If the Raiders and Chargers go to LA (improbable), these would be the West divisions:

AFC: Denver. Kansas City, LA Chargers, St. Louis or Seattle
NFC: Arizona, LA Raiders, San Francisco, Seattle or St. Louis

In no other scenario would teams change divisions, just cities.

The NFL should use this as an opportunity to address some different issues.

1) since the switch to all 4-team divisions, a number of mediocre division winners have made the playoffs, like last year's NFC south winner with a 7-9 record.

2) the NFL will eventually have a team in London, possibly the Jaguars.

3) NFL does not want 2 teams in same city in same division, but I am not sure why. I am going to guess because the visiting teams to visit the same city twice and confusion about who is the home team when the 2 LA teams play each other.

Most of these issues can be solved by going to 8-team divisions where everybody in same division plays each other once, not twice a year.

Western Conference
Mountain Pacific Division
LA Chargers, LA Raiders, SF, Sea, PHX, Den, KC, STL

Central Division
Minn, GB, Chi, Det, Indy, Hou, NO, Tenn

Eastern Conference
Mid-east division
Pitt, Cle, Cincy, Bal, Atl, Tampa, Car, Buf

Atlantic division
Jax/London, Miami, NE, NYJ, NYG, Philly, Wash, Dal

Another idea is to go back to 3 divisions in each conference.

AFC west
LA Chargers, Denver, KC, Sea, Hou

NFC west
LA Raiders, STL, Phx, SF, NO

NFC central
Minn, GB, Chi, Det, Atl, Tampa

AFC central
Pitt, Balt, Cle, Cincy, Tenn, Indy

NFC east
Dal, wash, Philly, NYG, Car

AFC east
NE, NYJ, Buf, Mia, Jax

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

As a Patriot fan, I'd like to dump the Dolphins out of the AFC East and pick up the Ravens.

New England-New York-Buffalo-Baltimore makes sense geographically.

(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

We almost had the AFC North as above, but the Browns objected to being in a "turnpike division".

(02-21-2015 09:55 PM)UConn-SMU Wrote:  As a Patriot fan, I'd like to dump the Dolphins out of the AFC East and pick up the Ravens.

New England-New York-Buffalo-Baltimore makes sense geographically.

Be careful what you wish for.

(02-21-2015 04:38 PM)goofus Wrote:  Most of these issues can be solved by going to 8-team divisions where everybody in same division plays each other once, not twice a year.

NFC
West - SEA, SF, AZ, STL, CHI, MN, GB, DET
East - DAL, WAS, PHI, NYG, NO, ATL, TB, CAR

AFC
West - SD, OAK, DEN, KC, HOU, CLE, CIN, TN
East - MIA, JAX, BAL, NYJ, NE, BUF, PIT, IND

You don't have the clean symmetry with scheduling cross-division games as you do with the four-team divisions, but I would go with teams that finished in the top half of the division the previous year play the teams in the opposite division that finished in the top half of their division. This actually makes for a total of 11 games, so I would have the 12th game be either a rematch of a divisional opponent (i.e. previous year's division champion and runner-up face each other, and so on down the line), or make it a cross division game (1st vs 5th, 2nd vs 6th, etc.).

The AFC-NFC games could still be rotated the same way using the old division alignments, except Cleveland and Cincinnati would have been presumed to replace Jacksonville and Indianapolis in the AFC South.

(02-21-2015 04:38 PM)goofus Wrote:  The NFL should use this as an opportunity to address some different issues.

1) since the switch to all 4-team divisions, a number of mediocre division winners have made the playoffs, like last year's NFC south winner with a 7-9 record.

2) the NFL will eventually have a team in London, possibly the Jaguars.

3) NFL does not want 2 teams in same city in same division, but I am not sure why. I am going to guess because the visiting teams to visit the same city twice and confusion about who is the home team when the 2 LA teams play each other.

Most of these issues can be solved by going to 8-team divisions where everybody in same division plays each other once, not twice a year.

Western Conference
Mountain Pacific Division
LA Chargers, LA Raiders, SF, Sea, PHX, Den, KC, STL

Central Division
Minn, GB, Chi, Det, Indy, Hou, NO, Tenn

Eastern Conference
Mid-east division
Pitt, Cle, Cincy, Bal, Atl, Tampa, Car, Buf

Atlantic division
Jax/London, Miami, NE, NYJ, NYG, Philly, Wash, Dal

I think you miss the point of four-team divisions. It is to keep as many franchises in the playoff hunt for as long as possible. With an 8-team division, that 8-8 or even 7-9 team that currently still has a chance to win its division has hope, and so do its fans. With 8 teams, they aren't even going to sniff the playoffs and their late season games lose interest.

(02-22-2015 09:14 AM)ken d Wrote:  

(02-21-2015 04:38 PM)goofus Wrote:  The NFL should use this as an opportunity to address some different issues.

1) since the switch to all 4-team divisions, a number of mediocre division winners have made the playoffs, like last year's NFC south winner with a 7-9 record.

2) the NFL will eventually have a team in London, possibly the Jaguars.

3) NFL does not want 2 teams in same city in same division, but I am not sure why. I am going to guess because the visiting teams to visit the same city twice and confusion about who is the home team when the 2 LA teams play each other.

Most of these issues can be solved by going to 8-team divisions where everybody in same division plays each other once, not twice a year.

Western Conference
Mountain Pacific Division
LA Chargers, LA Raiders, SF, Sea, PHX, Den, KC, STL

Central Division
Minn, GB, Chi, Det, Indy, Hou, NO, Tenn

Eastern Conference
Mid-east division
Pitt, Cle, Cincy, Bal, Atl, Tampa, Car, Buf

Atlantic division
Jax/London, Miami, NE, NYJ, NYG, Philly, Wash, Dal

I think you miss the point of four-team divisions. It is to keep as many franchises in the playoff hunt for as long as possible. With an 8-team division, that 8-8 or even 7-9 team that currently still has a chance to win its division has hope, and so do its fans. With 8 teams, they aren't even going to sniff the playoffs and their late season games lose interest.

Bingo. This is an integral part of why NFL interest is so high throughout the regular season. Everyone believes that they have a hot at the playoffs if things break the right way.

(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

The Dolphins in the AFC East are similar to the Cowboys in the NFC East. Miami fought against being placed into the AFC South before and they'd do it again with the pull they have with the NFL. Note that the Patriots and Jets owners like Miami in their division with all of the NYC and Boston transplants in South Florida - they get a huge percent of the crowd in Miami, whereas Baltimore is a very tough legit road game.

The reason the NFL wants two different divisions in Los Angeles is for the television networks. One team in the AFC and one in the NFC. So, one for Fox and one for CBS.

I think the Rams are moving back to Los Angeles.

From what I have read, the Raiders and Chargers are cash poor. Unless the owners are willing to release some of the ownership, these teams may not have the clout to compete in today's NFL.

There could be an article or book about how Steve Ballmer and his purchase price of the Clippers changed everything.

(02-22-2015 12:52 PM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  

(02-22-2015 09:14 AM)ken d Wrote:  I think you miss the point of four-team divisions. It is to keep as many franchises in the playoff hunt for as long as possible. With an 8-team division, that 8-8 or even 7-9 team that currently still has a chance to win its division has hope, and so do its fans. With 8 teams, they aren't even going to sniff the playoffs and their late season games lose interest.

Bingo. This is an integral part of why NFL interest is so high throughout the regular season. Everyone believes that they have a hot at the playoffs if things break the right way.

Well jeez, I would hope so. If and when the NFL playoff goes to 16 ... that's half the teams making it every year.

(02-21-2015 09:55 PM)UConn-SMU Wrote:  As a Patriot fan, I'd like to dump the Dolphins out of the AFC East and pick up the Ravens.

New England-New York-Buffalo-Baltimore makes sense geographically.

The Ravens would fight tooth and nail against moving out of a division with Pittsburgh. Pittsbugh would fight agains moving them away from the Ravens or Browns or the Browns moving them away from the the bengals, steelers, and probably the Ravens as well.

The only divisions that could be broken up without too much flack would be the two south divisions, as both have random assortments of teams (although the NFC south is mostly the old NFC west) that were shaved off other divisions in the last realignment. But even then you'd have some fight.

(02-22-2015 09:14 AM)ken d Wrote:  

(02-21-2015 04:38 PM)goofus Wrote:  The NFL should use this as an opportunity to address some different issues.

1) since the switch to all 4-team divisions, a number of mediocre division winners have made the playoffs, like last year's NFC south winner with a 7-9 record.

2) the NFL will eventually have a team in London, possibly the Jaguars.

3) NFL does not want 2 teams in same city in same division, but I am not sure why. I am going to guess because the visiting teams to visit the same city twice and confusion about who is the home team when the 2 LA teams play each other.

Most of these issues can be solved by going to 8-team divisions where everybody in same division plays each other once, not twice a year.

Western Conference
Mountain Pacific Division
LA Chargers, LA Raiders, SF, Sea, PHX, Den, KC, STL

Central Division
Minn, GB, Chi, Det, Indy, Hou, NO, Tenn

Eastern Conference
Mid-east division
Pitt, Cle, Cincy, Bal, Atl, Tampa, Car, Buf

Atlantic division
Jax/London, Miami, NE, NYJ, NYG, Philly, Wash, Dal

I think you miss the point of four-team divisions. It is to keep as many franchises in the playoff hunt for as long as possible. With an 8-team division, that 8-8 or even 7-9 team that currently still has a chance to win its division has hope, and so do its fans. With 8 teams, they aren't even going to sniff the playoffs and their late season games lose interest.

Yup....that why Pro Football went to smaller divisions in the Mid 60s....before it use to be 6/7 Team Divisions in the Pre Merger NFL-(Now known as the NFC)...for the uneducated the current AFC is for the most part the Old AFL Which was a separate league.

(02-22-2015 01:04 PM)chess Wrote:  The reason the NFL wants two different divisions in Los Angeles is for the television networks. One team in the AFC and one in the NFC. So, one for Fox and one for CBS.

I think the Rams are moving back to Los Angeles.

Yes, that is the way the NFL has always been set up, but does it need to be that way? Maybe the future is tv contracts split 50/50 with no conferences defined. Kinda like the Pac-12 and Big 12 contracts now. Split evenly between Fox and ESPN with the networks alternating who gets the top game.

You could do the same thing with NFL. Or maybe you could set it up so that the Raiders and Chargers both stay in the AFC but CBS gets half of their tv games and Fox gets the other half.

(02-22-2015 04:05 PM)goofus Wrote:  

(02-22-2015 01:04 PM)chess Wrote:  The reason the NFL wants two different divisions in Los Angeles is for the television networks. One team in the AFC and one in the NFC. So, one for Fox and one for CBS.

I think the Rams are moving back to Los Angeles.

Yes, that is the way the NFL has always been set up, but does it need to be that way? Maybe the future is tv contracts split 50/50 with no conferences defined. Kinda like the Pac-12 and Big 12 contracts now. Split evenly between Fox and ESPN with the networks alternating who gets the top game.

The networks like it the way it is too. But the thing is, the NFC, being comprised of mostly original NFL franchiises, already has many bigger markets. Chicago, Philly, Dallas, DC, Atlanta are all top ten markets that are NFC exclusive, along with shared markets in the Bay area, and NYC, with no LA, gives the NFC package 7 of the top ten markets, to only 4 for the AFC. So if anything, this just evens them out.

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.

(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.

(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.

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.