A couple years ago I read a study that said for a team to stay financially solvent they need roughly 7 million fans nationwide who watch/attend games, buy merchandise, etc. Well, if that's the case the NFL could support 40 teams. So, here's my proposal for a phased expansion/realignment starting for the 2014-2015 season and ending in the 2016-2017 season.
AFC East:
Indi
New England
NYJ
Richmond* (expansion)
Toronto* (formerly Buffalo)
AFC North:
Baltimore
Cinci
Cleveland
Columbus* (expansion)
Pittsburgh
AFC South:
Birmingham* (formerly Jacksonville)
Houston
Miami
Orlando* (expansion)
Tennessee
AFC West:
Denver
Kansas City
Oakland
Oklahoma City* (expansion)
San Diego
NFC East:
Carolina
NYG
Philly
St. Louis* (expansion)
Washington* (league forces team to change name to Warriors)
NFC North:
Chicago
Detroit
Green Bay
Minnesota
Portland* (expansion)
NFC South:
Atlanta
Dallas
New Orleans
San Antonio* (expansion)
Tampa Bay
NFC West:
Arizona
Los Angeles* (formerly St. Louis)
Sacremento* (expansion)
San Francisco
Seattle
-
-
-
The biggest thing was re-aligning based on geographic location. The league adjusted during the last round of expansions and re-alignments. Also, I want a 16 team playoff so that byes can be eliminated.
-
I understand what you did, you just cannot take us away form the Jets, Bills & Pats and you cannot take the Skins away from the Boys, Giants and Eagles. Those are major rivalries.
How about we get rid of the geographical part of divisions altogether and just make A. B. C. & D divisions in each conference. The geographical assigning are pointless and antiquated.unluckyluciano and Clark Kent like this. -
Actually, it's the Cowboys that were moved to the South. And to be frank, I'm tired of Miami being associated with the douchebags in NY and NE.
-
Exactly, it's about rivals. Teams like Miami and Dallas were given exemptions (is that the right word?) from the "geographical" alignments for that reason. There's no need to re-align or add 8 more teams, no playoff bye weeks, etc...
And I love being associated with the East's "douchebags." Ever listen to NY radio after Miami wins? It's as if God has begun armageddon. Hilarious. Or when we troll their boards afterword and posts quotes on here. It's the best entertainment in the world. -
Rivalries are overrated in my opinion. I don't know about expanding 8 teams, and this plan makes the assumption that the vast majority of locals will flock to their "new" team, but new rivalries will pop up, and old ones will remain, even if they are engaging less often.
Seattle/San Fran was as nasty as anything last year. New England/Indy during the Manning era after they split off was fierce. It's a great feeling to beat the Jets or (rarely, as of late) the Pats, but I would not lose any sleep if suddenly we played them once a year or every other year instead of twice. -
Rivalries are important yes, the specific rivalries we have at this point? Maybe not so much. I think you can make a new rivalry. That said, I don't see this type of realignment/expansion coming anyway, so it is likely a moot point. :up:
-
I absolutely dont want the league to expand, but I desperately want them to realign geographically. I think that being in a division with Tampa, Jacksonville and Atlanta or Carolina would be amazing. Those rivalries would replace the old ones quicker than you think. Im only 35, but I remember a time when New England (and Indy, back then) were hardly considered rivals even though we were in the same division. It was all Buffalo, with a bit of Jets. Today, who thinks all that much about the Bills? Its all variable. It would make much more sense to play against teams close by in the same climate.
-