(02-22-2015 07:51 PM)goofus Wrote:  This would be hard to do if they are on the same network, but i guess you are right, they would just make sure it never gets scheduled that way.

New rules allow the other networks to grab one of each other's games. So it could be worked out.

IMO the Raiders will be the 2nd team in LA. They have a fan base already in LA, but not enough cash or leverage in Oakland to get a new stadium up there. Whatever team gets their stadium first in LA, either the Chargers or Rams, the Raiders will gladly be the second tenant. Having two teams in the same building makes it more cost effective to build. Personally, I think it will be the Rams, with the Raiders paying rent to Kroenke.

(02-21-2015 07:56 PM)DFW HOYA Wrote:  Don't be fooled--the next team in LA isn't the Raiders or the Lighyting Bolts, but LA's first team: Stan Kroenke's Rams.

And the next franchise move after that may be Buffalo to Toronto.

Your div. setup (moved teams in bold):

NFC East: Dal, NYG, Phil, Was
NFC South: Atl, NO, TB, Car
NFC North: Min, GB, Det, Chi
NFC West: LA, SF, Sea, Phx

AFC East: NE, NYJ, Tor, Bal
AFC South: Jax, Hou, Ten, Mia
AFC North: Cinc, Cle, Pit, Ind
AFC West: SD, Oak, Den, KC

While it's entirely possible there may be some realignment as a result of one or more teams moving to a new city, I doubt we'd see any sort of realignment like this. The divisions as they stand now were picked after lots of consultation with every team, and in the end, 31 out of 32 teams were satisfied with the result. While Miami might seem to be a better geographical fit in the AFC South, they are in the AFC East because that's what all four teams, who have shared a division since they were all founded in the old AFL, wanted. Similarly, the rest of the AFC North want the Ravens in their division and the Ravens want to be there. Those teams are unlikely to want to switch divisions and their division-mates will not want them to leave.

The lone opponent to the realignment plan was the Colts who badly wanted to be in the AFC East or AFC North, but instead got placed with two recent expansion teams and a recently relocated team, none of whom they had much history with and are geographically remote. They actually proposed this exact alignment (well, Buffalo instead of Toronto) as well as plans that would have moved just the Ravens or Dolphins to the South, but they got very little traction with rest of the league back then, and I doubt they would find any more support today.

(02-23-2015 11:51 AM)prp Wrote:  

(02-21-2015 07:56 PM)DFW HOYA Wrote:  Don't be fooled--the next team in LA isn't the Raiders or the Lighyting Bolts, but LA's first team: Stan Kroenke's Rams.

And the next franchise move after that may be Buffalo to Toronto.

Your div. setup (moved teams in bold):

NFC East: Dal, NYG, Phil, Was
NFC South: Atl, NO, TB, Car
NFC North: Min, GB, Det, Chi
NFC West: LA, SF, Sea, Phx

AFC East: NE, NYJ, Tor, Bal
AFC South: Jax, Hou, Ten, Mia
AFC North: Cinc, Cle, Pit, Ind
AFC West: SD, Oak, Den, KC

While it's entirely possible there may be some realignment as a result of one or more teams moving to a new city, I doubt we'd see any sort of realignment like this. The divisions as they stand now were picked after lots of consultation with every team, and in the end, 31 out of 32 teams were satisfied with the result. While Miami might seem to be a better geographical fit in the AFC South, they are in the AFC East because that's what all four teams, who have shared a division since they were all founded in the old AFL, wanted. Similarly, the rest of the AFC North want the Ravens in their division and the Ravens want to be there. Those teams are unlikely to want to switch divisions and their division-mates will not want them to leave.

The lone opponent to the realignment plan was the Colts who badly wanted to be in the AFC East or AFC North, but instead got placed with two recent expansion teams and a recently relocated team, none of whom they had much history with and are geographically remote. They actually proposed this exact alignment (well, Buffalo instead of Toronto) as well as plans that would have moved just the Ravens or Dolphins to the South, but they got very little traction with rest of the league back then, and I doubt they would find any more support today.

Yes!!! I agree with that.

AFC ***

EAST
New England
New York
Buffalo/Toronto
Baltimore

NORTH
Pittsburgh
Cleveland
Cincinnati
Indianapolis

SOUTH
Miami
Jacksonville
Tennessee
Houston

WEST
LA Raiders
San Diego
Kansas City
Denver

I know it won't happen, but it is more geographically correct.

(02-23-2015 11:51 AM)prp Wrote:  

(02-21-2015 07:56 PM)DFW HOYA Wrote:  Don't be fooled--the next team in LA isn't the Raiders or the Lighyting Bolts, but LA's first team: Stan Kroenke's Rams.

And the next franchise move after that may be Buffalo to Toronto.

Your div. setup (moved teams in bold):

NFC East: Dal, NYG, Phil, Was
NFC South: Atl, NO, TB, Car
NFC North: Min, GB, Det, Chi
NFC West: LA, SF, Sea, Phx

AFC East: NE, NYJ, Tor, Bal
AFC South: Jax, Hou, Ten, Mia
AFC North: Cinc, Cle, Pit, Ind
AFC West: SD, Oak, Den, KC

While it's entirely possible there may be some realignment as a result of one or more teams moving to a new city, I doubt we'd see any sort of realignment like this. The divisions as they stand now were picked after lots of consultation with every team, and in the end, 31 out of 32 teams were satisfied with the result. While Miami might seem to be a better geographical fit in the AFC South, they are in the AFC East because that's what all four teams, who have shared a division since they were all founded in the old AFL, wanted. Similarly, the rest of the AFC North want the Ravens in their division and the Ravens want to be there. Those teams are unlikely to want to switch divisions and their division-mates will not want them to leave.

The lone opponent to the realignment plan was the Colts who badly wanted to be in the AFC East or AFC North, but instead got placed with two recent expansion teams and a recently relocated team, none of whom they had much history with and are geographically remote. They actually proposed this exact alignment (well, Buffalo instead of Toronto) as well as plans that would have moved just the Ravens or Dolphins to the South, but they got very little traction with rest of the league back then, and I doubt they would find any more support today.

Yes, I agree. Miami (both the franchise and market) has pull with the league in a way that Indianapolis doesn't, which is why the Dolphins have remained in the AFC East. They didn't just suddenly forget about geography when they re-did the divisions several years ago - it was a highly politicized process then and it would be again. Since whoever ends up in LA is already in the West division of its conference (Rams, Raiders and/or Chargers), I don't see any impact to the rest of the divisions.

(02-23-2015 02:19 PM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  

(02-23-2015 11:51 AM)prp Wrote:  

(02-21-2015 07:56 PM)DFW HOYA Wrote:  Don't be fooled--the next team in LA isn't the Raiders or the Lighyting Bolts, but LA's first team: Stan Kroenke's Rams.

And the next franchise move after that may be Buffalo to Toronto.

Your div. setup (moved teams in bold):

NFC East: Dal, NYG, Phil, Was
NFC South: Atl, NO, TB, Car
NFC North: Min, GB, Det, Chi
NFC West: LA, SF, Sea, Phx

AFC East: NE, NYJ, Tor, Bal
AFC South: Jax, Hou, Ten, Mia
AFC North: Cinc, Cle, Pit, Ind
AFC West: SD, Oak, Den, KC

While it's entirely possible there may be some realignment as a result of one or more teams moving to a new city, I doubt we'd see any sort of realignment like this. The divisions as they stand now were picked after lots of consultation with every team, and in the end, 31 out of 32 teams were satisfied with the result. While Miami might seem to be a better geographical fit in the AFC South, they are in the AFC East because that's what all four teams, who have shared a division since they were all founded in the old AFL, wanted. Similarly, the rest of the AFC North want the Ravens in their division and the Ravens want to be there. Those teams are unlikely to want to switch divisions and their division-mates will not want them to leave.

The lone opponent to the realignment plan was the Colts who badly wanted to be in the AFC East or AFC North, but instead got placed with two recent expansion teams and a recently relocated team, none of whom they had much history with and are geographically remote. They actually proposed this exact alignment (well, Buffalo instead of Toronto) as well as plans that would have moved just the Ravens or Dolphins to the South, but they got very little traction with rest of the league back then, and I doubt they would find any more support today.

Yes, I agree. Miami (both the franchise and market) has pull with the league in a way that Indianapolis doesn't, which is why the Dolphins have remained in the AFC East. They didn't just suddenly forget about geography when they re-did the divisions several years ago - it was a highly politicized process then and it would be again. Since whoever ends up in LA is already in the West division of its conference (Rams, Raiders and/or Chargers), I don't see any impact to the rest of the divisions.

If, somehow, the Rams and Chargers wound up in LA, sharing a stadium or not, there would be no change at all to the divisions in either conference.

(02-22-2015 04:46 PM)adcorbett Wrote:  

(02-22-2015 04:40 PM)goofus Wrote:  This does bring up an interesting question. If LA does end up with 3 teams, which team is shown on tv if 2 teams are playing at the same time.

They would both be shown. Though the try to avoid it in the three areas that have two teams in NY, the Bay area, and the Cheseapeake Bay area (and back when LA had two teams), once or twice a year both teams play at the same time, and both games are shown.

The NFL puts West Coast teams all into the late afternoon Sunday window in order to avoid them having 10 am local start times. As a result, all LA teams would have to fit into the 2 late afternoon time slots on Fox and CBS. (This concern isn't applicable in the NYC and DC/Baltimore markets since they can use both the early and late Sunday afternoon windows.) If you have 3 teams in LA, this can't work unless you have an LA team playing on Sunday Night Football, Monday Night Football and/or Thursday Night Football every single week guaranteed.

I didn't think the NFL would ever allow 3 teams in the same market, anyway, but the West Coast TV time slot restrictions make it even worse for the LA market specifically.

(02-23-2015 02:33 PM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  

(02-22-2015 04:46 PM)adcorbett Wrote:  

(02-22-2015 04:40 PM)goofus Wrote:  This does bring up an interesting question. If LA does end up with 3 teams, which team is shown on tv if 2 teams are playing at the same time.

They would both be shown. Though the try to avoid it in the three areas that have two teams in NY, the Bay area, and the Cheseapeake Bay area (and back when LA had two teams), once or twice a year both teams play at the same time, and both games are shown.

The NFL puts West Coast teams all into the late afternoon Sunday window in order to avoid them having 10 am local start times. As a result, all LA teams would have to fit into the 2 late afternoon time slots on Fox and CBS. (This concern isn't applicable in the NYC and DC/Baltimore markets since they can use both the early and late Sunday afternoon windows.) If you have 3 teams in LA, this can't work unless you have an LA team playing on Sunday Night Football, Monday Night Football and/or Thursday Night Football every single week guaranteed.

I didn't think the NFL would ever allow 3 teams in the same market, anyway, but the West Coast TV time slot restrictions make it even worse for the LA market specifically.

You regularly see West Coast teams play 1pm games on the east coast. Obviously the home games you can't but regularly you see west coast teams playing on the east coast at 1pm et.

If there were only one new west coast team, I'm sure the NFL could find a way to accommodate it. If they can accommodate a game in London occasionally, they can figure out how to schedule five Pacific Time Zone teams.

(02-23-2015 02:33 PM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  

(02-22-2015 04:46 PM)adcorbett Wrote:  

(02-22-2015 04:40 PM)goofus Wrote:  This does bring up an interesting question. If LA does end up with 3 teams, which team is shown on tv if 2 teams are playing at the same time.

They would both be shown. Though the try to avoid it in the three areas that have two teams in NY, the Bay area, and the Cheseapeake Bay area (and back when LA had two teams), once or twice a year both teams play at the same time, and both games are shown.

The NFL puts West Coast teams all into the late afternoon Sunday window in order to avoid them having 10 am local start times. As a result, all LA teams would have to fit into the 2 late afternoon time slots on Fox and CBS. (

you forget they already have this issue in SF. From Wikipedia...

49ers and Raiders[edit]

The 49ers and Raiders are usually not scheduled at the same time, though this can mean that one of those teams will play a road game at 10:00 a.m. PT. To alleviate the conflicts, both teams will be scheduled for at least one prime time game, regardless of their records during the previous season.[19]
The following exceptions have been granted to this policy: During Week 15 of the 2009 season, the 49ers were originally scheduled to play at the Philadelphia Eagles in the early time slot, and the Raiders' game at the Denver Broncos was scheduled in the late time slot. However, a severe blizzard in the Philadelphia area forced the 49ers–Eagles game to be moved to the late time slot on only two days notice.[20]
In the 2011 season, the Raiders' Week 14 game at the Green Bay Packers was flexed from the early time slot to the late-afternoon time slot due to the fact that Green Bay was undefeated at the time and Oakland was in first place in the AFC West heading into the match-up, at the same time that the 49ers played at the Arizona Cardinals.[21]
Starting in 2012, there have been a number of times that the Raiders and 49ers have both played late games on Sunday, one playing at home and the other on the road. Whenever this happens, the must-show rule trumps the exclusivity rule, resulting in both games being shown in the Bay Area at the same time. 2012 Week 17 (Dec. 30): 49ers hosted Arizona Cardinals, Raiders played at San Diego Chargers.
2013 Week 17 (Dec. 29): Raiders hosted Denver Broncos, 49ers played at Arizona.
2014 Week 9 (Nov. 2): 49ers hosted St. Louis Rams, Raiders played at Seattle Seahawks.
2014 Week 17 (Dec. 28): 49ers hosted Cardinals, Raiders played at Broncos.

1 thing pretty much week 17 right now, you are going to have both teams playing at the same time, unless one of the games is flexed to the SNF slot. all games in week 17 are divisional.

(02-23-2015 04:06 PM)stever20 Wrote:  1 thing pretty much week 17 right now, you are going to have both teams playing at the same time, unless one of the games is flexed to the SNF slot. all games in week 17 are divisional.

They could just play each other

(02-23-2015 04:42 PM)adcorbett Wrote:  

(02-23-2015 04:06 PM)stever20 Wrote:  1 thing pretty much week 17 right now, you are going to have both teams playing at the same time, unless one of the games is flexed to the SNF slot. all games in week 17 are divisional.

They could just play each other

can't unless they are in the same division. Remember week 17 all games are divisional- started 3-4 years ago...

I assumed the issue we were referring to was scheduling with both in the same division. Has that changed?