U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > U.S. Forums > General U.S.
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 01-04-2009, 01:10 PM
 
Location: St. Louis, MO
3,742 posts, read 6,915,658 times
Reputation: 660

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by CHIP72 View Post
Personally, the whole "Cowboys must stay in the NFC East to be the Redskins'/Eagles'/Giants' rival" circa 2009 is a bunch of baloney to me, and I say that as an Eagles fan. You can't tell me those latter 3 teams couldn't develop rivalries with the Carolina Panthers if they joined the NFC East in place of the Dallas Cowboys. Furthermore, it was by chance that the Cowboys were placed in the NFC East in 1970, and from what I was told recently (can't confirm its accuracy) the NFL considered moving the Cowboys to the NFC South in 2002 but the New Orleans Saints objected. If the Redskins in particular couldn't survive without the Cowboys as a rival, then what does that say about the Redskins?

If it were up to me, the following teams would switch divisions:

Miami - AFC East to AFC South
Baltimore - AFC North to AFC East
Indianapolis - AFC South to AFC North
Dallas - NFC East to NFC West
Carolina - NFC South to NFC East
St. Louis - NFC West to NFC South

Moving the Cowboys to the NFC West rather than the NFC South probably makes more sense for both the NFL and the Cowboys, primarily due to the greater number of potential 4:15 PM start times for Cowboys games.
St. Louis in the NFC South!!! What are you on? St. Louis is Midwestern, not Southern. Either put it in the NFC East or the NFC North.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 01-04-2009, 01:12 PM
 
Location: Washington D.C. By way of Texas
18,658 posts, read 27,102,729 times
Reputation: 9591
You're right. They couldn't. They couldn't develop the type of rivalry they currently have with the Cowboys and have the same intensity with the Panthers. This is why Cowboy fans do not look at the Eagles as a main rival and never will. The Redskins number 1 rival is the Cowboys and the Cowboys number 1 rival is the Redskins and the both must be in the same division and most NFL fans would see it the same way. It is as stupid as breaking up the NFC North. You don't mess with history or tradition. It doesn't need to be fixed.

The NFL considered it but the NFC East teams (mostly Washington) opposed any other thought of the Cowboys moving out of the division and the Cowboys also opposed as well. The Cowboys STAY in the NFC East, no matter what. The Cowboys could care less starting a rivalry with the Saints, Bucs, or Falcons.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-04-2009, 01:15 PM
 
62 posts, read 204,840 times
Reputation: 20
Arizona used to be in the NFC East with the Redskins, Giants, etc. Perfect example of how the NFL is a sport not a geography competition
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-04-2009, 01:17 PM
 
Location: Washington D.C. By way of Texas
18,658 posts, read 27,102,729 times
Reputation: 9591
Quote:
Originally Posted by MichaelinMaryland View Post
Arizona used to be in the NFC East with the Redskins, Giants, etc. Perfect example of how the NFL is a sport not a geography competition
This is because at the time, the Cardinals were in St. Louis and there wasn't many NFC Teams on the east coast other than Washington, New York, and Philadelphia. I do not know if the Cardinals was in the same division as the eastern teams when they was in Chicago.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-05-2009, 08:06 PM
 
Location: Silver Spring, MD/Washington DC
3,451 posts, read 8,160,611 times
Reputation: 2346
Quote:
Originally Posted by ajf131 View Post
St. Louis in the NFC South!!! What are you on? St. Louis is Midwestern, not Southern. Either put it in the NFC East or the NFC North.
St. Louis is further south than every team in the NFC North. It is further east than Dallas and about the same distance east/west as New Orleans. It is further north than Charlotte (Carolina), but isn't nearly as close to Washington, Philadelphia, or New York as Charlotte is. St. Louis can't go into the NFC North because the 4 teams in the current alignment (Chicago, Detroit, Green Bay, Minnesota) make considerable sense, both geographically and rivalry-wise. It is up the Mississippi River from New Orleans, and was at one time in the same division as New Orleans and Atlanta.

Really, St. Louis doesn't fit well in any of the current NFC division unless one of the 4 NFC North teams moves to a different region. However, St. Louis definitely doesn't fit in the East, leaving the NFC South and NFC West as possibilities. Dallas IMO is a better fit for the West than the South, so that puts St. Louis in the South, where it isn't an ideal fit but it isn't a bad fit either.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-06-2009, 02:17 AM
 
Location: The Magnolia City
8,931 posts, read 11,821,669 times
Reputation: 4853
Quote:
Originally Posted by BostonJad View Post
For those that watch football, doesn't it make you wonder why the teams are in the divisions that they are? Perhaps there are historical reasons in order to create competition, maybe somebody who knows more than me can shed some light on this. Let me take case-by-case examples:


AFC East
New England
Buffalo
New York
Miami

What the hell is Miami doing here? shouldn't it be instead in the AFC South? Lets see if the AFC South has any abnormality that can be removed to put in its place Miami:

AFC South
Jacksonville
Houston
Tennessee
Indianapolis

Bingo!!! Indianapolis, that definitely aint the South. There is the AFC North but I think if they changed the name to AFC Central it would make more sense just like they do for the MLB. Lets see if we can fix the puzzle and keep the conference with 4 teams per division:

AFC North (renamed to AFC Central)
Pittsburgh
Baltimore
Cleveland
Cincinatti

Hmmm...Baltimore, it makes sense for it to be in the AFC East since Washington and Philly are already part of the NFC East. AFC West looks right to me so I skip over to the NFC East:

NFC East
NY
Philly
Dallas
Washington

Dallas, what they hell are you doing here? again the best place for it is to be in the South:

NFC South
Carolina
Tampa Bay
Atlanta
New Orleans

They all look South to me, but if we have to keep their numbers at 4, it makes more sense to bring Carolina to the NFC East than keeping Dallas. As for NFC North and NFC West, they also look right to me so no point in talking about them.

What do you guys think about this re-arrangement of the NFL Divisions? Apologies of somebody has proposed this before and that I haven't invented the gun here.
Even though it doesn't matter since it's just for the game's sake, but culturally and geographically, the only one that doesn't make any sense is Indianapolis. All the others seem about right, depending on what the subject is. For instance, Miami is in the Eastern U.S.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-06-2009, 10:05 AM
 
Location: St. Louis, MO
3,742 posts, read 6,915,658 times
Reputation: 660
Quote:
Originally Posted by CHIP72 View Post
St. Louis is further south than every team in the NFC North. It is further east than Dallas and about the same distance east/west as New Orleans. It is further north than Charlotte (Carolina), but isn't nearly as close to Washington, Philadelphia, or New York as Charlotte is. St. Louis can't go into the NFC North because the 4 teams in the current alignment (Chicago, Detroit, Green Bay, Minnesota) make considerable sense, both geographically and rivalry-wise. It is up the Mississippi River from New Orleans, and was at one time in the same division as New Orleans and Atlanta.

Really, St. Louis doesn't fit well in any of the current NFC division unless one of the 4 NFC North teams moves to a different region. However, St. Louis definitely doesn't fit in the East, leaving the NFC South and NFC West as possibilities. Dallas IMO is a better fit for the West than the South, so that puts St. Louis in the South, where it isn't an ideal fit but it isn't a bad fit either.
Yes, but if Cincinnati can go in the AFC North, and it is practically at the same latitude as St. Louis, makes no sense why St. Louis shouldn't be there. There is considerable distance between Cincinnati and Baltimore, roughly the same as the other aforementioned. I actually think that St. Louis is a much better fit for the four teams in the NFC North than the NFC South...geographically and culturally and economically it is far more linked to all four of those cities than to New Orleans. If you ask me, Dallas is a better fit for the South than the West...geographically it is far closer to New Orleans than it is to Seattle or San Francisco. Culturally, economically, and demographically Dallas is very much a Southern city.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-06-2009, 11:11 AM
 
2,248 posts, read 6,213,651 times
Reputation: 2078
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nairobi View Post
Even though it doesn't matter since it's just for the game's sake, but culturally and geographically, the only one that doesn't make any sense is Indianapolis. All the others seem about right, depending on what the subject is. For instance, Miami is in the Eastern U.S.
+1. And prior to 2002, Indy was in the AFC East. It seems like we were the only ones who got screwed in the realignment
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-06-2009, 11:40 AM
 
Location: Victoria TX
42,663 posts, read 74,356,272 times
Reputation: 36094
I don't see where it is all that problematic. Only 5 teams are misplaced. Miami, Batlimore and Indianapolis could rotate counter-clockwise, and divisions would be perfectly logical. Dallas and Atlanta could flip flop and that would be logical. But moving five teams to new divisions would be more disruptive than it is worth.

Remember, also, that there was never an intent to cluster teams absolutely into geographical areas. Divisions were formed, and they were given a designation that reflected the geography of most of the teams in the division. Feel lucky that they did not name them like "Con Smythe Division", and terms like "good division" and "bad division" were out of the question.

The NFC and the AFC, of course, have their origin in the merger of the NFL and the AFL. A couple of NFL teams were shifted to the AFC, just to make it numerically balanced.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-06-2009, 01:29 PM
 
2,758 posts, read 4,927,091 times
Reputation: 1114
Quote:
Originally Posted by ajf131 View Post
St. Louis in the NFC South!!! What are you on? St. Louis is Midwestern, not Southern. Either put it in the NFC East or the NFC North.
I get Stl in the NFC North but you should not have even brought up the East because all of the Southern teams (AFC & NFC) are further east than Stl. I get the West right now but the Rams in the East make as much sense as the Cowboys being in the East.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:

Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > U.S. Forums > General U.S.
Similar Threads
Follow City-Data.com founder on our Forum or

All times are GMT -6.

2005-2019, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35 - Top