realignment anyone for it?
- Thread starter allsilverdreams
- Start date
Roman529
Moon Runner / The 3 AM Crew
I would be ok with an Atlanta, Tampa, Jax, Miami division. It would cut down on travel. New England could be in a division with the Jets, Philly and Washington.,,,,move the Jets to the NFC. I wouldn't miss playing them. Obviously you would probably have to move teams from the AFC to NFC and vice versa to keep things balanced and 8 divisions of 4 teams each. Not every division would have to be changed. I don't think the Dallas Cowboys need to be in the NFC East, even though they have rivalries with the Skins, Eagles and Giants. But I doubt the owners would approve of most of these alignment ideas.
Don't agree.
The revenue would be made up pretty quickly, since the important thing is that it's all football. Just throw in the old rivals as part of the out-of-division games, and the problem is solved. The fact is that the NFL is like a contented cow. But if the NFL actually used its brains, it would send the hot weather teams North during the preseason, September, and half of October, and bring the cold weather teams South from Thanksgiving thru the end of the Season. And the SB would ALWAYS be played either in a warm weather site or a domed Stadium.
I/m/o, it's better to avoid Slopbowls, Icebowls and El Scorcho Bowls.
A couple of posters got it right. Geographic rivalries would re-energize the sport to unforeseen levels. And it would hardly take two years to forget about the old rivals. Try half a season. All it would take is one bitter and personal game against Tampa Bay or Jacksonville, followed by the rematch. For anyone who doubts that, we've already had an example in a different sport. The Ft. Lauderdale Striker/Tampa Bay Rowdies rivalry in the late '70s and early '80s was incredibly intense. Fans from both teams would make the trip in either direction. It was such a hated rivalry that even the announcers got carried away. Rick Weaver used to go absolutely nuts when Rodney Marsh tried his patented self-trip in the penalty box at least once or twice per game. There was even anger toward the competing team slogans, when the Strikers paid an ad agency for the ridiculous, "Soccer is the Name of the Game," while Tampa Bay came up with the clever, "Soccer is a Kick in the Grass."
Dolph N.Fan
Active Roster
The divisions are fine. Geez if it's not the dolphins unis and logo y'all want to change is their conference and or division.
jtoomuch
Apalled and aghast
No.
KTOWNFINFAN
Seasoned Veteran
- Joined
- Aug 13, 2005
- Messages
- 7,421
- Reaction score
- 2,416
That is really wild. I went back and looked up the one I made up several months ago and the only thing I had different was I had Tenn and Indy flipped. Every thing else I had was the same.Realignment is the only viable long term solution to the NFL's attendance problem. I suspect they know that, but the owners have shown themselves to be absolutely unwilling to review a major overhaul of the divisional alignment structure and take advantage of geographical rivalries the way college football does. It's one reason why the NFL has never seriously threatened the passion that college football enjoys and probably never will, and I say that as a bigger NFL fan than college football fan.
Rivalries have to exist on more than paper and the internet. They grow in neighborhoods split by fandom, by families of different teams coming together, by road trips made by fans of modest means (blue collar fans are the heart of any fanbase). By proximity, in other words. Sure, there would be a backlash, and short term profits would suffer. But the long term gains would be enormous.
There's nothing quite like a map to show why this should be done, so here's one.
The current alignment is utterly ad hoc and ridiculous as a result. A farce. There is no way to look at the map and see the logic in it.
I gave over a Saturday afternoon a year ago to looking at this and trying to come to a reasonable solution that made for the shortest average distance between teams in divisions while respecting current and common sense rivalries where I could. This made for some awkward pairings (Bengals and Browns with the Titans and Panthers, for instance, instead of with Pittsburgh). But overall I think it provides a good balance.
For your consideration:
AFC South:
Dolphins, Jaguars, Bucs, Falcons
AFC East:
Titans, Panthers, Bengals, Browns
AFC North:
Patriots, Giants, Jets, Bills
AFC Central:
Colts, Chiefs, Rams, Broncos
NFC East:
Redskins, Ravens, Steelers, Eagles
NFC North
Packers, Bears, Lions, Vikings
(Any wonder the only division to stay the same is also home to the best rivalries in the NFL?)
NFC South:
Cowboys, Texans, Saints, Cardinals
NFC West:
Chargers, 49ers, Raiders, Seahawks
Culturally Indianapolis fits much better into the Midwest than Nashville does. But you've identified one of the trickier divisions. On a strictly cultural basis Detroit, Cleveland, Pittsburgh and Buffalo belong in a division -- all are blue collar towns reliant on manufacturing and shipping jobs (as is Chicago, for that matter). But it seemed illogical to me to not have Cleveland and Cincinnati in a division, or to split up Pittsburgh and Baltimore.
No matter which way you slice it something gets left out.
While the rivals would indeed refresh themselves you fail to see my point on revenue. Not all Miami fans live in Florida and Georgia and not all Pats fans live in the New England region of the country. The appeal of being able to market a team to a multitude of regional audiences has a greater value than division rivalries. Limiting the souther teams to only southern states will cost the NFL revenue in big market venues such as NYC, Boston, LA etc...teams who only play southern games would now only continue to be supported closer to there geographic location but there is little incentive for a New York to support a team from Miami if he cannot at least have some chance of watching games such as Buffalo and the Jets. The die hard fans would stay loyal but fair weather fans want to see their team play and will do so only if it is accessible to them at a connivance. Fair weather fans are not going to book tickets to Florida three times a year to watch a team like Miami play, they will simple reallocate themselves to a more local team such as the Giants, Jets, Pitt etc...furture segmenting the division of wealth in the NFL
By averaging the teams over a greater populous it benefits the NFL and the fans, drawing more into regions where there wouldn't normally be a huge fan base to support that team. Sending Miami to play three sometimes four or five games within driving distance of NYC, Boston , Pitt, Philly and DC has it advantages in the fan base and revenue stream. Fans from Jacksonville, Tampa, Orlando can still drive to 8 homes games a year so why make it more? Your assumption is that all of those fans are going to turn out in greater numbers because the team is playing closer to home at more local venues. I would wager money that assumption if flat out wrong, I would wager that over all revenue would actually decrease because the team is marketed to a limited regional area.
There is a reason Hardee's and Cracker Barrels are coming North and heading West, the exposer to more clients is larger hence revenue growth, the same can be said about an NFL team and why certain rivals remain on the docket.
TV revenue is shared league wide, so I'm not even sure what you're getting at here. Say the Giants and Jets are playing at the same time. Half of the TVs in New York/New Jersey on tuned to one game, the other half tuned to the other. If they're playing each other... then what happens? Every TV is tuned to it. What you're saying doesn't make a whole lot of sense. People watch the teams they watch. I doubt MLB was bemoaning the "Subway Series" a few years back between the Yankees and Mets. On the contrary, the ratings were through the roof.
What the NFL stands to lose in attendance from regional fans (like you) is FAR less than what it stands to gain in attendance by making rivalries more regional, and the issue right now with the NFL isn't TV viewership, it's physical game attendance. You'll notice that colleges never have trouble selling out games. Is this partly because college students don't have the same responsibilities as NFL fans? Sure. But it's also because traveling is easier. If I can get on a bus and go to Tampa or Jacksonville and get back in the same night, how many more games will I go to (and therefore, how much more money will I spend?). A lot more, is the answer.
Just look at the NFL rivalries right now that ARE regional, to get a sense of what I mean. No NFC North team has trouble selling out a game, for example. Why? Because Minneapolis, Chicago, Detroit and Green Bay are all within a fairly short distance from each other. Same with the Giants and the Eagles. Or the Jets and Patriots. Or the Broncos and Chiefs. Or the Steelers and Ravens. Almost without fail, the most intense rivalries in the NFL are regional ones. Why not extend this easily observable phenomenon to the entire league?
I'm not talking about TV share, I'm talking about merchandising revenue, stadium sales etc...forget about a championship game or playoff game, you have no control over that but you do however have control over division of wealth in the regular season. There is a reason MLB teams want the NY Yankees on their schedule and I'm saying the same thing about the NFL, certain teams bring business and open up local areas for revenue, the same is true in the NFL and hence the reason certain divisions are structured as they are.
http://www.forbes.com/sites/mikeoza...-cowboys-lead-nfl-with-2-1-billion-valuation/
Jerry Jones isn't making all his money off Texas, there is a reason he wants to have his team in the NFC East and it is called, NYC, DC, Philly. Funny how the wealthiest teams are playing each other in the same division isn't it...no it isn't, Robert Kraft would move into the NFC East if he could. It is a simple numbers game, the large the population exposer the great amount of fans you are going to collect money from rival or your own.
http://harvardsportsanalysis.files....-nfl-business-model-and-potential-lockout.pdf
IDK know about you Walrus but I'd rather have 40% of the ticket revenue of New England than 40% of the ticket revenue of Tampa and Jacksonville combine.
So why can't the Dolphins sell out games and are in the red when they're in a division with the New York and Boston TV markets? Why would Robert Kraft want Philly and DC when he's already got New York and Miami?
There's no "reason" NFL divisions are structured the way they are. The whole thing is a cobbled together series of add ons, like a one room shack that's grown into a mansion. At some point you just have to raze the thing and start over.
If you think a theoretical uptick in merchandising is worth more than a higher # of sellouts (which would enable higher ticket prices), then we just disagree, and that's fine. The Yankees example has little bearing on this because MLB doesn't share all the TV revenue, anymore than small schools wanting to play Alabama has any bearing on it.
Because we've sucked for over a decade, which is why you want exposure to larger markets, Miami is still a very profitable franchise compared to most and that has to do with diversification of the fan base and marketing. Ross knew that when he brought on Fergie and Lopez etc...he wanted merchandising to skyrocket, who cares if it is in Miami or Istanbul, as long as that little girl idolizes either of those two so might they the Dolphins without ever watching a or knowing about a football game.
There is a reason behind the way things are structured right now and it has to do with the owners not the NFL.
- Joined
- Apr 26, 2007
- Messages
- 4,892
- Reaction score
- 3,482
i hope the owners dont stand in the way and not allow the right thing to happen.