+- CSNbbs (https://csnbbs.com)
+-- Forum: Active Boards (/forum-769.html)
+--- Forum: Lounge (/forum-564.html)
+---- Forum: The Sports Bar (/forum-531.html)
+----- Forum: Pro Sports (/forum-516.html)
+----- Thread: The NFL had Jacksonville not gotten a team (/thread-1010138.html)
The NFL had Jacksonville not gotten a team - Fighting Muskie - 05-11-2025 02:39 PM
This is pure speculation but had the NFL took a real hard look at the Jacksonville market and determined it wasn’t up to par, here’s how I think things go:
St Louis gets an expansion team. With St Louis being a former NFC city and not wanting 2 AFC teams in Missouri, the St Louis Stallions join the NFC South, resulting in the Carolina Panthers becoming an AFC Central team.
In 1996, the LA Rams obviously can’t go to to St Louis so instead they move to San Antonio—resulting in an NFC West of SF 49ers, SA Rams, St Louis Stallions, NO Saints, & Atlanta Falcons.
The Browns and Oilers still relocate as normal and Cleveland and Houston get expansion teams. The realignment to 32 looks like this:
NFC East: Same
NFC North: Same
NFC South: TB, Atlanta, NO, St Louis Stallions
NFC West: SA Rams, Arizona, SF, Seattle
AFC East: Same
AFC North: Same
AFC South: Carolina, Tenn, Houston, Indianapolis
AFC West: Same
At this point, I think future realignment becomes dependent on ownership and whether or not Stan Kronke owns a team and which one. If the St. Louis ownership is more civically minded and connected to St Louis then perhaps they stay. Same story with the SA Rams.
I’m guessing the Raiders and Chargers still relocate but if the Rams and Stallions aren’t in the race to LA, maybe it’s those 2 who share a new LA Stadium.
RE: The NFL had Jacksonville not gotten a team - goofus - 05-27-2025 09:04 AM
Brfore the 2002 re-org
In 1993 expansion, St Louis is probably put in the NFC West because KC is in the AFC.
Carolina is put in the AFC Central.
The SA Rams will stay in the NFC West
The Ravens and new Browns will be on AFC Central.
After 2002
NFC South will be St Louis Stallions, NO, Atl, Tampa
NFC West would be SA Rams, SF, Sea, Ariz
AFC South would be Indy, Hou, Carolina, Tenn
LA would still not have a team
Chargers end up building new stadium in San Diego.
Raiders still move to LV
RE: The NFL had Jacksonville not gotten a team - BePcr07 - 05-28-2025 11:04 AM
Our Timeline, Expansions / Relocations / Deactivations / Reinstatements:
1995 - Expansion: Carolina, Jacksonville; Relocation: Oakland (Los Angeles), St. Louis (Los Angeles)
1996 - Deactivated: Cleveland; Expansion: Baltimore
1997 - Relocation: Tennessee (Houston)
1999 - Reinstatement: Cleveland
2002 - Expansion: Houston
2016 - Relocation: Los Angeles (St. Louis)
2017 - Relocation: Los Angeles (San Diego)
2020 - Relocation: Las Vegas (Oakland)
Let's rewind and presume Jacksonville does not get an expansion. Who's next? Presumably, St. Louis who is named the Stallions (for this exercise). If St. Louis gets an expansion, the Rams likely still relocate but to Baltimore and rename as the Ravens. Cleveland still "deactivates" but the expansion, instead of Baltimore, is Nashville to become the Tennessee Titans. Houston ends up not relocating to Tennessee and remains the Houston Oilers. The 2002 expansion is Los Angeles and takes on the Rams name.
Alignment:
Carolina is still NFC. St. Louis is AFC because Jacksonville is AFC in our timeline. Baltimore is NFC because of the Rams. Tennessee is AFC because it takes the place of Cleveland. Houston remains AFC. Seattle remains AFC unlike our timeline and the new Los Angeles expansion goes NFC.
AFC
East: Buffalo Bills, Miami Dolphins, New England Patriots, New York Jets
North: Cincinnati Bengals, Cleveland Browns, Indianapolis Colts, Pittsburgh Steelers
South: Houston Oilers, Kansas City Chiefs, St. Louis Stallions, Tennessee Titans
West: Denver Broncos, Las Vegas Raiders, Los Angeles Chargers, Seattle Seahawks
NFC
East: Dallas Cowboys, New York Giants, Philadelphia Eagles, Washington Commanders
North: Chicago Bears, Detroit Lions, Green Bay Packers, Minnesota Vikings
South: Atlanta Falcons, Baltimore Ravens, Carolina Panthers, Tampa Bay Buccaneers
West: Arizona Cardinals, Los Angeles Rams, New Orleans Saints, San Francisco 49ers
RE: The NFL had Jacksonville not gotten a team - vandiver49 - 05-30-2025 12:02 PM
IMO if there is a team in STL I don't think the Rams move from LA. What happens is that when the Raiders go back to Oakland, the Rams move into the Coliseum
RE: The NFL had Jacksonville not gotten a team - chargeradio - 05-31-2025 03:11 PM
I think the NFL would want Baltimore and Washington in different conferences based on how the TV contracts are done; the same applies to Saint Louis and Kansas City. The Panthers wind up jn the AFC
AFC (1995)
East: Buffalo Bills, Miami Dolphins, New England Patriots, New York Jets, Indianapolis Colts
Central: Cincinnati Bengals, Tennessee Titans (Browns), Pittsburgh Steelers, Baltimore Ravens (Rams), Carolina Panthers
West: Denver Broncos, Oakland Raiders, San Diego Chargers, Houston Oilers, Kansas City Chiefs
NFC (1995)
East: Dallas Cowboys, New York Giants, Philadelphia Eagles, Washington, Tampa Bay Buccaneers
Central: Chicago Bears, Detroit Lions, Green Bay Packers, Minnesota Vikings, Saint Louis Stallions
West: Arizona Cardinals, San Francisco 49ers, Seattle Seahawks, Atlanta Falcons, New Orleans Saints
By 2002 the return of the LA Rams and Cleveland Browns gives us the alignment we know today, except for Carolina being in the AFC South and Saint Louis in the NFC South.
RE: The NFL had Jacksonville not gotten a team - BePcr07 - 06-01-2025 12:08 PM
(05-31-2025 03:11 PM)chargeradio Wrote: I think the NFL would want Baltimore and Washington in different conferences based on how the TV contracts are done; the same applies to Saint Louis and Kansas City. The Panthers wind up jn the AFC
AFC (1995)
East: Buffalo Bills, Miami Dolphins, New England Patriots, New York Jets, Indianapolis Colts
Central: Cincinnati Bengals, Tennessee Titans (Browns), Pittsburgh Steelers, Baltimore Ravens (Rams), Carolina Panthers
West: Denver Broncos, Oakland Raiders, San Diego Chargers, Houston Oilers, Kansas City Chiefs
NFC (1995)
East: Dallas Cowboys, New York Giants, Philadelphia Eagles, Washington, Tampa Bay Buccaneers
Central: Chicago Bears, Detroit Lions, Green Bay Packers, Minnesota Vikings, Saint Louis Stallions
West: Arizona Cardinals, San Francisco 49ers, Seattle Seahawks, Atlanta Falcons, New Orleans Saints
By 2002 the return of the LA Rams and Cleveland Browns gives us the alignment we know today, except for Carolina being in the AFC South and Saint Louis in the NFC South.
I agree but I’m not 100% sure it truly matters.
NFL has both Ohio teams in the AFC. MLB has both Pennsylvania teams in the NL. I think it’s a preference but not a requirement.
RE: The NFL had Jacksonville not gotten a team - chargeradio - 06-01-2025 05:58 PM
(06-01-2025 12:08 PM)BePcr07 Wrote: NFL has both Ohio teams in the AFC. MLB has both Pennsylvania teams in the NL. I think it’s a preference but not a requirement.Washington/Baltimore is a much larger market than Cleveland and Cincinnati. For Kansas City the next closest NFC team would be Chicago or Minnesota. Fox and CBS would definitely have wanted it.
Admittedly the NFL hasn't executed it perfectly, especially with the AFC North and NFC South, but this paradigm has persisted with the NFL's TV contracts for decades.
Some non-NFL markets like Louisville are a rather interesting case as all of the surrounding teams (Titans, Colts, Bengals) are in the AFC. At least with Saint Louis in the NFC there would be natural pick for the Louisville market, as Detroit, Chicago, and Atlanta are all slightly further away. In Missouri, Columbia and Springfield stations probably would want the Chiefs and Stallions in separate conferences.
Carolina in the AFC would also likely make the either the Panthers or Titans the default AFC team in the Atlanta market, especially since they would be playing twice a year in this scenario. On the flip side the Falcons would be the default NFC team in the Charlotte market
RE: The NFL had Jacksonville not gotten a team - BePcr07 - 06-02-2025 09:10 AM
(06-01-2025 05:58 PM)chargeradio Wrote:(06-01-2025 12:08 PM)BePcr07 Wrote: NFL has both Ohio teams in the AFC. MLB has both Pennsylvania teams in the NL. I think it’s a preference but not a requirement.Washington/Baltimore is a much larger market than Cleveland and Cincinnati. For Kansas City the next closest NFC team would be Chicago or Minnesota. Fox and CBS would definitely have wanted it.
Admittedly the NFL hasn't executed it perfectly, especially with the AFC North and NFC South, but this paradigm has persisted with the NFL's TV contracts for decades.
Some non-NFL markets like Louisville are a rather interesting case as all of the surrounding teams (Titans, Colts, Bengals) are in the AFC. At least with Saint Louis in the NFC there would be natural pick for the Louisville market, as Detroit, Chicago, and Atlanta are all slightly further away. In Missouri, Columbia and Springfield stations probably would want the Chiefs and Stallions in separate conferences.
Carolina in the AFC would also likely make the either the Panthers or Titans the default AFC team in the Atlanta market, especially since they would be playing twice a year in this scenario. On the flip side the Falcons would be the default NFC team in the Charlotte market
Those are good points. My thought on near-market teams in the same conference or league is more for scheduling and the occurrence of those matchups. Admittedly, it’s a fan’s perspective and not a TV executive or other business executive perspective.
RE: The NFL had Jacksonville not gotten a team - Bronco'14 - 06-14-2025 11:01 PM
There's a YouTube video 'Why Jacksonville Has An NFL Team' that pops up a lot I need to watch sometime
RE: The NFL had Jacksonville not gotten a team - Fighting Muskie - 08-23-2026 12:23 PM
Oddly enough, I think if St Louis got the expansion franchise and SA got the Rams, the Rams ownership, whoever they would be, would use the aging Alamo Dome as their reason to return to LA in the 2010s.