Smeghead4761 said:

---

I was reminded, via a tweet about SF sweeping their division opponents for the first time since 1997, of just how geographically ridiculous the NFC "West" was back in the late 90s.

NFC West, circa 1997:
SF
Atlanta
New Orleans
St Louis
Carolina

That's two teams in Atlantic coast states, and two in cities sitting on the Mississippi River, with just one in the Pacific time zone.

Even before the Rams moved to St Louis, and Carolina was added, the NFC West was still silly, with the Rams and SF in California, and the other two teams being New Orleans and Atlanta.

Also, I'd forgotten that once upon a time, division opponents made up half the schedule.

---

I recall watching football as a kid in the 80s and thinking 'wait a minute' this doesn't add up

ac said:

---

One reason that happened was because the Cowboys insisted on being in the NFC East as Tex Schramm wanted the media exposure associated with playing in New York every year. He had considerable influence with Pete Rozelle.

Why the St. Louis Cardinals were placed in the East is a good question. Possibly because in the pre-1970 NFL they were in the old Eastern conference with the East Coast teams and wanted to maintain continuity.

Since the Falcons & Saints were the newest teams at the time, they had little say in where they went and were put in the West with the California teams.

At the time there was a need for each division to have a warm weather city for scheduling purposes. Because the NFC Central didn't have one, they were promised the next one and got the Bucs in 1977.

Now when the Cards moved to Arizona & the Rams moved to St. Louis, it made the geographic designations even more ridiculous.

---

Interesting history. Thanks

I love reading about the meetings of the old NFL and some of the discussions they had. Pre-AFL merger, the NFL was going through lengthy meetings getting the names of divisions right: They had 4 divisions: Capital, Central, Coastal...and they couldn't think of another name, and there was some interesting geography there.



And the re-balancing of the NFL when the AFL merged is interesting (at least to me).
Imagine after the inclusion of OU and Texas (making the SEC 16 teams), there was a merger with the top 10 teams from the ACC, and to balance out the league into two new conferences, 3 teams were going to have to leave the SEC part of the conference to join the ACC... no NFL team wanted to join the AFL conference.



(Oh yeah, forgot the NFL blocks linking). In the unlikely event anyone else is interested in that history.

I always liked the confusing geography of the NFL I grew up with. Huge fan of the NFC East, I remember wondering why the poor St. Louis Cardinals were in there with such tough teams. Neil Lomax didn't have a chance.

I loved the old AFC West, tons of bad blood to spread around between all the teams.
Raiders
Seahawks
Broncos
Chargers
Chiefs

A few years ago I worked with a guy that played at Texas and later had a stint with the Seahawks. He was too young to know that Seattle used to be in the AFC West. He said "that explains why we always played the AFC West in preseason games." Kids these days . . . .

I remember always hearing speculation they were going to redo the whole league and put NO, ATL, TB, and Miami in a division together.

TB being in the NFC Central with Green Bay, Minnesota, Chicago and Detroit was always pretty hilarious.

The Porkchop Express said:

---

I remember always hearing speculation they were going to redo the whole league and put NO, ATL, TB, and Miami in a division together.

TB being in the NFC Central with Green Bay, Minnesota, Chicago and Detroit was always pretty hilarious.

---

... ah, the old "Battle of the Bays"

1836er said:

---

The Porkchop Express said:

---

I remember always hearing speculation they were going to redo the whole league and put NO, ATL, TB, and Miami in a division together.

TB being in the NFC Central with Green Bay, Minnesota, Chicago and Detroit was always pretty hilarious.

---

... ah, the old "Battle of the Bays"

---

Vince Lombardi rolling over in his grave seeing the traditional green & yellow Pack go up vs. the Creamsicle Bucs!

basically it was the Dolphins in the AFC and the Cowboys in the NFC that kept the divisions as they were in the 1970's.

even though some combination of the Oilers, Saints, Falcons, Cowboys, Dolphins, Bucs, St. Louis Cardinals, etc.., made much, much, much more sense.

especially after the Jags and Panthers joined the league in 1995

South Platte said:

---

I always liked the confusing geography of the NFL I grew up with. Huge fan of the NFC East, I remember wondering why the poor St. Louis Cardinals were in there with such tough teams. Neil Lomax didn't have a chance.

I loved the old AFC West, tons of bad blood to spread around between all the teams.
Raiders
Seahawks
Broncos
Chargers
Chiefs

A few years ago I worked with a guy that played at Texas and later had a stint with the Seahawks. He was too young to know that Seattle used to be in the AFC West. He said "that explains why we always played the AFC West in preseason games." Kids these days . . . .

---

Ha! I remember thinking that too...those Cardinals are so outmatched!!!

I want to thank the NFL, MLB, and NBA for helping me learn a little geography growing up. Had Louisville, Little Rock, Memphis, Las Vegas had teams back then, I probably would have learned where they were located instead of somewhere like Green Bay or Baltimore.

Seattle, Tampa Bay, Charlotte, Jacksonville, or Phoenix getting franchises is how I learned about them.

Smeghead4761 said:

---

I was reminded, via a tweet about SF sweeping their division opponents for the first time since 1997, of just how geographically ridiculous the NFC "West" was back in the late 90s.

NFC West, circa 1997:
SF
Atlanta
New Orleans
St Louis
Carolina

That's two teams in Atlantic coast states, and two in cities sitting on the Mississippi River, with just one in the Pacific time zone.

Even before the Rams moved to St Louis, and Carolina was added, the NFC West was still silly, with the Rams and SF in California, and the other two teams being New Orleans and Atlanta.

Also, I'd forgotten that once upon a time, division opponents made up half the schedule.

---

Atlanta was in the old NL West from 1969-1993, too...and the Central division in the NBA. A city in the Eastern time zone that wasn't in any Eastern division in a major sport.

The NFL has gone from 50% division games to barely 1/3 now...makes divisional play not quite as meaningful.

The woebegone Texans had a winning record in the AFC South (3-2-1), and went 0-11 against the rest of the league.

From 1995 to 2001, the San Francisco 49ers were the only NFC West team in the Pacific Zone. When I started watching NFL games in 1999, I thought it was absurd. Between 1999 to 2001, the expansion of the new Cleveland Browns franchise resulted in 31 teams. I was glad the addition of the Houston Texans resulted in division realignment that resulted in a symetric 8 divsions and 4 teams per divsion and made more geographic sense. There are still two teams that do not correspond to geography. The Kansas City Chiefs are the only AFC West team in central time zone, and the Dallas Cowboys are the only NFC East team in central time zone.

Of course, that divsion realignment resulted in less significance of divsion games. 8 divsion games used to mean 50% of the regular season games. Then, the realignment meant just 6/16 games from 2002 to 2020, and 6/17 games since last year. The Houston Texans went 3-2-1 against the AFC South and 0-11 outside of the divsion to finish 3-13-1. In contrast, the New York Giants went 1-4-1 against the NFC East but 8-2 outside of the divsion to finish 9-7-1 and get the NFC No. 6 seed.

this is very true.

my grade school teachers were impressed that I could spell Philadelphia, Pittsburgh, Cincinnati, etc..,at a young age...thanks to the NFL and MLB

Bonfired said:

---

Atlanta was in the old NL West from 1969-1993, too...and the Central division in the NBA. A city in the Eastern time zone that wasn't in any Eastern division in a major sport.

The NFL has gone from 50% division games to barely 1/3 now...makes divisional play not quite as meaningful.

The woebegone Texans had a winning record in the AFC South (3-2-1), and went 0-11 against the rest of the league.

---

1993, Giants and Braves in the old NL West, and the Last Real Pennant Race. Down to the last game of the season, ATL wins, SF loses (not against each other), and the Giants, with 103 wins, don't make the playoffs.

I'm still carry a grudge against the Padres for trading Fred McGriff to the Braves that season.

South Platte said:

---

I always liked the confusing geography of the NFL I grew up with. Huge fan of the NFC East, I remember wondering why the poor St. Louis Cardinals were in there with such tough teams. Neil Lomax didn't have a chance.

I loved the old AFC West, tons of bad blood to spread around between all the teams.
Raiders
Seahawks
Broncos
Chargers
Chiefs

A few years ago I worked with a guy that played at Texas and later had a stint with the Seahawks. He was too young to know that Seattle used to be in the AFC West. He said "that explains why we always played the AFC West in preseason games." Kids these days . . . .

---

I preferred the AFC West. So many memories from the 80s growing up a Hawk

Iowaggie said:

---

I know this sacrilegious on a college football message board, but because of the familiarity of opponents, I like that some teams play each other 2-3 times a season. I like that divisional teams play each other twice during the regular season and sometimes play a 3rd time in the playoffs.

I hate the 17th game addition + 7th team into the playoffs in each conference.

The 16 games, two wildcards, two teams getting byes, and two weekends of 4 games during the first weeks of the playoffs was just right and symmetrical.

---

I agree with you. I liked the 16-game regular season schedule that consisted of 6 divisional games, 4 conference games against another division (ie. NFC West vs NFC South), 4 interconference games (ie. NFC West vs AFC West), and 2 more conference games based on finish. I hate the additional 17th game that consists of another intraconference game based on finish (ie NFC West plays an extra game vs AFC East), and rotating that extra home game between the NFC (even years) and AFC (odd years).

I also liked the 12-team playoff format. In that format, 4 teams would get a first round bye. I liked how the Wildcard and Divisional rounds featured 4 games each round and 2 games each on Saturday and Sunday. That was perfect symmetry for the regular season and playoffs. I hate the 14-team playoff format. Now, the Wildcard round has 2 games on Saturday, 3 games on Sunday, and 1 game on Monday.

Anyone here old enough to remember when the Super Bowl champion played a post-SB exhibition game against a collection of college All Americans? So weird.

TheCurl84 said:

---

Anyone here old enough to remember when the Super Bowl champion played a post-SB exhibition game against a collection of college All Americans? So weird.

---

Before my time as was another game that was even weirder: During the 1960s, the 2nd place teams from each NFL conference played a post season game known as the "Runner Up Bowl."

So if the redid everything with the primary focus geography, what would be the best arrangement?

Smeghead4761 said:

---

I was reminded, via a tweet about SF sweeping their division opponents for the first time since 1997, of just how geographically ridiculous the NFC "West" was back in the late 90s.

NFC West, circa 1997:
SF
Atlanta
New Orleans
St Louis
Carolina

That's two teams in Atlantic coast states, and two in cities sitting on the Mississippi River, with just one in the Pacific time zone.

Even before the Rams moved to St Louis, and Carolina was added, the NFC West was still silly, with the Rams and SF in California, and the other two teams being New Orleans and Atlanta.

Also, I'd forgotten that once upon a time, division opponents made up half the schedule.

---

Big 10 on line 1.

LB12Diamond said:

---

So if the redid everything with the primary focus geography, what would be the best arrangement?

---

AFC East - NE, BUF, NYJ, BAL
AFC North - PIT, CLE, CIN, IND
AFC South - TEN, JAX, MIA, TB
AFC West - DEN, KC, LAC, LV

NFC East - NYG, WAS, PHI, CAR
NFC North - MIN, DET, GB, CHI
NFC South - DAL, NO, HOU, ATL
NFC West - SF, ARI, LAR, SEA

_lefraud_ said:

---

LB12Diamond said:

---

So if the redid everything with the primary focus geography, what would be the best arrangement?

---

AFC East - NE, BUF, NYJ, BAL
AFC North - PIT, CLE, CIN, IND
AFC South - TEN, JAX, MIA, TB
AFC West - DEN, KC, LAC, LV

NFC East - NYG, WAS, PHI, CAR
NFC North - MIN, DET, GB, CHI
NFC South - DAL, NO, HOU, ATL
NFC West - SF, ARI, LAR, SEA

---

No need for TB and HOU to switch conferences.

_lefraud_ said:

---

LB12Diamond said:

---

So if the redid everything with the primary focus geography, what would be the best arrangement?

---

AFC East - NE, BUF, NYJ, BAL
AFC North - PIT, CLE, CIN, IND
AFC South - TEN, JAX, MIA, TB
AFC West - DEN, KC, LAC, LV

NFC East - NYG, WAS, PHI, CAR
NFC North - MIN, DET, GB, CHI
NFC South - DAL, NO, HOU, ATL
NFC West - SF, ARI, LAR, SEA

---

For TV purposes, it's not a good idea to have the Cowboys & Texans in the same conference. If they're both in the FOX conference, then the CBS affiliates in Texas don't have a game of regional interest to show. And the FOX ones are stuck with the dilemma of which team to show on a near weekly basis.

94chem said:

---

_lefraud_ said:

---

LB12Diamond said:

---

So if the redid everything with the primary focus geography, what would be the best arrangement?

---

AFC East - NE, BUF, NYJ, BAL
AFC North - PIT, CLE, CIN, IND
AFC South - TEN, JAX, MIA, TB
AFC West - DEN, KC, LAC, LV

NFC East - NYG, WAS, PHI, CAR
NFC North - MIN, DET, GB, CHI
NFC South - DAL, NO, HOU, ATL
NFC West - SF, ARI, LAR, SEA

---

No need for TB and HOU to switch conferences.

---

if you only do it for geography there should be no biased for AFC, NFC, so I think it should be more like this, but some aren't perfect. Indy is the most weird one here.


North East -NE, BUF, NYJ, NYG
Central East -BAL, WAS, CAR, IND
Rust North -PIT, PHI, CLE, CIN,
Snow North -MIN, DET, GB, CHI
Texas-LA -DAL, NO, HOU, TEN
Fl- GA Line -ATL, JAX, MIA, TB
Mountain West -DEN, KC, LV, ARZ
Liberal West -SF, LAC, LAR, SEA

1836er said:

---

swc93 said:

---

W said:

---

this is very true.

my grade school teachers were impressed that I could spell Philadelphia, Pittsburgh, Cincinnati, etc..,at a young age...thanks to the NFL and MLB

---

The NFL #2 pencils helped me with that.

---

Oh... I loved those pencils

---

San Diego got the shaft. They're just pencil-colored.

94chem said:

---

Big 10 on line 1.

---

Even the Big 10 hasn't managed to get teams in states touching both the Atlantic and Pacific Oceans. Yet.

Smeghead4761 said:

---

94chem said:

---

Big 10 on line 1.

---

Even the Big 10 hasn't managed to get teams in states touching both the Atlantic and Pacific Oceans. Yet.

---

Rutgers, Maryland, and UCLA, and USC on line 2. They of course have the Great Lakes, but only 4 of the 5. Darn you, Syracuse. They really need the Gulf of Mexico. Samford, maybe?

This would be my ideal arrangment of the 8 NFL divisions that correspond to geography and keeps teams in their current conferences.

AFC East: BAL, BUF, NE, NYJ
AFC North: CLE, CIN, IND, PIT
AFC South: HOU, JAX, MIA, TEN
AFC West: DEN, KC, LAC, LV

NFC East: CAR, NYG, PHI, WAS
NFC North: CHI, DET, GB, MIN
NFC South: ATL, DAL, NO, TB
NFC West: ARI, LAR, SEA, SF

The Porkchop Express said:

---

1836er said:

---

swc93 said:

---

W said:

---

this is very true.

my grade school teachers were impressed that I could spell Philadelphia, Pittsburgh, Cincinnati, etc..,at a young age...thanks to the NFL and MLB

---

The NFL #2 pencils helped me with that.

---

Oh... I loved those pencils

---

Wow. Rediscovering these pencils is my early leader for post of the year. I used to trace the helmets with them too.

---

I used to collect the little plastic football helmets (that were also made into pencil sharpeners) from gumball machines too.