I don't understand NFL's division alignment

[brentspeak]

Why, for instance, does the AFC's North division consist of

Cincinnati
Pittsburgh
Cleveland
Baltimore

while the AFC South consists of

Indianapolis
Tennessee
Jacksonville
Houston

Wouldn't it make a lot more sense, geographically, for Baltimore to be placed in the South and Indianapolis to be placed in the North?

As for why Dallas is in the NFC East...

[marmar]

1. Only the NFC division...

with Detroit, Chicago, Green Bay and Minnesota makes geographic sense.

[trotsky]

2. They wanted to try and keep the most traditional rivalries intact.

Thus you have Miami in the AFC East along with three northeast teams.

[brentspeak]

3. I guess that makes sense for the AFC East

but I would still switch Baltimore and Indy in their divisions.

[trotsky]

4. Oh and remember

that the Ravens were once the Browns. I'm sure that came into consideration to keep them in the division with the new Browns!

[DelawareValleyDem]

5. Remember, Baltimore was the old Cleveland Browns

the rivalry between them and the Steelers and the Bengals dates back years, in the case of Pitt back to the pre-merger NFL

[Awsi Dooger]

7. Yeah, and as a Dolphin fan I hated that

We should be in a division with Tampa Bay and Jacksonville. Then pick one between Atlanta, Carolina, New Orleans. I realize those are all NFC teams except Jacksonville. Big deal. The conference re-alignment would have been simple.

Over time, the geographical aspect would have made for incredibly intense rivalries, much moreso than Jets, Bills or Patriots. I mean, the Colts were Miami's primary rival in the '70s but now they're gone and forgotten. The same thing would have happened with the other AFC East teams. Meanwhile, playing Tampa Bay and Jacksonville twice each every year might have approximated collegiate-type rivalries. It was an incredible waste of an opportunity. But almost every other Dolphin fan I talked to had blinders snugly attached and was content to keep the old setup.

[trotsky]

8. Oh but those Dolphins-Bills battles.

They've given us some of the NFL's best games.

I agree with you though, Florida is true football state and it would have been fun to see the Florida teams in a division with each other.

[nickgutierrez]

13. Between Dolphins-Bills and the Dolphins-Jets slugfests...

...especially when Marino was at his peak, those games, every single year, are the kinds of games that get young kids to love sports for a lifetime. :)

[Awsi Dooger]

16. I hear that all the time and it puzzles me

I guess it's just age. I grew up with the glory era Dolphins, the true glory era of the early '70s. The years when we'd pass the ball maybe 8 to 11 times, mostly to let Paul Warfield stretch his legs. The Dolphins would take over the ball with 7 or 8 minutes left at our own 20 and you knew the game was over. Fourteen running plays and six first downs later and the clock ran out, at about 3:35 Eastern time.

That's the football I thrilled to and will always associate with the Dolphins. The Marino years, in contrast, we're an annual colossal bore. I barely paid attention, especially after '85. We drafted poorly and ran the ball seldom, pantyhose all the way. Yet I'm a member of a Dolphin fan forum and most of the posters idolize Marino, avatars and praise everywhere. As a native Miamian, I'm just thankful the Canes somehow became a dynasty parallel to the Dolphins' wasted two decades.

[Catch22Dem]

6. It used to make even less sense than that

You used to have Atlanta in the NFC West and Arizona in the NFC East.

[akarnitz]

11. A brief history of NFL alignment(or as brief as I could be, anyway)

The Cardinals placement in the NFC East is a pre-merger story. The Cards were originally in Chicago; they played at Comiskey Park. Before the expansion into the south(Atlanta and New Orleans came into the NFL in the mid-60's) there were only two conferences- East and West. The NFL saw it fit to put the Cards in the East and the Bears in the West. The Cards moved to St. Louis in 1960(?) but stayed in the East.

Why? I think the league was being deferential to the Bidwell family. The family owned the Cardinals prior to the creation of the NFL. They had been a moving force in league matters from the beginning. The Bidwells liked the established rivalries- with the Giants, Redskins, Cleveland, et al. They saw them as money makers at the gate. And a move to the West would have had what was already a pooriy run franchise facing the Packers, Bears and Lions(all contenders at the time) twice a year(S.F. and L.A. trips were costly, too, and the Bidwells have been doing business on the cheap for a very long time).



So how does this tie in with Atlanta and New Orleans being in the NFC West for all those years? Atlanta joined in 1966 and was placed in the Eastern Conference. When New Orleans joined in '67 it became the 16th team in the league. Pete Rozelle saw a chance to bring in more money by splitting into 4 divisions of 4 teams each. This created an additional round of playoffs. The divisions were the Central(Chi.,Det., G.B., Minn.), Coastal(Atl., Bal., L.A., S.F.), Century(Cle., Pitt., St L., NY '67 & '69, N.O. '68), and Capitol(Dal., Phi., Wash., N.O. '67 & '69, N.Y. '68).

St Louis and the Giants(and I'm just guessing here)went along w/this realignment because they knew it was only temporary. The AFL-NFL merger was a fait accompli. The Maras(Giants owners) and the Bidwells probably agreed because they knew it was in the best interest($$,$$$,$$$)of the League. And they knew they'd both end up (in 1970) in the division w/traditional rivals Philly and D.C.. Dallas worked as a rivalry for the Cards and Giants, too: geographical proximity to St. Louis and Tom Landry's ties w/the Giants.

Atlanta and New Orleans ended up in the West HOW? Probably because the Central made all the sense in the world, and the Cards and Giants had enough pull to get what they wanted. So the West ended up being a division w/2, but only 2, distinct rivalries. And as fate had it, the rivalry of the 2 TRULY western teams was the only one that mattered(the Rams dominated the '70's, the Niners ruled the '80's).

Hope this was interesting to someone out there. I've been an amateur historian of the NFL since I was 7 years old, and I like to share. :freak:

edited to make Maras a plural, not a possessive(Mara's).

[CatholicEdHead]

15. Or Tampa Bay in with Minnesota, Green Bay, Chicago, and Detroit

[Captain Hilts]

9. The league and networks want to keep the Dallas-Wash rivarly.

I always thought Miami being in a conference with: Buffalo, New England, and New York was crazy.

[Renew Deal]

10. Tradition

and rivalries. It was much worse, like Arizona in the east and St. Louis in the west.

[HuckleB]

12. Too many divisions to keep "tradition."

And yet they "try." I don't know why. The NFL doesn't seem to give a rip about tradition otherwise.

[Jersey Devil]

14. Years ago it was a lot worse with Giants switching divisions every year

In the early 70s there was a "Century Division" and an Eastern Division and because no one wanted to give up the Giants as a road game (big gate) they made the Giants alternate. One year they were in a division with Dallas, next year no Dallas. I can't remember how long they did that but it was nuts.

[akarnitz]

17. Division switching was late '60's

See my post above(#11- the reallllly long one). You might be confusing division switching w/ the screwy playoff system back then.
The playoff sites were pre-determined(AFC Central champ will host AFC West in first round, winner hosts AFC Championship game, etc.). In '72 Pittsburgh hosted the Dolphins although the 'Fins were undefeated. They switched that format in '73 just because of the ridiculousness of the afforementioned scenario.

[Awsi Dooger]

18. I don't think they dumped the rotational playoff format until '75

Strictly on memory, I concede. But I was a huge Dolphin fan and I'm almost sure that rotational factor was still in play in '74, when we traveled to Oakland and lost the most heartbraking game in the history of the franchise, 28-26 when a flailing Kenny Stabler shotputted it to Clarence Davis in the final 30 seconds.

Pittsburgh again benefitted, because they got to host the wild card team (Buffalo) in the first round despite having the worst record among the three division champions. In the current and logical setup, Buffalo would have traveled to Oakland and Miami would have hosted Pittsburgh. The Dolphins were on a 31 game home winning streak, BTW, still the longest in NFL hstory. I severely doubt Pittsburgh could have won in the Orange Bowl, especially the way our great OL matched up with and neutralized the Steel Curtain defensive front.

It's possible my memory is faulty, but '74 was a landmark season because Csonka, Kiick and Warfield had already signed with the WFL, so it was obvious that was our chance to win a Super Bowl with the same group who produced the unbeaten season.