Rather than having threads for a Las Vegas team, a game in Mexico City, etc. we can have one thread for the relevant realignment discussion.

I say keep things as they are. Divisions are perfect as far as I'm concerned.

They're not geographically perfect but given the historic rivalries, I see no reason to change any division. Perhaps at some point, if the Jags move to London, then they can move to the AFC East and the Dolphins can move to the AFC South but that's about it.

It can be argued the the Ravens or Dolphins should have been in the AFC South from the start while the Colts could have taken their place in the opposing division but that's water under the bridge now.

(02-08-2016 10:31 PM)ClairtonPanther Wrote:  I say keep things as they are. Divisions are perfect as far as I'm concerned.

Yes...the Divisions are just fine.

switch Miami and Indianapolis

(02-09-2016 11:59 AM)EvilVodka Wrote:  switch Miami and Indianapolis

Actually you could do a lot of switching with the Southern Divisions....

AFC South
New Orleans
St. Louis Jaguars :)
Houston
Tennessee

NFC South
Carolina
Miami
Atlanta
Tampa Bay

These divisions would be more geographically friendly

I don't think the NFL wants to separate the Dolphins from the Patriots, Jets and Bills. Those rivalries have been going back for over 50 years now.

(02-09-2016 12:42 PM)All Dukes_All Day Wrote:  I don't think the NFL wants to separate the Dolphins from the Patriots, Jets and Bills. Those rivalries have been going back for over 50 years now.

AFC South
Tampa Bay
Jaguars
Tennessee
Indianapolis

NFC South
Carolina
Atlanta
New Orleans
Houston

well maybe you could have this? I'd just like to see Houston have a regional rival in Dallas or New Orleans. This would also make Tampa Bay and Jacksonville regional rivals

I feel like the rest of the NFL divisions work except the South Divisions....

(02-09-2016 12:19 PM)EvilVodka Wrote:  

(02-09-2016 11:59 AM)EvilVodka Wrote:  switch Miami and Indianapolis

Actually you could do a lot of switching with the Southern Divisions....

AFC South
New Orleans
St. Louis Jaguars :)
Houston
Tennessee

NFC South
Carolina
Miami
Atlanta
Tampa Bay

These divisions would be more geographically friendly

I few know or care, but ATL - NO have been rivals in suckage since the teams were founded.

(02-09-2016 04:12 PM)vandiver49 Wrote:  

(02-09-2016 12:19 PM)EvilVodka Wrote:  

(02-09-2016 11:59 AM)EvilVodka Wrote:  switch Miami and Indianapolis

Actually you could do a lot of switching with the Southern Divisions....

AFC South
New Orleans
St. Louis Jaguars :)
Houston
Tennessee

NFC South
Carolina
Miami
Atlanta
Tampa Bay

These divisions would be more geographically friendly

I few know or care, but ATL - NO have been rivals in suckage since the teams were founded.

Yup...again the divisions are just fine.

St Louis Jags in the AFC South.

(02-09-2016 04:17 AM)_C2_ Wrote:  They're not geographically perfect but given the historic rivalries, I see no reason to change any division.

That's the reason for a few of the divisions. The league wanted to preserve some of the historic alignments:

The four teams in the AFC West have been in the same division going back all the way to the AFL West in the first year of the AFL in 1960.

The four teams in the AFC East have been in the same division since the Dolphins joined the AFL in 1966.

The NFC North teams have been all together since the Vikings joined the NFL in 1961; they became a four-team NFL Central division in 1967.

The NFC East teams have been all together in the same division since 1970.

The Browns, Bengals, and Steelers were in the AFC Central since the Steelers moved to the AFC in 1970, now their division is those three teams plus the ex-Browns in Baltimore.

That's 5 of 8 divisions based on NFL/AFL history. The fourth AFC division is just the four teams not in one of the three "historic" divisions, and the other two NFC divisions make good geographic sense, especially with the Rams returning to LA.

There only thing the NFL should change is to not guarantee home playoff games to a division winner if they have a worse record than a wild card team. Winning your division should guarantee you a spot, but you should be seeded based on your record. Example: Both the Texans and Redskins should've played on the road in the WC round this year.

(02-11-2016 12:55 PM)All Dukes_All Day Wrote:  There only thing the NFL should change is to not guarantee home playoff games to a division winner if they have a worse record than a wild card team. Winning your division should guarantee you a spot, but you should be seeded based on your record. Example: Both the Texans and Redskins should've played on the road in the WC round this year.

They should do it like the NBA does. The seeding process stays the same, but the team with the best record still gets home field advantage.

Home field didn't help the Vikings make a FG.

It is what it is. Both WC teams would have had their opportunities to win their respective divisions. They didn't. So they go on the road.

(02-11-2016 03:09 PM)MplsBison Wrote:  Home field didn't help the Vikings make a FG.

It is what it is. Both WC teams would have had their opportunities to win their respective divisions. They didn't. So they go on the road.

The Viking were not the team at issue. It was the 9-7 Redskins hosting the 11-5 Packers. Or others in the last few years. I agree division winners should be int he playoffs, even if they do not have one of the best six records. But with four divisions, and six slots.... we've had several years where a 13-3 team, or a team with the second best record in the ENTIRE league, was a 5 seed. "winning your divisions" isn't enough: a couple of years ago the Raiders were 6-0 in their division, and still sat home. So it is what it is.

(02-11-2016 12:55 PM)All Dukes_All Day Wrote:  There only thing the NFL should change is to not guarantee home playoff games to a division winner if they have a worse record than a wild card team. Winning your division should guarantee you a spot, but you should be seeded based on your record. Example: Both the Texans and Redskins should've played on the road in the WC round this year.

The problem with that is everyone plays almost completely different schedules. I'd be okay with it if a rule was enacted that 8-8 or below wasn't allowed to host a wild card game unless warranted (i.e. they legitimately won the W/L and tiebreaker) but no two out of division opponents play anything close to the same schedule.

(02-11-2016 01:36 PM)adcorbett Wrote:  They should do it like the NBA does. The seeding process stays the same, but the team with the best record still gets home field advantage.

That works as well.

Corbett,

agree to disagree. Winning the division should be everything. It further legitimizes the regular season inter-divisional double round-robin, as it should be.

I'd be fine if they didn't even have Wild Cards, but obviously never going to roll that back. And it does give two opportunities to teams that are very talented, but for whatever reason couldn't beat out their respective division winners.

But the price to pay for those WC slots is that you have to hit the road, Jack!

(02-12-2016 11:21 AM)MplsBison Wrote:  Corbett,

agree to disagree. Winning the division should be everything. It further legitimizes the regular season inter-divisional double round-robin, as it should be.

When the division is not even half of your games, and you can sweep your division and still be left out, as Oakland was in 2010, I think it proves that winning your division is not everything.

See you around... whatever you did...

If I had my way: flip flop Dallas and Carolina.