- Sep 6, 2005
- 144,882
- 94,756
- AFL Club
- Fremantle
Who here wants the format changed? Anything from a minor tweak (higher WCs earn home field over lower div winners), to some major overhaul (like whatever).
NFL NFL Re-Alignment
- Thread starter Exe Gesis
- Start date
- Tagged users None
- Sep 6, 2005
- 144,882
- 94,756
- AFL Club
- Fremantle
- Thread starter
- #3
Re: 2008 - NFL Week 16
I love the current format and wouldnt change it.
But...if I were...I'd want there to be no conferences, just 4 divisions of 8 teams in South, East, North, West, that were geographically correct too.
14 games against own division, 4 games against 1 half of another division once every year.
End up playing all teams in 6 years, not 10.
And it would have a more regional rivalry to it.
But that's only IF i changed the format, i'd do something like that.
I love the current format and wouldnt change it.
But...if I were...I'd want there to be no conferences, just 4 divisions of 8 teams in South, East, North, West, that were geographically correct too.
14 games against own division, 4 games against 1 half of another division once every year.
End up playing all teams in 6 years, not 10.
And it would have a more regional rivalry to it.
But that's only IF i changed the format, i'd do something like that.
DevNull
Team Captain
Re: 2008 - NFL Week 16
I'd vote no. Hate the idea of seeding a WC over a division winner. As long as there are conferences I love the fighting within the division, then within the conference.
Id be open to perhaps amalgating some divisions as long as we still play the AFC North teams twice (I love the history we've had with the Steelers. Baltimore and Cinci)
Never thought of doing away with the conferneces GG but its an interesting concept. Sort of makes sense if you want the 2 best teams to be in the SB rather than possibly playing off in the championship game
I'd vote no. Hate the idea of seeding a WC over a division winner. As long as there are conferences I love the fighting within the division, then within the conference.
Id be open to perhaps amalgating some divisions as long as we still play the AFC North teams twice (I love the history we've had with the Steelers. Baltimore and Cinci)
Never thought of doing away with the conferneces GG but its an interesting concept. Sort of makes sense if you want the 2 best teams to be in the SB rather than possibly playing off in the championship game
- Sep 6, 2005
- 144,882
- 94,756
- AFL Club
- Fremantle
- Thread starter
- #5
Re: 2008 - NFL Week 16
The only 'problem' with my non-conf idea is that there'd be a bit of a reshuffle in the East/South divisions, causing a loss of NFC East rivalries mainly. I posted the full divisions in some other thread, cant remember where, but it had some reshuffling in the East/South mainly and North a little, while West wasnt affected.
The reason why conferences are removed is because it's redundant now. The two separate leagues merged 40 years ago, and for all intents and purposes they're all the same league now. There's nothing different about them at all. So why bother? It's not like the AFC does things differently to the NFC etc.
The only 'problem' with my non-conf idea is that there'd be a bit of a reshuffle in the East/South divisions, causing a loss of NFC East rivalries mainly. I posted the full divisions in some other thread, cant remember where, but it had some reshuffling in the East/South mainly and North a little, while West wasnt affected.
The reason why conferences are removed is because it's redundant now. The two separate leagues merged 40 years ago, and for all intents and purposes they're all the same league now. There's nothing different about them at all. So why bother? It's not like the AFC does things differently to the NFC etc.
JeffDunne
TheBrownDog
Re: 2008 - NFL Week 16
Yeah I like the current format but I reckon the discussion on change was more due to AFC dominance in the Superbowl than the issue of divison champs vs WC spots. The Giants win last year has probably taken the focus off that debate, but when you consider the Pats season it really was an abberation rather than a changing trend. This season the strength of the AFC isn't as great relatively speaking but IMO that's more due to the strong AFC teams coming back to the field than the NFC improving.
Never really thought about it from the perspective you suggest gg and I can see plenty of merit in the general concept. Would certainly help ensure the best teams made it through to the Superbowl more than the present format.
Yeah I like the current format but I reckon the discussion on change was more due to AFC dominance in the Superbowl than the issue of divison champs vs WC spots. The Giants win last year has probably taken the focus off that debate, but when you consider the Pats season it really was an abberation rather than a changing trend. This season the strength of the AFC isn't as great relatively speaking but IMO that's more due to the strong AFC teams coming back to the field than the NFC improving.
Never really thought about it from the perspective you suggest gg and I can see plenty of merit in the general concept. Would certainly help ensure the best teams made it through to the Superbowl more than the present format.
JeffDunne
TheBrownDog
Re: 2008 - NFL Week 16
While on the surface their would seem to be resistance from the East, provided those rivalries were maintained it's these teams that the TV networks want to see in the playoffs and ironically will put pressure on a change.
If Dallas/Philly miss out and a team like Arizona make it with a poorer record, I reckon this debate will be on again (hence my original comment).
I doubt anyone from the South is going to lose much sleep if there's another realignment (both NFC & AFC) especially if the few strong rivalries there are maintained. As far as the NFC South is concerned, most wouldn't really care of old rivalries were torn up if it meant replacing them with teams like Dallas. From a Saints perspective, other than the Falcons, there's more heat in hating on Dallas than there is the other NFC South teams. Many Saints fans still cling to the old NFC West rivalries too more so than the new.
While on the surface their would seem to be resistance from the East, provided those rivalries were maintained it's these teams that the TV networks want to see in the playoffs and ironically will put pressure on a change.
If Dallas/Philly miss out and a team like Arizona make it with a poorer record, I reckon this debate will be on again (hence my original comment).
I doubt anyone from the South is going to lose much sleep if there's another realignment (both NFC & AFC) especially if the few strong rivalries there are maintained. As far as the NFC South is concerned, most wouldn't really care of old rivalries were torn up if it meant replacing them with teams like Dallas. From a Saints perspective, other than the Falcons, there's more heat in hating on Dallas than there is the other NFC South teams. Many Saints fans still cling to the old NFC West rivalries too more so than the new.
- Sep 6, 2005
- 144,882
- 94,756
- AFL Club
- Fremantle
- Thread starter
- #8
Re: 2008 - NFL Week 16
I believe fans would adapt. In fact, the thing a lot of fans love about NCAA more than NFL is that there's a huge regional rivalry in NCAA.
You can imagine then, for instance, how great the South might be with all the new intra-state rivalries and interstate rivalries.
Just for the record, these are what the divisions would be...
West: Oakland, San Francisco, San Diego, Seattle, St Louis, Kansas City, Arizona, Denver.
North: Green Bay, Chicago, Minnesota, Detroit, Cincinnati, Cleveland, Indianapolis, Buffalo.
East: New England, New York, New York, Baltimore, Washington, Carolina, Pittsburgh, Philadelphia.
South: Miami, Tampa Bay, Jacksonville, New Orleans, Houston, Dallas, Tennessee, Atlanta.
I believe fans would adapt. In fact, the thing a lot of fans love about NCAA more than NFL is that there's a huge regional rivalry in NCAA.
You can imagine then, for instance, how great the South might be with all the new intra-state rivalries and interstate rivalries.
Just for the record, these are what the divisions would be...
West: Oakland, San Francisco, San Diego, Seattle, St Louis, Kansas City, Arizona, Denver.
North: Green Bay, Chicago, Minnesota, Detroit, Cincinnati, Cleveland, Indianapolis, Buffalo.
East: New England, New York, New York, Baltimore, Washington, Carolina, Pittsburgh, Philadelphia.
South: Miami, Tampa Bay, Jacksonville, New Orleans, Houston, Dallas, Tennessee, Atlanta.
- Oct 7, 2008
- 9,702
- 42
- AFL Club
- Adelaide
- Other Teams
- GWS, NA Roosters, ATL Falcons
- Banned
- #9
Re: 2008 - NFL Week 16
I want a change but not too big a change in the structure. have an AFC, NFC 4 division each. BUT re align to be more geographically close like you say. Have all the division winners and 2 wild cards but do allow wild card teams above divisional winners only if they have a better winning record.
AFC E: New England, New York, New York and Buffalo
NFC E: Philadelphia, Pittsburgh, Baltimore and Washington
AFC N: Cleveland, Cincinnati, Indianapolis and Tennessee
NFC N: Detroit, Chicago, Minnesota and Green Bay
AFC S: Miami, Jacksonville, Tampa Bay and New Orleans
NFC S: Carolina, Atlanta, Dallas and Houston
AFC W: Denver, Kansas City, St Louis and Seattle
NFC W: Arizona, San Francisco, Oakland and San Diego
or perhaps all the divisional winners go through to a 8 team knockout tournoment, or maybe 16 teams?
But that I think will make it unfair if a division is good (current NFC E) and a team cant get in as 3rd or 4th in the div when a team in a s**t division (West pick the one you think is shitter) gets in at 2nd or even 1.
We are just going to have to wait untill the 1 in a million year comes by, when all 4 teams in a division are so s**t they can only go 3-13 each and a team gets in, or maybe 1 year all teams in a division are so good they go 13-3 and a team cant make it. Will never happen but if it does, this is when a change will be made. No point trying to convince the NFL, unless they want money from the TV Stations but the TV stations wont give it to them unless they get their way.
I want a change but not too big a change in the structure. have an AFC, NFC 4 division each. BUT re align to be more geographically close like you say. Have all the division winners and 2 wild cards but do allow wild card teams above divisional winners only if they have a better winning record.
AFC E: New England, New York, New York and Buffalo
NFC E: Philadelphia, Pittsburgh, Baltimore and Washington
AFC N: Cleveland, Cincinnati, Indianapolis and Tennessee
NFC N: Detroit, Chicago, Minnesota and Green Bay
AFC S: Miami, Jacksonville, Tampa Bay and New Orleans
NFC S: Carolina, Atlanta, Dallas and Houston
AFC W: Denver, Kansas City, St Louis and Seattle
NFC W: Arizona, San Francisco, Oakland and San Diego
or perhaps all the divisional winners go through to a 8 team knockout tournoment, or maybe 16 teams?
But that I think will make it unfair if a division is good (current NFC E) and a team cant get in as 3rd or 4th in the div when a team in a s**t division (West pick the one you think is shitter) gets in at 2nd or even 1.
We are just going to have to wait untill the 1 in a million year comes by, when all 4 teams in a division are so s**t they can only go 3-13 each and a team gets in, or maybe 1 year all teams in a division are so good they go 13-3 and a team cant make it. Will never happen but if it does, this is when a change will be made. No point trying to convince the NFL, unless they want money from the TV Stations but the TV stations wont give it to them unless they get their way.
Re: 2008 - NFL Week 16
Cannot see the conferences being merged, there's too much history in either.
Cannot see the conferences being merged, there's too much history in either.
- Sep 6, 2005
- 144,882
- 94,756
- AFL Club
- Fremantle
- Thread starter
- #12
Re: 2008 - NFL Week 16
....because if you can make it there, you can make it anywhere.
C'mon you all know it's GOLD.
....because if you can make it there, you can make it anywhere.
- Sep 6, 2005
- 144,882
- 94,756
- AFL Club
- Fremantle
- Thread starter
- #13
Re: 2008 - NFL Week 16
I sent the NFL another email just then to re-assert my idea which Taglibeau received and replied to around 1997-8.
I sent the NFL another email just then to re-assert my idea which Taglibeau received and replied to around 1997-8.
- Sep 6, 2005
- 144,882
- 94,756
- AFL Club
- Fremantle
- Thread starter
- #15
Re: 2008 - NFL Week 16
The first time was a bit different because I lived there and sent a letter to the New York HQ. I have Taglibeau's letter still but it's buried in storage somewhere. He basically said something like, "interesting concept, but not something the League is interested in due to the importance of traditional rivalries like in the NFC East.".
However, with Goodell there now, he might be more inclined to like it because he likes to overhaul things and "leave a mark". But it would probably be better if I sent a letter. I'll do that as soon as I find a new place to live and can unpack everything.
The first time was a bit different because I lived there and sent a letter to the New York HQ. I have Taglibeau's letter still but it's buried in storage somewhere. He basically said something like, "interesting concept, but not something the League is interested in due to the importance of traditional rivalries like in the NFC East.".
However, with Goodell there now, he might be more inclined to like it because he likes to overhaul things and "leave a mark". But it would probably be better if I sent a letter. I'll do that as soon as I find a new place to live and can unpack everything.
Re: 2008 - NFL Week 16
You see the former NFL commissioner in Australia before giving a green light to GC and WS? This was on the basis as it creates rivalries. He said something along the line that rivalries increased interest and where there were no traditional rivalries, these should try and be created. He went on to say that geographical rivalries were the easiest to do.
I still don't know if it will change, traditional rivalries and all.
You see the former NFL commissioner in Australia before giving a green light to GC and WS? This was on the basis as it creates rivalries. He said something along the line that rivalries increased interest and where there were no traditional rivalries, these should try and be created. He went on to say that geographical rivalries were the easiest to do.
- Sep 6, 2005
- 144,882
- 94,756
- AFL Club
- Fremantle
- Thread starter
- #17
Re: 2008 - NFL Week 16
What I find is that whenever you email, write, or speak on the phone to adminstrators inside the league (which ive done), they always talk down to you, treat you like idiots, and tho they secretly might like one of your ideas and table it for consideration.
I emailed the ARL once about a rule, which i came up with from playing a Nintendo NFL arcade video game. Where you had 4 downs to make the halfway line, then 4 downs to make the endzone, and each down the ball started glowing like a bomb that it would explode on 4th down whoever had possession of it.
Anyway, i got that idea from there. I wrote the ARL the idea 6 tackles to make the halfway line, 6 tackles to make the goalline, and they responded with a very mocking letter basically saying "thanks but no thanks"....and THEN! like a week later Phil Gould in a newspaper proposed the exact same idea splashed on the back page. This was before Bob Fulton's idea for the 40-20 came into being.
Ive spoken to an official in the NRL about rule changes and he was all superior and mocking me, wouldnt let me talk. They have this attitude.
So, re: Taglibeau....maybe they like the idea but like to tell people "no" so that it doesnt spawn some fan spam email/letter suggestion thing, and that they can take credit for the ideas themselves. I dunno.
What I find is that whenever you email, write, or speak on the phone to adminstrators inside the league (which ive done), they always talk down to you, treat you like idiots, and tho they secretly might like one of your ideas and table it for consideration.
I emailed the ARL once about a rule, which i came up with from playing a Nintendo NFL arcade video game. Where you had 4 downs to make the halfway line, then 4 downs to make the endzone, and each down the ball started glowing like a bomb that it would explode on 4th down whoever had possession of it.
Anyway, i got that idea from there. I wrote the ARL the idea 6 tackles to make the halfway line, 6 tackles to make the goalline, and they responded with a very mocking letter basically saying "thanks but no thanks"....and THEN! like a week later Phil Gould in a newspaper proposed the exact same idea splashed on the back page. This was before Bob Fulton's idea for the 40-20 came into being.
Ive spoken to an official in the NRL about rule changes and he was all superior and mocking me, wouldnt let me talk. They have this attitude.
So, re: Taglibeau....maybe they like the idea but like to tell people "no" so that it doesnt spawn some fan spam email/letter suggestion thing, and that they can take credit for the ideas themselves. I dunno.
DevNull
Team Captain
Re: 2008 - NFL Week 16
If they are given no choice then they will have to adapt - however for longstanding rivalries that are decades old the fans will be mighty upset.
I'm not to sure I get the whole div names and why they have to be named north, south, east and west. If they were named after inanimate objects or even sold for naming rights then you can put teams whereever you like and geography doesn't have come into it.
IMO apart from the occassional intrastate, intercity rivalries all the geography realignment gives you is fuel savings.
If they are given no choice then they will have to adapt - however for longstanding rivalries that are decades old the fans will be mighty upset.
I'm not to sure I get the whole div names and why they have to be named north, south, east and west. If they were named after inanimate objects or even sold for naming rights then you can put teams whereever you like and geography doesn't have come into it.
IMO apart from the occassional intrastate, intercity rivalries all the geography realignment gives you is fuel savings.
- Sep 6, 2005
- 144,882
- 94,756
- AFL Club
- Fremantle
- Thread starter
- #19
Re: 2008 - NFL Week 16
The reasoning for enhancing the division names as regional is because that's a real part of rivalry---regionality. It's why the NCAA has such a higher passionate following, sense of bragging rights.
If teams relocated, the two conference set up complicates matters and has already seen contradictions where Seattle, formerly AFC now becomes NFC. See what i mean about redundant Conferences? Theres no point to it if Seattle can be moved between the two, if Cleveland are in the AFC tho really always part of the old NFL prior to the AFL. And was still part of the NFL when the two leagues were still separate.
4 regions is fine, the two conferences is pointless anymore.
The reasoning for enhancing the division names as regional is because that's a real part of rivalry---regionality. It's why the NCAA has such a higher passionate following, sense of bragging rights.
If teams relocated, the two conference set up complicates matters and has already seen contradictions where Seattle, formerly AFC now becomes NFC. See what i mean about redundant Conferences? Theres no point to it if Seattle can be moved between the two, if Cleveland are in the AFC tho really always part of the old NFL prior to the AFL. And was still part of the NFL when the two leagues were still separate.
4 regions is fine, the two conferences is pointless anymore.
gostk86
Club Legend
Re: 2008 - NFL Week 16
is the giants vs jets a huge game? do they have a big rivalry?
is the giants vs jets a huge game? do they have a big rivalry?
- Sep 6, 2005
- 144,882
- 94,756
- AFL Club
- Fremantle
- Thread starter
- #21
Re: 2008 - NFL Week 16
I would say yes they do have a rivalry....how? due to their regionality is why there's a rivalry. New York vs New Jersey. Which enforces how a new structure would highlight such things.
Because they're not in the same conference and seldom play each other, the rivalry is still there, but it's more comparison thing, their seasons, their SB records etc. But if you put them in the same cage together playing each other twice a season, the latent rivalry that exists between them would develop more.
I would say yes they do have a rivalry....how? due to their regionality is why there's a rivalry. New York vs New Jersey. Which enforces how a new structure would highlight such things.
Because they're not in the same conference and seldom play each other, the rivalry is still there, but it's more comparison thing, their seasons, their SB records etc. But if you put them in the same cage together playing each other twice a season, the latent rivalry that exists between them would develop more.
Southerntakeover
Hall of Famer
DevNull
Team Captain
Re: 2008 - NFL Week 16
Exactly. Thats why I don't think I'll ever be persuaded that a regional rivalry is better for the game than the current historical rivalry.
Exactly. Thats why I don't think I'll ever be persuaded that a regional rivalry is better for the game than the current historical rivalry.
- Sep 6, 2005
- 144,882
- 94,756
- AFL Club
- Fremantle
- Thread starter
- #24
Re: 2008 - NFL Week 16
Houston v Dallas.
Miami v Tampa Bay v Jacksonville
New York v New York
Oakland v San Francisco
Baltimore v Washington
All those would be bitter.
St Louis v Kansas City
Philadelphia v Pittsburgh
Not sure, time would create one.
Houston v Dallas.
Miami v Tampa Bay v Jacksonville
New York v New York
Oakland v San Francisco
Baltimore v Washington
All those would be bitter.
St Louis v Kansas City
Philadelphia v Pittsburgh
Not sure, time would create one.
Oscarman
Norm Smith Medallist
Veteran
Melbourne Demons - Jake Lever Player Sponsor 2018
Melbourne Demons - Katherine Smith AFLW Player Sponsor 2018
Melbourne Demons - Ben Kennedy Player Sponsor 2017
Melbourne Demons - Katherine Smith AFLW Player Sponsor 2017
Zombie Lover
SuperCoach Leagues Winners - BigFooty Division 1
Melbourne Demons - Ben Kennedy Player Sponsor 2016
Re: 2008 - NFL Week 16
Exactly. Rivalries are developed through contests. To use the Jags for an example, we have good rivalries with Indy and Tennessee through divisional matchups, and with Pittsburgh through regular season games and playoffs.
Given the setup of the schedule, it's hard to develop rivalries outside of a division. Meeting once every 3 or 4 years (not counting playoffs) just doesn't do it.
Exactly. Rivalries are developed through contests. To use the Jags for an example, we have good rivalries with Indy and Tennessee through divisional matchups, and with Pittsburgh through regular season games and playoffs.
Given the setup of the schedule, it's hard to develop rivalries outside of a division. Meeting once every 3 or 4 years (not counting playoffs) just doesn't do it.
