NFL: NFL Considering Expansion

[Sigmapolis]

Atlanta and New Orleans in the West bothers me (Just like it does in the NBA), need to come up with names for conferences that aren't geographic in nature if you're gonna go this route IMO.

The NFC before 2001 (and the 8x4 alignment) must have driven you insane.



I put ATL and NO in the NFC West because that was historically their home. Same reason I wanted to put Tampa Bay in the NFC Central -- that was where they resided back in the day.

I could see a variation for the NFC of...

E = DAL NYG PHI TB TOR WAS
C = ATL CAR CHI DET GB MIN
W = AZ LAR NO SF SEA STL

Move TB to the NFC East -- the large fanbases of the other teams in the division would appreciate a winter vacation to Tampa and/or already live down there. Tampa has a ton of snowbirds. I would imagine TB would sell a lot of tickets to retired Giants, Eagles, Washington, and Toronto fans.

ATL and CAR moved to the NFC Central as the best geographical fits.

NO and the STL expansion are somewhat "western" teams. The St. Louis Rams were in the NFC West before moving back to Los Angeles. NO is the most isolated of the NFC South teams as it is. So send them out west with the four West Coast franchises and maybe that solves some of the problems you had.

I think the important part is keeping the NFC East and NFC North as they are now together, which this does.

 

[ISUcyclones11]

San Antonio probably needs to happen before any of the other options

St Louis is more NFL ready with their stadium. SA would probably have to have massive reno or a new stadium altogether.

 

[ISUcyclones11]

The NFC before 2001 (and the 8x4 alignment) must have driven you insane.

View attachment 91829

I put ATL and NO in the NFC West because that was historically their home. Same reason I wanted to put Tampa Bay in the NFC Central -- that was where they resided back in the day.

I could see a variation for the NFC of...

E = DAL NYG PHI TB TOR WAS
C = ATL CAR CHI DET GB MIN
W = AZ LAR NO SF SEA STL

Move TB to the NFC East -- the large fanbases of the other teams in the division would appreciate a winter vacation to Tampa and/or already live down there. Tampa has a ton of snowbirds. I would imagine TB would sell a lot of tickets to retired Giants, Eagles, Washington, and Toronto fans.

ATL and CAR moved to the NFC Central as the best geographical fits.

NO and the STL expansion are somewhat "western" teams. The St. Louis Rams were in the NFC West before moving back to Los Angeles. NO is the most isolated of the NFC South teams as it is. So send them out west with the four West Coast franchises and maybe that solves some of the problems you had.

I think the important part is keeping the NFC East and NFC North as they are now together, which this does.

Serious question...is there any reason to keep AFC and NFC and just go East/West?

 

[DSM4Cy]

Pretty sure there won't be a team in Toronto. The Bills' experiment failed badly and the Canadian government will get involved to prevent the NFL from destroying the CFL. London and Mexico City both present lots of additional $$ not currently available and the NFL is telegraphing their priority with where they've scheduled the international games - and that they keep going back to both markets. I'm with the folks who think there needs to be 2 European teams for the travel to make sense, but maybe they just put the one and live with it. That leaves 2 American expansion teams for a good number (36 - 34 wouldn't work well) and STL and SA feel pretty obvious at this point.

 

[Sigmapolis]

Serious question...is there any reason to keep AFC and NFC and just go East/West?

Six of the divisions (all of them save the two South divisions) are made up of foursomes of historical rivalries that stretch decades into the past at this point. You wouldn't want to break them up.

There's no practical way to make an East/West without doing that.

The two conferences descend from the original NFL and AFL rivalry in the 1960s. Yeah, it is a vestige of history at this point, but it is a fun one, kind of like having an NL and AL in baseball.

It is also my understanding the television packages are built around the conferences. Fox owns the NFC package and CBS owns the AFC package. Splitting the league up into two television products with a national footprint has obvious advantages, and so does having one franchise in each television package in New York and Los Angeles like they do. So I don't think the NFC or AFC are going anywhere.

 

[isucy86]

36 teams means six divisions of 3 in each conference. Play your own division home and away (4 games), two of the other five in your own conference (6 games), two of the six in the opposite conference (6 games), and then two games against teams that finished in the same position as you in their division from the remaining three divisions in your conference. That’s 18 games, 16 of which are shared with your divisionmates for fairness.

8 playoff teams per conference; no byes. But the two wild cards get seeds 7 and 8 to promote winning divisions.

If they expanded with STL, SA, LON, and TOR, divisions could look something like:
NFC:
1 - SEA, SF, LAR
2 - ARI, STL, NO
3 - MIN, GB, CHI
4 - TB, ATL, CAR
5 - NYG, PHI, DET
6 - DAL, SA, WAS

AFC:
1 - LV, LAC, DEN
2 - HOU, KC, IND
3 - CIN, CLE, PIT
4 - NYJ, NE, LON
5 - MIA, JAX, TEN
6 - BAL, BUF, TOR

3 team divisions, really aren't divisions. If there is one thing the NFL could do to improve its product is create more rivalry games where teams play home/road each season. I am a Cowboys and Bears fan and their games against NYG, WFT, Philly, MN, GB & Det are highlights of the season.

I would go with 3 six team divisions. Play 10 home/road rivalry games against teams in your division and then play 3 games against teams in each division within the same conference and then 1 or 2 inter conference games.

If I were the NFL, not sure I would stop at 36. Why not go with 40? Have 2 twenty team conferences with 4 divisions of 5 teams. That would be a big jump, but if the NFL is wanting to expand to Europe- go big with London, Madrid, Berlin, Rome and Paris. Then add 3 North American teams in Toronto, Mexico City and Vancouver (or Portland).

Long Term (10 year horizon) it may be interesting to see if Jacksonville moves or the Chargers return to SD.

 

[isufbcurt]

Says a guy who has probably never been to Mexico City. There are plenty of safe parts, especially Polanco which is where the teams stay when they visit there.

I'm doing a day trip to Mexico City on 11/21 and coming back on 11/22. I've been told the part I'm going to is the Beverly Hills of Mexico City lol. I'm excited to see what it's like.

 

[isufbcurt]

Mexico City is over 7,000' in elevation, like 2,000' more than Denver. It would also become the most isolated city in the NFL, with Houston being the closest city at 2 hours 15 minutes away by plane. Seattle right now is the furthest from any other city at 2 hour flight to SF. I doubt you'll get many takers for driving to Mexico City too, plus a language barrier. It would just make no sense.

My flight from to Chicago to Mexico City on 11/21 is 4h 20 min, that's not really a huge amount of time

 

[KnappShack]

Not true for San Diego. As a former season ticket holder I can tell you first hand that the Chargers had really good support until the Spanos clan poisoned the well. After the BS that family put this city through they, rightfully, lost all goodwill. The worst owners in the history of sports.

I did see a dude with Charger bolts tattooed on either side of his bald head.

Had to respect that

 

[cyIclSoneU]

6x6 would seem more obvious to me.

Keeping your set of teams...

NFC
East = CAR, DAL, NYG, PHI, TOR, WAS
Central = CHI, DET, GB, MIN, STL, TB
West = ATL, AZ, NO, LAR, SF, SEA

AFC
East = BUF, JAX, LON, MIA, NE, NYJ
Central = BAL, CIN, CLE, IND, PIT, TEN
West = DEN, HOU, KC, LV, LAC, SA

Breaks the two south divisions up, but they have the weakest rivalries.

6 team divisions means you play 10 of the same games every year, leaving only 8 games to play the remaining 30 teams in the league. Doesn’t seem like a good fit.

 

[cyclones500]

I put ATL and NO in the NFC West because that was historically their home. Same reason I wanted to put Tampa Bay in the NFC Central -- that was where they resided back in the day.

A wild nugget: During Tampa Bay and Seattle expansion season in '76, TB was in AFC West, Seattle in NFC West -- switched conferences the next season, Seahawks NFC West, Bucs in NFC "Norris." Can't get much more "un-West" than Tampa.

 

[Sigmapolis]

6 team divisions means you play 10 of the same games every year, leaving only 8 games to play the remaining 30 teams in the league. Doesn’t seem like a good fit.

It is not unprecedented. The AFL Central had six teams before the 8x4 realignment.



I don't see the problem emphasizing regional and historical rivalries like that would do.

Before the 17-game schedule, teams played six games in division and 16 overall.

6/16 = 37.5%
10/18 = 55.6%

Is that really that huge of departure?

The other option would be conferences of 5/5/4/4 divisions, which I suppose could work.

A wild nugget: During Tampa Bay and Seattle expansion season in '76, TB was in AFC West, Seattle in NFC West -- switched conferences the next season, Seahawks NFC West, Bucs in NFC "Norris." Can't get much more "un-West" than Tampa.

Yeah, I knew about this -- SEA and TB played special schedules their first seasons with the idea of playing every other team in the league (there were 28, so 27 games needed) once their first two seasons. The math just happened to work perfectly with a 14-game season. The one exception was they both played each other their first two years... 26 existing teams + TB/SEA twice = 28 games for those first two years.

After that, they folded back into "normal" schedules.

Making the NFL schedule before computers must have been nuts.

 

[cyclones500]

Yeah, I knew about this -- SEA and TB played special schedules their first seasons with the idea of playing every other team in the league (there were 28, so 27 games needed) once their first two seasons. The math just happened to work perfectly with a 14-game season. The one exception was they both played each other their first two years... 26 existing teams + TB/SEA twice = 28 games for those first two years. After that, they folded back into "normal" schedules.
Making the NFL schedule before computers must have been nuts.

It is convenient it worked so well w/ the game-count and team-count.

Seattle got one of its 2 wins in '76 vs. Tampa (which went 0-14). Without looking, does anyone remember Seahawks' other win that season? (I happen to remember it, I decided Seattle was my "favorite new team" during expansion).

 

[Sigmapolis]

It is convenient it worked so well w/ the game-count and team-count.

Seattle got one of its 2 wins in '76 vs. Tampa (which went 0-14). Without looking, does anyone remember Seahawks' other win that season? (I happen to remember it, I decided Seattle was my "favorite new team" during expansion).

I don't know who that was, but I do know that Seattle was 2-0 against Tampa Bay those seasons.

I know this because Tampa Bay had the "legendary" 0-26 start, which prompted all those hilarious one-liners from Coach John McKay, before they ended their second year on a 2-0 winning streak.

Over NO and STL up the Mississippi River.

McKay had them in the NFC championship game in Year #4 -- pretty impressive.

 

[cyclones500]

I don't know who that was, but I do know that Seattle was 2-0 against Tampa Bay those seasons.

I know this because Tampa Bay had the "legendary" 0-26 start, which prompted all those hilarious one-liners from Coach John McKay, before they ended their second year on a 2-0 winning streak.

Over NO and STL up the Mississippi River.

McKay had them in the NFC championship game in Year #4 -- pretty impressive.

I could not remember who TB had beaten after the 0-26.

A: Falcons (Seattle's only win at home that season; game vs. TB was in Tampa)

 

[aeroclone]

I guess I am still skeptical of this. Even if STL is poised to win a lawsuit, a couple billion dollars is something the NFL can afford, and it is probably cheaper for the league in the long run than placing 2-6 expansion teams that they otherwise wouldn't be doing.

 

[cyIclSoneU]

Having a team in London would be a logistical nightmare

I really don’t think it’s that big of a deal. What are the concerns other than travel? Travel can be sorted out by giving bye weeks before/after London games or stacking travel like Seattle plays at New England the week before they play at London so the acclimation is less. (And then probably a bye week right after that.)

I’m also skeptical that London would have trouble attracting free agent talent but if that is the case (or is a concern) it can be balanced out by giving London an increased salary cap.

 

[mkadl]

The NFL is currently embroiled in a legal dispute with the city of St. Louis over the relocation of the Rams. Reporting of that case is leaning towards the NFL losing the suit and could be on the hook for damages of more than $1B. One of the potential "payout" options would be an expansion team in St. Louis.

Along with that, there are talks of expanding to 36 teams and an 18 game schedule. Some of the expansion candidates to go with St. Louis are Toronto, London, Mexico City, and San Antonio. I also wouldn't be surprised to see San Diego, Portland, Oklahoma City, and Salt Lake City brought up in discussion as well.

[Twitter] ESPN Radio St. Louis

I once watched the NFL. Now there are too many players/teams. I dont have the time. I will watch ISU, focus ISU. If someone has the time or the skillset to keep all NCAA and NFL teams and players straight in your head they are truly blessed. That is just me. I think talent is watered down in the NFL versus 3 decades ago. Could you imagine the NFL quality of play if there were only 20 teams?

 

[mkadl]

Why do pro leagues always recycle the same cities? “Oh, it didn’t work these other two times, but I’m sure THIS time it will work out and be successful!”

Tax breaks, free this free that from taxpayers.

 

[Shawker]

Just move the Jaguars to St. Louis. Problem solved.