or do the people who run the NFL need a geography lesson? Indianapolis in the south division, Dallas in the east division, what's up with that?
2007-06-30 17:02:05 · 12 answers · asked by Anonymous in Sports ➔ Football (American)
If its about preserving rivalries then they should've left the Titans in the same division with the Bengals, Browns and Steelers and put the ravens with the Texans, Colts and Jaguars.
2007-07-02 03:04:26 · update #1
yea,I used to think bout that myself,why wouldnt they put the dolhins in the AFC south,and put the colts in the east
WHO KNOWs
2007-06-30 17:07:00 · answer #1 · answered by Edward 3 · 1⤊ 0⤋
For Dallas, blame the Mara's of NY Giants. The idiots felt their "rivalry" needed two games a year to exist. If it is a real rivalry, meeting once every three years just builds up the pressure.
As for Indy, the AFC East should've lost Miami to the new AFC South. Again, blame NY. The Jets think they have a rivalry with the Dolphins. (Dolphin fans leave early at PLAYOFF games. How can you have a rivalry with people who don't care? but I digress.)
Remember the old divisions? New Orleans in the west, and Dallas in the East? Believe it or not, it improved, but New Yorkers are still geographically challenged..
2007-07-01 08:07:19 · answer #2 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 0⤋
When the NFL realigned, Dallas was kept in the East because of the big rivally with the Redskins. If we took Dallas out of the East and put them in the South, then Carolina or Atlanta, both of which have good rivalries with the Saints have to move. As it is, Rivalry games sell more tickets then non rivalry games. And the NFL is all about the money.
2007-07-01 07:16:18 · answer #3 · answered by lustatfirstbite 5 · 0⤊ 0⤋
It's much better than it was.
Atlanta used to be in the NFC West and Arizona in the NFC East!
A lot of it is historical - a team moves but the rivalry remains. An example of this is Baltimore being in the AFC North rather than the East because of the long history of the Cleveland - Pittsburgh and the Cleveland - Cincinatti rivalries.
Beyond that, it is simply based on having a few teams left over and sticking them in where to balance the divisons.
2007-07-01 05:44:17 · answer #4 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
Indy probably belongs with Pittsburgh, Cleveland and Cincinnati. Baltimore belongs in the East with NE, NYJ, Buffalo. Miami in the South with Jax, Hou, and Ten.
But, they really worked hard to preserve rivalries. Keeping Baltimore with Pit, Cle, and Cin was done bacause the natural rivalry with Cleveland (since Balt stole the last Browns).
Mia, NE, NJ, and Buff have been together forever. They couldn't break that up. They also couldn't break up Chi, Min, GB, Det or Oak, Den, SD, KC. Nor could they break up Dal, NYG, Phi, Wash.
Working around these longstanding rivalries that they couldn't change, they really did pretty good with this last realignment.
2007-07-01 00:30:49 · answer #5 · answered by quint 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋
how about the old days
NFC west was
La Rams
Sf. 49ers
Atlanta Falcons and
NO Saints.
Was that a wack division or what.
And how about Dallas in the east.
2007-07-01 00:10:35 · answer #6 · answered by Michael M 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Ya its kind of screwed up. But Back in the day Colts were considered south becuase they were in Baltimore and like The Chiefs... They are not really in the west bit they were in Texas and I guess that is considered west-ish.
2007-07-01 03:24:51 · answer #7 · answered by Nick 2 · 0⤊ 0⤋
The people do need a geography lesson
2007-07-01 23:15:27 · answer #8 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
In the NFL, money comes before geographical correctness.
2007-07-01 02:54:19 · answer #9 · answered by Awesome Bill 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
true but when the NFL started the colts where in Baltimore
2007-07-01 00:08:20 · answer #10 · answered by monkeyman 2 · 0⤊ 0⤋