Geographically correct NFL

**Beau Petard** · 02-13-2014, 10:54 PM

Bc-
I can see it now - Arnie et al will have to deal with some group of radical Euro-sympathizers protesting under a PETA-like acronym, who will want to free all of the "enslaved and abused" American football players from their brutal, dehumanizing sport, all the while chanting, "Save the ALEs!"

**BcRaven** · 02-13-2014, 11:16 PM

Originally Posted by Beau Petard

Bc-
I can see it now - Arnie et al will have to deal with some group of radical Euro-sympathizers protesting under a PETA-like acronym, who will want to free all of the "enslaved and abused" American football players from their brutal, dehumanizing sport, all the while chanting, "Save the ALEs!"

LOL old chap... Bc

**alien bird** · 02-13-2014, 11:50 PM

Originally Posted by arnie_uk

Not really seeing as though pits is actually closer to philly wash and balt than Carolina is. In my eyes it would be more geographically correct as well

Yes, but Carolina is farther from Cincinnati than it is from Washington DC. Carolina's the outlier. You would be making one closer geographical division and one farther apart.

**Mista T** · 02-14-2014, 12:57 AM

Before splitting into divisions, the Baltimore Colts were in the NFL's Western Conference, along with Green Bay, LA, SF. After the NFL expanded twice to grow from 12 to 16 teams, which led to splitting into 4 divisions, the Colts were in the NFL Coastal Division, along with LA, SF, and Atlanta. Those alignments were about as "geographically incorrect" as possible.

While the NFL's divisional setup is more geographically oriented than it was in the 50s-60s, a few anomalies remain as NFL owners avoid disturbing existing rivalries, such as Dallas in the NFC East and St.Louis remaining the the NFC West after moving eastward from LA.

The NFL will never reorganize itself as suggested in the Bleacher report article because of TV money. Going down the East Coast, the AFC and NFC alternate between Foxborough (AFC), Hackensack (both), Philly (NFC), Baltimore (AFC), and Landover (NFC),providing each network an approximate equal toe-hold in broadcasting coverage in the nation's population center.

**Beau Petard** · 02-14-2014, 01:05 AM

T-
Good points, and always interesting historical perspective on the BALTIMORE Colts and the "old" alignments. And as you note, the TV and $$$ really drive things anymore v. how these decisions were made back when. (and lest anyone misunderstand, $$$ always made/make a difference, but nowadays it's top priority regardless of any BS spin the league wants to try and sell)

**Ravenalytics** · 02-15-2014, 01:46 AM

Get rid of divisions. Just conferences. Everyone plays everyone once,. Teams are ranked on win loss, with point differential deciding ties (think EPL). Hold normal playoffs. Two conference winners meet in the Super Bowl. It'd be like the World Series games, before they introduced interleague play.

**bacchys** · 02-15-2014, 02:33 AM

Originally Posted by Mista T

Before splitting into divisions, the Baltimore Colts were in the NFL's Western Conference, along with Green Bay, LA, SF. After the NFL expanded twice to grow from 12 to 16 teams, which led to splitting into 4 divisions, the Colts were in the NFL Coastal Division, along with LA, SF, and Atlanta. Those alignments were about as "geographically incorrect" as possible.

The Colts were in the Western Conference because the official start of the franchise was in Dallas. They played part of a season and the ownership group went bankrupt. The NFL took over the franchise and they finished out the season playing only road games.

**lowrider** · 02-15-2014, 08:02 PM

Gotta admit, it would be fun being in the same division as Philly and Washington. I could imagine the rivalries with those 2 franchises.

**AirFlacco** · 02-16-2014, 01:14 AM

It would be a lot easier than playing Pissburgh and Cinci twice pr year but Piss always makes us tougher vs strong teams out of the division like beating NE for the championship a year ago and we should have beat them the previous year.

Ravens are built as a physical team to compete in the most physical division in football.

**Mista T** · 02-16-2014, 10:03 AM

Originally Posted by AirFlacco

Ravens are built as a physical team to compete in the most physical division in football.

Not to continue to hijack the thread, but that statement is no longer correct! The 2012 Ravens team, whose members included Lewis, Reed, Birk, McKinnie, and Pollard, was a physical team in the Ravens tradition. Our current roster is, let just say: not as physical.