Three of the four of the division are in the top five of the oldest franchises. Chicago is #2, GB #3 and Detroit #5. They have been playing each other longer than anybody.
Just gonna throw this out there.... My understanding is that when the NFL-AFL merger happened, the NFC conference basically was created to contain the large market teams while the AFC had the small market teams for the most part. When a state had mulitple teams, the NFC got the bigger market team..... San Fran bigger than Oakland, LA bigger than San Diego, Philly bigger than Pittsburgh, etc.
This was not a deliberate attempt to give the NFC all the large market teens. The NFL had already previously had franchises in larger markets. The AFL when they created took the smaller markets so they can try to compete. When they merge, they try to keep the two leagues separate as possible to keep rivalries alive. When the divisions were drawn to the divisions, they are today they wanted to try to keep those rivalries the same. In the case of the dolphins, they wanted to keep their AFC East rivalries the same that was upheld. Outside of the Colts
So what actually happened was the AFL had 10 teams, and the NFL had 16. They wanted to keep the conferences with the same number of teams while keeping as many history rivalries together as possible. So 3 teams would move over from the NFL to the newly formed AFC. The first 2 were easy. The Cincinnati Bengals in the AFL were founded by former Browns head coach Paul Brown, making a new Ohio team. Naturally a division with Cleveland and Cincinnati made sense. Pittsburgh was the biggest rival to the Browns, so they kept the 2 together. The Colts would be the last team, volunteering to change conferences with a financial incentive. It had nothing to do with markets
Definitely some head scratchers. Always thought to move Miami to the south, indy to the north and Baltimore to the east. Nfc, Dallas to the south, Carolina to the east.
The reason why the Dolphins are in the AFC East is because Florida is loaded with both people from NY/NJ/CT/ & MASS. If you go to a Dolphins game a lot of the crowd are from the Northeast. If the Dolphins were taken out of the AFC East that would totally suck. Especialy for New England residents who wouldn't be able to see their teams play in warm Miami late into the season as often is the case currently.
@LansingJP - it doesn't take much thought into realizing a warm weather destination in Florida would attract a lot of New Englanders based on so many teams from the North get down to Florida to play.
the thing is that the divisions are not made based on geography but also require to take into account historical rivalries. The Lions/Bears/Packers shoulder NEVER be separated, nor should the Chiefs/Raiders/Broncos/Chargers or the Giants/Cowboys/Eagles/Redskins.
I feel like not many know this, but the Browns, Steelers, and Bengals have to remain in the same division under any circumstances. It was part of the settlement between the NFL and city of Cleveland after the Browns left.
I'm seeing a lot of discussions so I feel like breaking down the 2002 realignment to understand why the divisions are what they are today and why the current divisions are actually as close to perfect as you could get. You had 31 teams split into 2 conferences, 3 divisions. All of the divisions had 5 teams except the AFC Central with 6. 2002 saw the expansion Houston Texans as the 32nd team. With 32 teams the league could be split into a much more even 8 divisions, 4 each. Instead of Central, you would get north and south. This ment going through the existing divisions and figuring out which of the 5 teams would be the odd man out. Geography was important. History was the biggest factor: - AFC East. New England, Buffalo, NY Jets, Miami, Indianapolis. Colts were the easy odd man out. The other 4 teams had been together since the days of the AFL. The Rivalries where much more Historic. Patriots Jets had the great Boston/New York rivalry, Dolphins and Bills was heated in the 90s. -AFC Central: Pittsburgh, Baltimore, Cleveland, Cincinnati, Tennessee, Jacksonville. In 1970 when the merger happened, the Browns and Steelers moved to the AFC to become rivals with the Bengals because they where the team Paul Brown founded after Cleveland fired him. A natural rivalry built on Paul Brown and the state of Ohio. The Browns and Steelers had been historic rivals so they came along for the Rivalry. In 1996 the Browns moved to Baltimore to become the Ravens, and 1999 saw the new Browns come into the league. Keeping those 4 teams together was an easy choice. Tennessee and Jacksonville out. Geographicly it worked out as well. -AFC West. San Diego, Oakland, Kansas City, Denver Seattle. The Seahawks expanded in 1977 while the other 4 teams where founding members of the AFL in 1960. Choice here was easy. Seahawks out. -NFC East Dallas, NY Giants, Washington, Philadelphia, Arizona. Geographicly, Arizona made little sense, but even historically, they were easily the odd man out. The 4 other teams had heated rivalries for 30-plus years. All of them had periods of being quality teams, even the Eagles who didn't win a super yet but would give the other teams problems and so many classic games took place between Washington, New York, Dallas, and Philly. The Cardinals, however, had been medicore to that point. The bastard child of the division -NFC Central Green Bay, Chicago, Detroit, Minnesota, Tampa Bay. This was by far the easiest. Tampa Bay was an expansion team in 1977. The other 4 teams had been in the same Division since the 60s and the Bears, Packers, and Lions had been rivals with each other going back to WWII. Tampa was also the only team not in the Midwest. Geographicly, historically, Tampa was an easy move. -NFC West. San Francisco, St.Louis, Atlanta, Carolina, New Orleans. The Falcons/ Saints and the Rams/49ers had been historic rivals. Keeping these teams together was important. Geographic then became the factor. 3 teams in the south east made for an easy split. Panthers, Falcons, and Saints would make the easy foundation for a southern division. Rams and 49ers would stay in the West were they have historically been going back to the Rams days in LA. So with that the AFC East, NFC East, AFC West are set, the AFC and NFC Cental Divisions are now the North. Now all that needs to be done is put the odd man out teams in their new homes. The NFC West needs 2, AFC South needs 2, and the NFC South needs 1. Teams left, Seahawks, Colts, Cardinals, Bucs, and the new expansion Texans. Well, the Bucs are easy, right in the middle of all the teams in the NFC South, put them there to fill out the Division. Cardinals also easy, they are out west, keep them in the NFC, NFC West. Seahawks would be nice to keep in the AFC, but they don't make any sense in the AFC South. The NFC West needs a 4th team that's in the Western part of the country. This makes the most sense. They are the only team to change conferences in 2002. That leaves the Colts and Texans in the south. The Texans make a ton of sense. Not only do they play in the South but they will be in a division with the Titans, the former Houston Oilers. Easy Rivalry. As for the Colts, they make the least sense being where they are, but they were the akward last piece. In 1970 when the merger happened the Colts moved to the AFC not because of rivalry, but because the league needed a team to move and the Colts were paid to do it, moved from Baltimore to Indy over a decade later. So they've always had a history of bouncing around.
NFC North/West CHI DET MIN GB ARI LA SF SEA NFC South/East NY WAS PHI DAL CAR TB ATL NO AFC North/East BUF NY NE MIA BAL PIT CLE CIN AFC South/West JAC IND TEN HOU KC DEN LV LA Teams play the eight teams from the other division in the same conference. They play five divisional opponents. The remaining two rival divisional opponents are played twice.
A good reason to lump Carolina in the same division as Washington is because before the Panthers came into being, most of the locals were Washington fans.
Definitely a missed opportunity by you to put the Bills Browns and Steelers all together. They’re all the same driving distance apart. Pittsburgh is nowhere near the teams you put them with.
Nice work! However, FYI by law the Steelers, Browns and Bengals must be in the same division. Also, 2 teams in the same market (NY and LA) cant be in the same division due to TV broadcasting rights for CBS and FOX. Should be: AFC EAST: BAL, BUF, NE, NYJ AFC NORTH: CIN, CLE, IND, PIT AFC SOUTH: HOU, MIA, JAX, TEN AFC WEST: DEN, KC, LAC, LVS NFC EAST: CAR, NYG, PHI, WSH NFC NORTH: CHI, DET, GB, MIN NFC SOUTH: ATL, DAL, NO, TB NFC WEST: ARI, LAR, SF, SEA
The real solution is adding 8 teams to the NFL as a whole with a focus on cities in interior US states and building a 5th central division out of new and existing teams. If I could play NFL god that is.
If you wanna fix the situation simply switch the Cowboys and Panthers and then Switch the Colts and Dolphins. It fixes the nonsense of the East teams being long distance while keeping a lot of the matchups.
The West I agree with but the rest of the divisions should look like this in my humble opinion: Cowboys, Texans, Saints, Falcons (south division with a nice Texas rivalry) Jaguars, Bucs, Miami, Jaguars (southeast division +Florida rivalries) Colts, Titan, Bengals, Browns (mideast division+ Ohio rivalry) Steelers, Commanders, Ravens, Eagles (eastern division and close city rivalries) Giants, Jets, Patriots, Bills (northeast division+ battle of NY twice a year)
When I was a kid when the realignment happened, I never understood why the Colts who are very much not south, left the AFC East for the AFC South when Miami was an option. At least untill I learned of the historic rivalries
My friend and I did this in the 80's when the Seahawks were in the AFC West, the Raiders were in Los Angeles, Rams were in Anaheim, Chargers in San Diego, Cardinals in St. Louis and in the NFC East, Colts in Baltimore, Oilers in Houston and there were no Jags, no Panthers, no Ravens, no Texans, and no Titans. Did I miss anything?
You could def argue switching the Lions and the Colts. Especially because the Lions are on Lake Erie too. I love the division historically but it doesn't matter too much for what you're approaching. I think it's worth mentioning that AFC North and AFC South are both completely screwed up because of the history, with the Ravens being in the division because of the Browns. Given that Between the AFC and NFC North + the Colts, 7 out of 9 are NFL teams, 8 if you include the Browns though they're technically expansion, and one is AFL in the Bengals, these 9 become sort of interchangeable in a way since they all have history with each other in different capacities. Number one reason to advocate for AFC North to be the Browns with zero Super Bowl berths, the Lions, also with zero Super Bowl berths, the Bengals with only 8 playoff appearances between establishment and 2009, and the Bills who have lost four Super Bowls in a row, is that it gives some viciously terrible teams, all of whom are inexplicably good right now, a better chance to win a playoff spot.
NFC North--Chi, GB, Det, Min NFC East-NY, Philly, Wash, Carolina NFC South--Atl, NO, Tampa, Jax NFC west- Seattle, SF, LA Rams, AZ AFC North- Pit, Clev, Indy, Cinci AFC East- Bal, NYJ, NE, Buff AFC South---Dal, Hou, Titans, Miami AFC West----KC, Den, LV, LA Chargers
In baseball the Atlanta Braves and Cincinnati Reds used to be in the NL West and the St. Louis Cardinals in the NL East. I don't know why but that and the NFL teams mentioned here didn't make sense.
@richstrobel so with those NFL teams, it made zero sense geographicly, but more sense when you follow the timeline The Cardinals were in St. Louis at the time, not exactly the east coast, but made more sense, more east than the Cowboys. But mostly, they were locked in with the rest of the NFC East as part of the Eastern Conference before the merger. In that time, there were only a couple teams west of the Mississippi, so much like the NHL and NBA a lot of Midwest teams could be placed in ethier Conference. All the teams currently in the NFC North were in the western conference for example. When the merger happened in 1970 the NFC Central was an easy division to make, just keep the same teams together. The East also saw a lot of historic rivals together. It made sense putting the Cardinals with those teams because of their history in the east. The west was tricky, tho. The Rams and 49ers were the only real West cost teams. The Saints and Falcons expanded together and had a southern rivalry going, so it made sense to keep them together so they were placed in the new NFC West to fill out the division. Fast forward to the 90s. Cardinals relocate to Phoenix, but there is no real reason to realign over one teams move. 1996, the Carolina Panthers expanded to the league. The NFC East and Central had 5 teams at this point. The West only had 4. So even though the Panthers are on the east coast it was easier to just put them in the west division to fill it out. Besides, they were geographicly close to 2 of the teams in the division, the Falcons and Saints
1970 merger NFC West SF LA STL MIN GB CHI DET NFC East CLE PIT NY PHI WAS DAL AFC West OAK SD DEN KC HOU NO AFC East CIN ATL MIA BAL NY NE BUF The Saints and Falcons should have been moved to the AFC. They were only in the NFL for three or four years.
As a european I don't get why the NFL is not focusing on the teams that are in the same city or close by to play each other twice a year. In european football these are the greatest matches of the year. I don't get how philly and Dallas is a rivalry since they are so far apart. I looked it up and moscow is closer to Berlin. That's insane to call that a real rivalry.
@@Nchinnam If these were the actual divisions theres no reason why Chargers and Rams can't play each other, it's as simple as one team being home and the other being away. Even in seperate divisions both Sofi and Metlife find ways to make it work
@@gamblepackers scheduling a home game with inner division rivals is gonna suck. Cuz you need 1 home and one away for all 4 teams in the division. And if two teams in the division share a home they need to alternate home and away each week.
@@salbiase2117 That’s why you should be in the AFC South. The Jaguars are also on the eastern seaboard in Jacksonville Florida. The Jaguars and Dolphins could definitely forge a Florida rivalry
I was thinking more of 8 team divisions separating the nfl into 4 different devisions North: East: West: South: Bears Bills Broncos bucs Bengals WC Cardinals fins Browns Eagles Chargers falcons Chiefs Giants Cowboys jags Colts Jets 49’ers. Panthers Lions Steelers Raiders saints Packers Patriots Rams. Texans Vikings Ravens Seahawks titans Sorry for some of the shortened names to fit in to the space. Also WC is the commanders because I couldn’t fit the whole name.
I hate 8 divisions. Too many. I'm in favor of going back to 6 with 6-5-5 in each conference. It staggers the divisions a bit, but that's okay. They did that for years. I want a geographic alignment with the names of the conferences as well. Eastern Conference East (5)--NE, NYG, NYJ, PHI, WAS Central (5)--BAL, BUF, CIN, CLE, PIT South (6)--ATL, CAR, JAX, MIA, NO, TB Western Conference West (6)--ARZ, LAC, LAR, LV, SEA, SF Midwest (5)--DAL, DEN, HOU, KC, TEN North (5)--CHI, DET, GB, IND, MIN
I understand that Giants and Jets play at the same Stadium and will be not that possible, but you need the rest of teams that are from the same state together
Your plan makes geographical sense but not really good business sense. Back when the conferences were divided into three divisions, the Buccaneers played in the NFC Central. Which seems illogical, but the reason why the Bucs wanted to be with the north teams was because of all the retirees from the Midwest that live in Florida, plus the fact that the fans of the northern teams love to travel south during the winter months. If I was going to realign the NFL, I would divide the conferences into two divisions, with each division having northern and southern teams.
The bill stadium is less than 10 mi from lake Erie? where you think all that lake effect snow that's always hitting the area comes from... its lake Erie
NFC and AFC West no fixes; NFC East: Carolina, Philly, DC, and New York Giants; NFC South: Dallas, New Orleans, Tampa Bay, and Atlanta; AFC South: Miami, Jacksonville, Tennessee, and Houston; AFC East: Buffalo, New England, New York Jets, and Baltimore; NFC North: no fixes; AFC North: Indy, Pittsburgh, Cincy, and Cleveland
You lost me with the LA teams. I think if you switch the Dolphins out of the AFC East and put them in the South, put the Colts in the AFC North, the Ravens in the AFC East, the Cowboys in the NFC South and the put the Panthers in the NFC East, then it’s fixed. When you have teams switching conferences, then it messes with a lot of other things.
I just realized that Wisconsin is the only state in the NFC North that borders all of the other states in that division and the other three only border Wisconsin, so Go Pack! Oh and the Bears still suck
Why not just combine divisions? Combine the NFC West with the NFC North. The NFC East combined with the NFC South. The AFC North combined with the AFC East. Teams play every conference opponent once except two rival teams are played twice. That's 17 games. The Bears would play 13 conference opponents and play Detroit and Green Bay twice. Next year, they can play Detroit and Minnesota twice. The following year, Green Bay and Minnesota twice. It would rotate. Teams don't need to play every divisional opponent twice and they certainly don't need to play interconference games. They're pointless. With the current schedule, teams do not play 40% of their conference opponents. That's ridiculous.
