesota
St. Louis
Kansas City
Indianapolis
Cleveland
Detroit

West
Oakland
San Francisco
San Diego
Seattle
Arizona
Denver
Dallas
Houston

Schedule:
7 each division opponent
8 one whole other division
2 same place in other divisions

Playoffs:
top 2 from each division, no byes
East/South winner vs. Midwest/West winner for superbowl

They aren't going to eliminate a round of playoffs...nor go to divisions that big..they don't want that many more teams out of the playoff hunt by mid season.

You have to go with a home and home series inside the division IMO.

Then go to the top 3 in each divison and first place gets a bye - that covers the number of rounds.

I did think about the home and home, but with my suggestion, you'd play 14 of the 17 games in your divison. Positive; very little travel for teams playing much closer to home as a whole. Negative: 14 or 17 games become regional, and a weak conference would make a good team look better/strong conference would make a good team look worse.

As I said, it took me 5 minutes...not well thought out, just an idea.

I've thought of this too, but I always figured you should make as few changes as possible. Here's my solutions:

AFC North
Browns
Bengals
Steelers
Colts

AFC South
Dolphins
Texans
Titans
Jaguars

AFC East
Ravens
Jets
Patriots
Buffalo

AFC West
Chiefs
Broncos
Arizona
St. Louis

NFC East
Eagles
Giants
Redskins
Panthers

NFC North
Lions
Bears
Packers
Vikings

NFC South
Falcons
Cowboys
Bucs
Saints

NFC West
Chargers
Raiders
San Francisco
Seattle

This tries to keep most divisions as similar as possible, but eliminates the "weird" alignments, such as Dallas being in the east and Indianapolis being in the south.

Here is the main problem with the "economy" reasoning of this post.

Quote:

---

but in a down economy where seats sit empty, this would be good for the league.

---

So with home team seats empty, you thing those same fans are going to travel to away games and fill the seats????


As for the realignment, RansomWhitney's is one of the better ones I've seen in a long time.

When the Ravens came to be, I had always wanted a flip flop with baltimore and Buffalo, but Ransom's is dang good.

I think the league is too afraid to move Dallas Oooohhhh, ooooohhh our pressious superstar team. No favorism by the NFL my arse. The last realignment was proof.

I agree, the number of moves would need to be held to a minimum.

What you have laid out is closer to what could happen if they really did try to sort it out.

Not that I think this will ever happen but If I'm in charge,, no way do I take Detroit and move it to the AFC.. that division that includes the Vikes, GB, Detroit and Chicago is to good and has too much history to mess with it.

Likewise, if I'm going to switch around things.. I'd have the AFC North look like this:

Cleveland
Pittsburgh
Cincinnati
Buffalo

Obviously the NFL tried to keep as many old rivals in the same division as possible when they reorganized and I think that was a very good idea. Imagine us not in the division with Pittsburgh, pitiful concept.

What I would like to see is a reorganization of how they pick the playoff teams. They should take a simpler approach to choosing the top teams instead of giving a division winner an instant bye into the playoffs. Like last year where San Diego got in with an 8-8 record while the Patroits 11-5 sat at home.

My only comment is the travel geography for Pittsburgh fans appears to have suffered, as compared to today.

The League would be better served to find ways to create a more level playing field. That would resolve problems with disinterested fans in a down economy.

Read in others words,...how about a pay cut ??

j/c

there are a few divisions, in my mind, that are un-touchable. The NFC north and east are historical- dallas, skins, eagles and giants; lions, vikes, bears and packers--- you just can't mess with it.

the next hurdle would be the willingness of teams to change conferences. Seattle has done it, and it took a while to get used to them not being in the AFC west- no more chiefs, raiders, broncos and charger games. Seemed liked some rivalries just up and died. If too many of those games are taken away, its bad for the league.

Geographically U appearantly do not know the East Coast very well .. *L* .. just because cities are in the same state doesnot mean there CLOSE TO EACH OTHER ...

Buffalo to NJ (where the Gnats and Jets play) ... 8 hours ..
Buff to Pitt ... 3 hours ... MAX ...

Phili to Pitt ... about 6 or 7 hours ... not positive .. but i know there on opposite ends of a long ass state ..
Phili to Jersey .... 2 hours ...

And Pitt is much closer to C-town than Indi .. MUCH CLOSER ...

C-town is also 3 hours from Buff .. there in a triangle with Pitt .. ALL Fairly CLOSE to one another ..

I think that that teams with overlapping TV markets should be in different conferences, thus allowing more fans access to their teams games. ie: Cle & Cin, if Cincy was in the NFC they would be on Fox, and Cleveland would be on CBS, then those in between wouldn't have to fight with the local TV station to get their game.

Or with current digital TV, allow stations to put 1 game on the station, and the other on the other digital station. (ie: 8.0 vs 8.1 vs 8.2) of course this means people need digital converters or digital TV's, but as of next month it's required anyway.

My question is that, Time Warner and such claim they don't want NFL Network because they don't want people to pay for channels they don't want etc...

1. I don't wan't HSN or QVC yet I pay for them?
2. They just debuted the MLB NETWORK...without asking me if I wanted to pay for it...

Sounds good except lets take out Indy,add Oakland ( they are northern California aren't they?) and change the division name fron North to Nincompoops. Maybe we could even win a division title.Getting Pittsburgh out of our division would be great. I'm sick of witnessing those two butt kickings every year. Afterall if you can't beat em run from em.

BTW I have mixed emotions. I see the advantages but I'd hate to lose the exisiting rivalries. I think i'd leave well enough alone.

FYI .... a glimmer of good news I suppose ...

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB123786503490122053.html

MARCH 24, 2009

NFL, DirecTV Extend Pact in $4 Billion Deal

MATTHEW FUTTERMAN

In a sign that media rights for major sports may defy the recession, the National Football League reached a four-year extension with DirecTV Group Inc. Monday valued at $4 billion.

Associated Press

The NFL's new contract with DirectTV calls for payments of $1 billion a year for the 2011-14 seasons. That is a 43% increase on an annual basis over the current five-year deal.

According to a person with knowledge of the deal, the contract calls for payments of $1 billion a year for the 2011-14 seasons. That is a 43% increase on an annual basis over the current five-year deal, in which DirecTV pays the NFL about $700 million a year for the exclusive right to sell the Sunday Ticket package. That package allows fans to see every NFL game on Sundays, as opposed to simply the games shown on local broadcast channels.

Major cable operators have been trying to reach a deal with the NFL to sell the Sunday Ticket and share revenue with the league, but the NFL has preferred to take a lump-sum payment from DirecTV, which has used the product to lure viewers away from cable subscriptions to satellite.

However, the new deal chips away at DirecTV's exclusivity when it comes to out-of-market games. The agreement with the El Segundo, Calif. company allows the NFL for the first time to pursue deals with cable operators and Internet providers to offer subscribers the Red Zone Channel, which provides cut-ins to the crucial moments of NFL games. In addition, cable subscribers living in areas where satellite service isn't available will be able to buy the full Sunday Ticket package over the Internet.

To be sure, the NFL still needs to reach agreements with cable and broadband providers on the price and access to the Red Zone Channel. Negotiations with those companies to carry the NFL Network, the league-owned cable channel, have dragged on for several years. The league also has been battling Comcast Corp. in court and at the Federal Communications Commission over the cable provider's decision not to include the NFL Network in its basic digital tier of channels.

However, the deal with DirecTV bodes well for the league as it approaches talks with its broadcast partners for new agreements. Its current deals with General Electric Co.'s NBC Universal, CBS Corp. and Walt Disney Co.'s ESPN expire after 2011. Under those deals, ESPN pays the NFL $1.1 billion a season, NBC Universal pays $600 million and CBS pays $620 million.

Write to Matthew Futterman at matthew.futterman@wsj.com

Printed in The Wall Street Journal, page B5

I think an AFC North would look more "aligned" with it consisting of:

Cleveland
Cincinnati
Pittsburgh
Buffalo or Detroit


Indy moves too far towards the middle of the country. If you want "regionalized" divisions ..... I would think that this would be the way to go.

isn't Pittsburgh 100 miles away from Cleveland??? and the closest competitor? Or would that be Detroit???

I could see dumping Baltimore and adding Detroit.

But the system seems to be working as is.

And I might have missed something (really I might have if so please advise).

But aren't most teams sold out? empty seats maybe but those tickets have been sold - the resellers just are finding it hard to scalp those tickets...or in a lot of cases Invested in season tickets and only go to 25% of them relying on the sale of the tickets for the other 75%.

Didn't know there was a problem with the ticket sales.

BUTTT - I must say one thing. Its not for a lack of Competition and rivalry...if seats are empty. Its because of the economics and prices just have to be lowered.

JMHO

That was just off the top of my head....it's pretty easy to poke holes in a few.

But I also didn't try to approach it as Cleveland's best scenario. You aPpaREntLy don't know that Cinci to Indy is less than a two hour car drive.....

Detroit has rivalries already established with their NFC North opponents.

Everybody has established rivalries. Just posting in the spirit of the thread. Which was about location of teams and establishing New Rivalries.

And the intent was to debate the subject of realigning to get division foes closer.

Just like the Houston Oilers didn't really feel right as a division foe, neither does Baltimore.

Buffalo would be fun, so would Detroit. Indy is close too but maybe a division with them St. Louis and KC would work better.

There are dozens of scenarios that could work.

Baltimore has never felt right though to me.

Well, I think they had Baltimore in here so Cleveland could play them because of that rivalry. By this time, though, the reason for that rivalry has moved on. The reason they're a big rival now, at least to me, is that we play them twice a year and they're in our division. I don't really look at them anymore as the "former Browns."

But, I don't see them realigning, even though what a lot of you have suggested makes sense. The rivalries now are pretty ingrained. I mean, it would make sense to include Detroit in the AFC North, but they have their rivalries already with the NFC North teams. The Pats and the Bills and the Jets have very intense rivalries in the AFC East, and Miami's rivalry with those teams isn't necessarily a throwaway, either.

And, the NFC East is goofy with Dallas in there, but that is a very old and bitter rivalry with all those teams.

Yeah, it might make sense to realign things, but I don't see it happening, and I'm ok with it. The NFL is one of those leagues where I think "if it ain't broke, don't fix it." I fear that with them trying to extend the schedule and playing games out of the country (I've even seen suggestions of playing the Super Bowl in another country???), they're going to start really upsetting fans.

Yeah, there are little tweaks here and there that would really help, like a rookie salary scale, but major overhauls aren't really needed. JMHO

The Ravens are a natural rival. I hate them like no other team in any sport. In fact, they're the only franchise I truly hate. I don't even hate the Steelers.

I remember when I became a Browns fan, Houston felt like our biggest rival because they were usually in our way, with Warren Moon and coach Jerry Glanville. I didn't really appreciate the history with Pittsburgh,.

I don't know.. I'll root for the Ravens before I EVER root for the Steelers..

I hate the Steelers...