If the new owner of the Jacksonville Jaguars moves the team to Los Angeles, who will take their spot in the AFC South?
The simplest move would be to send Kansas City to the AFC South, essentially swapping places with the Jaguars:
West - Los Angeles, San Diego, Oakland, Denver
South - Houston, Kansas City, Tennessee, Indianapolis
North - Cleveland, Cincinnati, Pittsbugh, Baltimore
East - Miami, New England, New York Jets, Buffalo
The alternative would be to clean things up geographically, which affects 5 teams:
West - Los Angeles, San Diego, Oakland, Denver
South - Houston, Miami, Tennessee, Kansas City
North - Cleveland, Cincinnati, Pittsbugh, Indianapolis
East - Baltimore, New England, New York Jets, Buffalo
too many rivalires lost moving Miami out of the east.
think KC likely is the answer- though that would cost the Chiefs 2 big rivalries.
I thought the sale stipulated that Jacksonville has to stay. And no way on Miami moving out of the East. Losing the Colts was already hard enough.
I think the sale said they had to stay for 3 years....
They have to stay for 3 years, conveniently enough time for Los Angeles to build a new stadium. The Jacksonville football experiment is a failure. Why would they put an expansion team, a third team in Florida, in a market like Jacksonville? They put another expansion team in at the same time in the same region, but branded it as Carolina's team. The Jags were living on borrowed time.
I think you see the Jags move to LA, but move in as an NFC team. I think it makes the most sense for the NFL to have St. Louis move over to the AFC and move to the south. They are isolated right now in the NFC West, but moving them to the AFC South gives them regional rivals with Indianapolis, Tennessee, and Houston. It's probably the best fit out there.
I do agree with the above poster in it being a chance to clean up the divisions a bit more. Baltimore to the East, Miami to the South, and Indy to the North are no brainers in the AFC. In the NFC you put Carolina in the East and Dallas in the South. I know, why bother thinking logically. I get that none of this will happen because the NFL doesn't want to break up traditional rivals.
(11-30-2011 10:14 PM)shocky Wrote: [ -> ]They have to stay for 3 years, conveniently enough time for Los Angeles to build a new stadium. The Jacksonville football experiment is a failure. Why would they put an expansion team, a third team in Florida, in a market like Jacksonville? They put another expansion team in at the same time in the same region, but branded it as Carolina's team. The Jags were living on borrowed time.
I think you see the Jags move to LA, but move in as an NFC team. I think it makes the most sense for the NFL to have St. Louis move over to the AFC and move to the south. They are isolated right now in the NFC West, but moving them to the AFC South gives them regional rivals with Indianapolis, Tennessee, and Houston. It's probably the best fit out there.
I do agree with the above poster in it being a chance to clean up the divisions a bit more. Baltimore to the East, Miami to the South, and Indy to the North are no brainers in the AFC. In the NFC you put Carolina in the East and Dallas in the South. I know, why bother thinking logically. I get that none of this will happen because the NFL doesn't want to break up traditional rivals.
You cleared it up quite nicely with the Rams moving to the AFC South. The NFC West and the AFC South were the cobbled together divisions when the NFL realigned in 2003. The only rival the Rams have in the NFC West is the Niners. The Seahawks were in the AFC west and the Cardinals were in the NFC East. The move you suggested seems pretty straightforward.
Miami moving would not be fun at all. I think the rivalry is too strong and has been around too long between those AFC East teams - all of them being original AFL teams with some intense hatred between all of them. Except for Buffalo, I guess. Because they suck.
LA will end up with two teams - one for each conference. One will likely be the Jags and the other will probably be San Diego.
No way Baltimore leaves the North. Baltimore/Pittsburgh is probably the premier rivalry in the AFC right now and perhaps the entire NFL.
Its not the NFL that doesnt want to break up rivalries its the owners of the teams. Baltimore's owner wont want to lose those 2 yearly games with Pittsburgh just like KC's owner wont want to give up yearly games with the Raiders and Broncos. Certain owners will scream bloody murder if they are moved. The Ram's owner probably wont care as much since they dont have traditional rivalries that draw big crowds and ratings. Also i think the AFC needs LA a lot more than the NFC does because they have less bigger markets.
(11-30-2011 10:35 PM)Dr. Isaly von Yinzer Wrote: [ -> ]LA will end up with two teams - one for each conference. One will likely be the Jags and the other will probably be San Diego.
They didn't support the three previous franchises they had, so I can't see Los Angeles getting more than one. Jacksonville may end up being the one to move, but Weaver seems to think that Khan intends to keep the franchise in Florida. I know he wanted someone to commit to staying before he would sell. Maybe the 3-year commitment was the best he could get.
(11-30-2011 09:27 PM)chargeradio Wrote: [ -> ]If the new owner of the Jacksonville Jaguars moves the team to Los Angeles, who will take their spot in the AFC South?
The simplest move would be to send Kansas City to the AFC South, essentially swapping places with the Jaguars:
West - Los Angeles, San Diego, Oakland, Denver
South - Houston, Kansas City, Tennessee, Indianapolis
North - Cleveland, Cincinnati, Pittsbugh, Baltimore
East - Miami, New England, New York Jets, Buffalo
The alternative would be to clean things up geographically, which affects 5 teams:
West - Los Angeles, San Diego, Oakland, Denver
South - Houston, Miami, Tennessee, Kansas City
North - Cleveland, Cincinnati, Pittsbugh, Indianapolis
East - Baltimore, New England, New York Jets, Buffalo
This is the way it should have been. Miami does not need to be in the AFC east.
(11-30-2011 10:35 PM)Dr. Isaly von Yinzer Wrote: [ -> ]LA will end up with two teams - one for each conference. One will likely be the Jags and the other will probably be San Diego.
What conference are the San Diego chargers in?
(11-30-2011 10:44 PM)ClairtonPanther Wrote: [ -> ]No way Baltimore leaves the North. Baltimore/Pittsburgh is probably the premier rivalry in the AFC right now and perhaps the entire NFL.
Even more reason. What would a Baltimore/ New York game or a Baltimore/ New England do?
(11-30-2011 11:49 PM)firmbizzle Wrote: [ -> ] (11-30-2011 10:44 PM)ClairtonPanther Wrote: [ -> ]No way Baltimore leaves the North. Baltimore/Pittsburgh is probably the premier rivalry in the AFC right now and perhaps the entire NFL.
Even more reason. What would a Baltimore/ New York game or a Baltimore/ New England do?
Nothing at least compared to what e have right now. You don't understand the Ravens ARE the old Cleveland Browns the biggest rivals to Pittsburgh traditionally (which has one of the largest and well traveled/dispersed fan bases). They also play similar football which furthers the divide. New England or New York would not move the meter so much as a rivalry.
Mia-
NYJ 1291
NE 1491
BUF 1385
Hou 1186
Ten 912
KC 1468
so distances are not all that much better for Miami- definitely not what one would think.
(11-30-2011 11:45 PM)firmbizzle Wrote: [ -> ]This is the way it should have been. Miami does not need to be in the AFC east.
The Dolphins should stay in the AFC East. Those rivalries go back to the AFL and shouldn't be messed with.
The Dolphins have been in the AFL/AFC East with the Patriots, Bills, and Jets since the Dolphins joined the AFL in 1966.
The Broncos, Chargers, Chiefs (originally the Dallas Texans), and Raiders have been in the AFL/AFC West together starting with the first year of the AFL in 1960.
It would be a huge mistake to move the Dolphins or the Chiefs.
Moving the Rams to the AFC South is the most logical decision because that division doesn't have the traditional rivalries that Raiders, Chiefs, San Diego and Denver has or the Baltimore/Pittsburgh one.
that's an interesting solution....
AFC-
East- Mia,NYJ,NE,Buf
South-Ind, Stl, Hou,Ten
North-Pit,Bal,Cle,Cin
West-Oak,KC,SD,Den
NFC-
East- Dal,NYG,Phi,Was
South-TB,Atl,Car,NO
North- Chi,Det,GB,Min
West- LA,Sea,Az,SF
The more I look at it- the more I like it....
I looked into this since Weaver has always made it clear he would never sell if he thought the new owner would move the team.
This is what ESPN had to say:
http://espn.go.com/los-angeles/nfl/story...les-groups
While Weaver is confident Khan will keep the team in Jacksonville, there is nothing written in the deal which obligates Khan to do that.
Weaver's confidence stems from assurances Khan has made to him personally and the fact that the Jaguars' lease to play at EverBank Field runs through the 2029 season. If the Jaguars wanted to leave before the end of the deal, the lease requires the team to prove they had lost money in three consecutive seasons or to convince a local judge that the city was failing to properly maintain the stadium.