Boiling Denim said:

---

AFC East
1. Patriots
2. Dolphins
3. Jets
4. Chiefs
5. Steelers
6. Ravens
7. Colts
AFC West
1. Bengals
2. Browns
3. Broncos
4. Seahawks
5. Cards
6. Rams
7. 49ers

NFC East
1. Cowboys
2. Giants
3. Redskins
4. Eagles
5. Vikings
6. Bears
7. Packers
NFC Central
1. Lions
2. Falcons
3. Bucs
4. Saints
5. Texans
6. Titans
7. Panthers

Development League
1. Bills (Canada)
2. Raiders (Mexico)
3. Chargers (Vegas)
4. Jags (London)
5. New Team
6. New Team
Development games on Thursday Night, Sunday Morning and Monday Night every 2 weeks

All NFL games on Sunday. You can even go to a 14 game season and just play division home/away or stay at 16 and have rotating games with ther division. Use Preseason to play other conference.

---

ok i have to ask.......WHY??!?!?

PS you put Cleveland and cincy in the WEST and KC in the EAST....Indy too for that matter.

I think you are geographically illiterate and searching for a problem where one doesn't exist.

I'm guessing this is the only place discussing the breakup of the NFC East

Mr.Bond said:

---

People would get over it. I'm a die hard Astros fan, I was beyond pissed leaving the NL Central and great rivalries with St Louis and Chicago. But I can easily say I've grown to hate the Texas Rangers far more than I ever did those two. Mostly due to proximity. Their fans live close to me and visa versa. No doubt a Houston/New Orleans rivalry would be awesome

---

True, but man I still hate the Cubs. Rivalries do come and go though, I remember the Reds were HATED back in the Dibble/Sabo days.

TV ratings:

cowboys vs packers divisional round: 48.52
cubs vs indians game 7: 40.51
cavs vs warriors game 7: 30.8

they better do something to generate more interest fast

Gramercy Riffs said:

---

Sure it could be great for Houston, but not New Orleans. I'm an Astros fan as well, and I still don't think of the Rangers any differently than I did ten years ago. But even if I did, it's a poor example because the Astros didnt have a natural rivalry before the move anyway. Cardinals? Cubs? Those were great games for us, but those teams don't see the Astros as a true rival. They only see each other.

In football, especially in the cities that we're discussing, the rivalries mean more. Interesting that it sounds good to a Houston fan, because the Texans don't have a rival either. Titans maybe? I have no idea. But New Orleans already has an established rivalry, and that can't be replaced by Houston. I'm sure Cowboy fans would say the same. As would Bronco fans.

Ending rivalries doesn't mean quite as much to people who don't have them (or to those who are upgrading in every other area - see A&M/SEC), but they mean a lot to the rest of us.

---

How are you an Astros fan and not have a giant disdain for the Rangers? St Louis hated Houston I assure you, I have family from the area and they hated us (astros) maybe not on the level of chicago but it was high. With all due respect how is Atlanta and New Orleans a "natural rival" the two towns are like 450 miles apart from each other. Titans are easily biggest Texans rival due to carry over from the oiler days (many titan fans in Houston) As an Aggie i can say ending a 100+ year rivalry seemed tough at first. Now I couldnt care less about playing tu

Zombie Jon Snow said:

---

ok i have to ask.......WHY??!?!?

PS you put Cleveland and cincy in the WEST and KC in the EAST....Indy too for that matter.

I think you are geographically illiterate and searching for a problem where one doesn't exist.

---

Why not? It's a hypothetical thread isn't it? Who said there was a problem?

I think you're reading too much into it

But if you're looking for some reasoning the NFL is over-saturated, at least 4 teams need to be dumped. I would argue 6 but the Rams moving to LA kind of axes that.

They need a development league and what better way to tap the international market? In what world is playing regular season games in London make sense. I can't even imagine the Premier League sending Manchester United to Dallas to play Liverpool. Blokes would riot.

The players have also been very vocal about playing Thursday and Monday night games this would eliminate that as well.

PS I didn't really proofread the team placements and just threw Cleveland and Cincy in the missing gaps because they suck.

OK well yes it's a hypothetical thread...but one which posed the question "would it help interest?".....

Not picking on you necessarily but I haven't seen anyone address that. Which is why I asked "Why?".

Don't disagree with developmental league - but thats not realignment related. Nor do I see how it increases interest.

Don't agree with contraction - why? you want everyone to be good? I mean technically that changes nothing. The average record of the league every year for all of time is .500. And always will be. You make fewer teams the overall record is still .500 you would still have good and bad teams. This isn't college where you have teams propping up 8 wins by playing 3 fodder teams from a lower league effectively. And I've seen pretty much every team suck at one time or another - CLE may be really bad now, but they've had their good times too, so has JAX and TB and LA/Rams, etc.

I havn't heard the players complain about Mon and Thurs night games - is that real? I thought they liked the spotlight and the NFL has done a decent job of scheduling giving those Thurs night teams a bye before or after in a lot of cases. but I also don't see what Mon/Thurs games have to do with realignment - except travel related. but seriously these guys play once per week and travel only 8 times in regular season. They got nothing on NBA, MLB, NHL, etc.