NFL expansion and Realignment

[RendeR]

Was reading some articles about teh issues with LA and the ideas that the NFL intends to expand so I thought I'd toss out my vision of what needs to happen to make expansion work.


Adding less than 4 teams would be kind of stupid, as it would utterly wreck scheduling and division placement entirely and require yet another realignment if/when they finally get to 36 teams, so I'm going with a 4 team addition:

New teams:

LA x2: yes 2 teams in LA, its more than large enough to accommodate them and there is already a perfect example of 2 teams sharing a facility in New York. That same plan could save 2 new franchises billions in their early years.

Portland Oregon: Fans are rabid for Football in Portland. They supported a shitty USFL team for a season and they are mad crazy about their college teams.

Oklahoma City: The Midwest is always a hotbed of Football fans and an Oklahoma team would create instant rivalries with the Texas and Kansas Teams.


So for realignment, we need to shift from 4 divisions of 4 teams in each conference to 3 divisions of 6 teams in each conference. 3 division winners get in, the top 2 getting a first round bye, then the next 3 best records get in as wild cards. Same playoff setup best 12 teams get their shot.


AFC East: New England, New York, Baltimore,Buffalo, Miami, Jacksonville
AFC Central: Cleveland, Cincinnati, Pittsburgh. Tennesee, Indianapolis, Houston
AFC West: San Diego, LA#1, Kansas City, Denver, Oakland, Portland

NFC East: New York, Washington, Tampa, Atlanta Philadelphia, Carolina
NFC Central: New Orleans, Dallas, Green Bay, Minnesota, Chicago, Detroit
NFC West: LA#2, Arizona, San Francisco, Seattle, St Louis, Oklahoma City


Scheduling is a breeze since you play 2 games within your division == 10 games, then one other full division each season == 6 more. If they decide to move to an 18 game schedule this still works as you simply add the 2 in conference teams that finished in your exact spot the previous year in the other 2 divisions.



Simple, clean and keeps the majority of rivalries intact. Creates some great new ones as well.

This was put together geographically as best I could. I'd rather have Buffalo in the central and I'm sure Dallas Fans would rather stay in the East.

[Matthean]

I think a place like Vegas would get a team before LA gets a second.

[cuervo72]

Eh, I dunno. I'm fine with 32.

As for other markets and supporting shitty USFL teams...apparently the USFL is trying to start up again, Spring 2014. I'd much rather see that up and running again as an alternative to expansion.

[cuervo72]

Also, there is no way Dallas is going to be separated from the NFC East. They and the other three teams would never go for that.

[henry296]

Same with separating the steelers and ravens.

[Dutch]

1. It's doubtful that New Orleans will play re-alignment bitch again.

2. San Antonio should probably get a team before LA #2, Portland, or Oklahoma City.

3. Doesn't LA still have a funding issue for a new modern stadium anyway?

4. And, FWIW, if the NFL expands by 4 teams, they powers that be inevitably make it Los Angeles, Quebec, Mexico City and London and fuck it all up.

[RendeR]

Originally Posted by Dutch

1. It's doubtful that New Orleans will play re-alignment bitch again.

2. San Antonio should probably get a team before LA #2, Portland, or Oklahoma City.

3. Doesn't LA still have a funding issue for a new modern stadium anyway?

4. And, FWIW, if the NFL expands by 4 teams, they powers that be inevitably make it Los Angeles, Quebec, Mexico City and London and fuck it all up.

I can see SA getting one before a second one in LA, but Texas won't get a 3rd team when there are entire states without one with amply sized cities available.

Thats the thing though, the dual team use would make the funding issues a lot simpler. more usage means less overall costs per team and far more revenue for the arena itself.

I've read the ideas about Toronto, Vancouver, Mexico City and London and honestly, there are too many reasons NOT to go to those cities. Anything outside the US creates a huge financial issue with the currency exchanges and what not. Mexico City would be out if only due to security issues down there. Vancouver is too close to Seattle and would have money issues on top of it. And then you have to look at the travel expenses of the teams being ridiculous. London or Honolulu are simply too far for travel time to allow them to work.



As for some other comments regarding divisional preferences and all that. I only went by geography. it'd be easy enough to swap out Dallas for Atlanta, The Pittsburgh-Baltimore Rivalry quite frankly isn't all that. no one would truly miss it, but accommodations could certainly be made. its not like the league has ever had truly geographic layouts anyway. Why start here =)

[Swaggs]

Florida, California, and New York (kinda) already have three teams, so there is no reason to think San Antonio would be disqualified on that basis. I don't see a reason to go to 36 teams, but I like the idea of two in LA (maybe one in Riverside), San Antonio, and Portland.

As for downplaying the Pittsburgh-Baltimore rivalry, it's all subjective (and subject to change), but it is listed as the #1 NFL rivalry by recent USA Today, Athlon, The Sporting News & Fox Sports articles (plus a number of Bleacher Report entries), so there is at least something to it:
NFL Schedules, Scores, News, Predictions, and Power Rankings | AthlonSports.com
Steelers-Ravens cream of the crop among NFL rivalries
Top 10 hottest current NFL rivalries
Ravens-Steelers moves to top of NFL rivalries - NFL - Sporting News

[Flasch186]

ahem the USFL has been running for a very long time, thank you very much.

[molson]

Originally Posted by cuervo72

As for other markets and supporting shitty USFL teams...apparently the USFL is trying to start up again, Spring 2014. I'd much rather see that up and running again as an alternative to expansion.

Hey, the UFL is still around! Though, they suspended the season after 4 weeks in 2012 and announced that they'd resume the 2012 season maybe sometime in 2013. Which, you know, if never a good sign.

[fantom1979]

From what I have heard from Goodell, it seems that London would be in play for any future expansion. I also think that if California can have 5 teams (Chargers, 49ers, Raiders, and 2 LA teams), am pretty sure that Texas could have a third.

Here are the largest US cities without a team:
LA (will probably get a team one way or another sometime this decade)
San Antonio (city council rejected public money to refurb the Alamodome in the past)
San Jose (part of the Raiders/49ers territory)
Columbus (Would Buckeye fans care?)
Austin
Memphis

[Big Fo]

Biggest places in the USA without a team, going by Metropolitan Statistical Area populations:

#2 Los Angeles-Long Beach-Anaheim, CA MSA
#9 Riverside-San Bernardino-Ontario, CA MSA - I guess these people could just support an LA team
#24 Portland-Vancouver-Hillsboro, OR-WA MSA
#25 San Antonio-New Braunfels, TX MSA
#26 Orlando-Kissimmee-Sanford, FL MSA - four Florida teams is overkill imo, anyway the good people in this area already root for the Dolphins
#27 Sacramento–Roseville–Arden-Arcade, CA MSA - Just root for a Bay Area team imo
#31 Las Vegas-Henderson-Paradise, NV MSA

Most of the rest of the places in the top 40 or so are pretty close to other teams like San Jose, Austin, Columbus, etc.

[Matthean]

Originally Posted by fantom1979

Columbus (Would Buckeye fans care?)

I don't see how Ohio getting a third pro team would work out. At least give me a team in 'Bama so I can cheer for them knowing they will win a title before the Lions will. Also, I don't get the London thing at all. That's a brutal commute for a game. Does the London team even fly back between road games? Where do they practice if they don't?

[BillJasper]

Do we really need more than 32 teams. Talent is already spread thin to a point that many games aren't even contests.

Plus, who will the NFL use to get current cities to fork over cash for stadiums if they put teams in places like Portland, San Antonio and LA?

[Kodos]

LA doesn't deserve a team.

[JediKooter]

Originally Posted by Kodos

LA doesn't deserve a team.

This.

[chinaski]

Im a Portland native... and I have to say as much as I would love to have a NFL team here, theres no chance. We dont have the money or the market for it.

[finketr]

Originally Posted by Big Fo

Biggest places in the USA without a team, going by Metropolitan Statistical Area populations:

#2 Los Angeles-Long Beach-Anaheim, CA MSA
#9 Riverside-San Bernardino-Ontario, CA MSA - I guess these people could just support an LA team
#24 Portland-Vancouver-Hillsboro, OR-WA MSA
#25 San Antonio-New Braunfels, TX MSA
#26 Orlando-Kissimmee-Sanford, FL MSA - four Florida teams is overkill imo, anyway the good people in this area already root for the Dolphins
#27 Sacramento–Roseville–Arden-Arcade, CA MSA - Just root for a Bay Area team imo
#31 Las Vegas-Henderson-Paradise, NV MSA

Most of the rest of the places in the top 40 or so are pretty close to other teams like San Jose, Austin, Columbus, etc.

living out here in the Riverside-SB-Ont area, I don't find much in the way of NFL anything out here. Also, there's no current stadium and I don't believe there's even been talk about a new stadium out this way.

Oh yeah, San Bernardino is bankrupt so that's probably not a good sign.

[Blackadar]

Originally Posted by RendeR

AFC East: New England, New York, Baltimore,Buffalo, Miami, Jacksonville
AFC Central: Cleveland, Cincinnati, Pittsburgh. Tennesee, Indianapolis, Houston
AFC West: San Diego, LA#1, Kansas City, Denver, Oakland, Portland

NFC East: New York, Washington, Tampa, Atlanta Philadelphia, Carolina
NFC Central: New Orleans, Dallas, Green Bay, Minnesota, Chicago, Detroit
NFC West: LA#2, Arizona, San Francisco, Seattle, St Louis, Oklahoma City

Dead On Arrival

[murrayyyyy]

Originally Posted by Matthean

I think a place like Vegas would get a team before LA gets a second.

Will never happen... never ever... This town is not a football town.

Realistically the NFL should expand into Canada at least before thinking of Vegas.

[chadritt]

LA would absolutely get 2 teams before Vegas got one. The natural rivalries in both the NFC and AFC would be enough to justify it.

[NorvTurnerOverdrive]

everything is so perfect mathematically now. 32 teams, 16 games, 4x4. be a shame to screw that up.

also, i think it was deadspin that said no team really wants to move to LA they just want to use it as leverage. makes a lot of sense

[saldana]

So both western conferences get 2 expansion teams to beat the crap out of for half a dozen seasons....ummm no.

[M GO BLUE!!!]

Just give LA all 4 teams in this scenario. They will then all leave for markets that act like they care.

[Blackadar]

[stevew]

We're already at a 6-10 QB deficit, I can't imagine adding 4 more teams. Who's going to start for these guys.

[PilotMan]

We would see an evolution of the NFL offense to one more resembling the college game as depth at each position is stretched and weaknesses can be exploited more.

[Chief Rum]

Cuz, ya know, when offensive quality is stretched thin by expansion, defensive quality is not affected at all.

[stevew]

The top 224 defensive backs in the world are probably employed. I wonder how ghastly the next 28 would be (as well)

[stevew]

Or the next 40 OL...qbs shudder.

[RendeR]

As much as anyone wants to deny it, the NFL WILL expand, its just a matter of when and how much.

[MrBug708]

Let's go LA whoever!

[TLK]

Add two more teams and just have two conferences with no divisions. Play each team in you conference once with the AFC and NFC only meeting at the Super Bowl (and Pro Bowl ) Rotate home field every year and possibly let a 7th team in from each conference. Not ideal but if they must expand.