1320Lichtie Posted January 13, 2016 Share Posted January 13, 2016 Disappointed the Raiders aren't going back, I really could've jumped on that bandwagon. Hardly surprising though. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr Bairn Posted January 13, 2016 Author Share Posted January 13, 2016 Disappointed the Raiders aren't going back, I really could've jumped on that bandwagon. Hardly surprising though. Still not out the question, although the Chargers have first option and it sounds like they're going to use it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Snakebite Posted January 13, 2016 Share Posted January 13, 2016 Don't think the NFL want the Raiders as their first choice because Davis is skint and the Gangbanger fans they have there with the potential to tarnish the reputation of the shield. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr. Brightside Posted January 13, 2016 Share Posted January 13, 2016 Expansion teams would be awful, it would just dilute the quality. Well that is just a blatant lie. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bully Wee Villa Posted January 13, 2016 Share Posted January 13, 2016 I wouldn't mind an expansion to 36 AFC Central 1 Pittsburgh Steelers 2 Cleveland Browns 3 Baltimore Ravens 4 Cincinnati Bengals 5 Jacksonville Jaguars 6 Tennessee Titans East 1 New England Patriots 2 NY Jets 3 Buffalo Bills 4 Miami Dolphins 5 Indianapolis Colts 6 Houston Texans West 1 Denver Broncos 2 San Diego Chargers 3 Kansas City Chiefs 4 Oakland Raiders 5 LA expansion team 6 San Antonio expansion team NFC Central 1 Green Bay Packers 2 Chicago Bears 3 Minnesota Vikings 4 Detroit Lions 5 New Orleans Saints 6 Atlanta Falcons East 1 Dallas Cowboys 2 New York Giants 3 Washington Redskins 4 Philadelphia Eagles 5 Carolina Panthers 6 Tampa Bay Buccaneers West 1 Seattle Seahawks 2 Arizona Cardinals 3 San Francisco 49ers 4 Los Angeles Rams 5 Las Vegas expansion team 6 St Louis expansion team Would make the scheduling easy as well. 10 division games and then you just play one other division (3 home, 3 away) Not bad but I'd hope Cumbernauld would be ahead of San Antonio in the queue the next time the league expands. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr. Brightside Posted January 13, 2016 Share Posted January 13, 2016 Oregon could have a team as well. Or Louisville, or Abq. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Snakebite Posted January 13, 2016 Share Posted January 13, 2016 Expand another 3 or 4 teams? Yeah, what fans really want to see is backup jobbers like Geno Smith, clipboard Jesus and Michael Vick getting a chance to start and stink it up.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr. Brightside Posted January 13, 2016 Share Posted January 13, 2016 Expand another 3 or 4 teams? Yeah, what fans really want to see is backup jobbers like Geno Smith, clipboard Jesus and Michael Vick getting a chance to start and stink it up.... These arguments were put forward when the previous expansion was proposed. It was utter shite then and it still is now. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr Bairn Posted January 13, 2016 Author Share Posted January 13, 2016 Expand another 3 or 4 teams? Yeah, what fans really want to see is backup jobbers like Geno Smith, clipboard Jesus and Michael Vick getting a chance to start and stink it up.... I suppose they should retract to 8 teams and just have Brady, Rodgers, Ben, Rivers, Luck, Newton, Wilson and Eli Manning then? Seriously, QB talent is the weakest argument against expansion. If you're forced to start a sub-par QB then you should compensate by running the ball and playing good defense. I'd also like to see rule changes that support that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bully Wee Villa Posted January 13, 2016 Share Posted January 13, 2016 We made the Super Bowl with Rex Grossman! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dee4Life1893 Posted January 14, 2016 Share Posted January 14, 2016 I wouldn't mind an expansion to 36 AFC Central 1 Pittsburgh Steelers 2 Cleveland Browns 3 Baltimore Ravens 4 Cincinnati Bengals 5 Jacksonville Jaguars 6 Tennessee Titans East 1 New England Patriots 2 NY Jets 3 Buffalo Bills 4 Miami Dolphins 5 Indianapolis Colts 6 Houston Texans West 1 Denver Broncos 2 San Diego Chargers 3 Kansas City Chiefs 4 Oakland Raiders 5 LA expansion team 6 San Antonio expansion team NFC Central 1 Green Bay Packers 2 Chicago Bears 3 Minnesota Vikings 4 Detroit Lions 5 New Orleans Saints 6 Atlanta Falcons East 1 Dallas Cowboys 2 New York Giants 3 Washington Redskins 4 Philadelphia Eagles 5 Carolina Panthers 6 Tampa Bay Buccaneers West 1 Seattle Seahawks 2 Arizona Cardinals 3 San Francisco 49ers 4 Los Angeles Rams 5 Las Vegas expansion team 6 St Louis expansion team Would make the scheduling easy as well. 10 division games and then you just play one other division (3 home, 3 away) That's bizarre, I sat the other night and came up with exact same format. For me both conferences must have the same number of teams as do the divisions to keep the rolling schedules we have from year to year. When I really got into the NFL in the late 90s the divisions were all over the place and made it really difficult to understand. Add another 4 teams ASAP. It's gonna happen sooner or later, so why not sooner? I would keep interconference play to a certain degree. I'm not quite sure if my logic adds up and would be feasable but I'd have it something along the lines of... 10 Division Games 2 Conference Games vs teams finishing in same place in other two divisions. 4 Interconference Games vs two teams from two of the three divisions. For example if you finish 1st or 2nd in your division you'll play 3rd and 4th from one division and 5th and 6th from another. If you finish 3rd or 4th in your division you'll play 1st and 2nd / 5th and 6th. Finish 5th or 6th play 3rd and 4th / 1st and 2nd. You get the idea? This would rotate which divisions play who on a 3 year cycle. I had the divisions as follows... AFC East Baltimore Ravens Buffalo Bills Jacksonville Jaguars Miami Dolphins New England Patriots New York Jets AFC Central Cincinnati Bengals Cleveland Browns Houston Texans Indianapolis Colts Pittsburgh Steelers Tennessee Titans AFC West Denver Broncos Kansas City Chiefs Oakland Raiders San Diego Chargers Los Angeles Las Vegas NFC East Carolina Panthers Dallas Cowboys New York Giants Philadelphia Eagles Tampa Bay Buccaneers Washington Redskins NFC Central Chicago Bears Detroit Lions Green Bay Packers Minnesota Vikings San Antonio St Louis NFC West Atlanta Falcons Arizona Cardinals Los Angeles Rams New Orleans Saints San Francisco 49ers Seattle Seahawks Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr Bairn Posted January 14, 2016 Author Share Posted January 14, 2016 I only see a couple of little issues with your proposal First of all I don't think the NFL would ever split the Ravens and Steelers up, and I think they'd like to put the Patriots and Colts back together, so swap the Ravens and Colts over Secondly, there are two great advantages with the way the schedule currently works. The first of these is that over a period of time you're guaranteed to play every single team in the league home and away. Obviously you play your division opponents every year, but you're bound to play every conference opponent at least every 3 years, and every interconference opponent every 4th year. I think ideally the NFL would like to avoid losing this, because they don't want two teams going 20 years or whatever without ever playing. The other advantage is that it encourages parity by giving harder schedules to teams that did well last year (ie Teams that topped their division play one another, teams that finished last play one another). You've also lost this with your weird suggestion of the interconference games basically doing the opposite job. It will be tough for the NFL to keep both whilst having to accommodate 10 out of 16 games being in the division Here's an alternative plan -6 division games. You play four of your division opponents once (2 home, 2 away), then the team that finished next to you last year, you play twice. So 1v2, 3v4, 5v6 are home and away series but the other pairings only play once. -6 games against another division on a 5 year rotation (3 home, 3 away) -Then play the remaining 4 teams that finished in the same placing as you in their division last year (2 home, 2 away) The two disadvantages of that would be that you only play certain division opponents one time and that there would be a disparity in the number of conference/interconference games. Heck if they wanted to be completely wacky they could just abolish the two conferences and have six divisions of 6, the 6 winners make the playoffs and seeded 1-6, then the next 8 teams get wildcards (I think if they went to 36 we would see a 14 team playoff) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Antiochas III Posted January 14, 2016 Share Posted January 14, 2016 If they expand the Division they're not gonna split the games by doing that. Take the NFC East, the Skins/Cowboys match makes more money than any other possible match up in that division - if not the NFL (regular season only of course) and the chance they're not meeting twice a season will not happen Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
invergowrie arab Posted January 14, 2016 Share Posted January 14, 2016 Like it or not I think any large expansion will include London. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
1320Lichtie Posted January 14, 2016 Share Posted January 14, 2016 Like it or not I think any large expansion will include London. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
strichener Posted January 14, 2016 Share Posted January 14, 2016 I wouldn't mind an expansion to 36 AFC Central 1 Pittsburgh Steelers 2 Cleveland Browns 3 Baltimore Ravens 4 Cincinnati Bengals 5 Jacksonville Jaguars 6 Tennessee Titans East 1 New England Patriots 2 NY Jets 3 Buffalo Bills 4 Miami Dolphins 5 Indianapolis Colts 6 Houston Texans West 1 Denver Broncos 2 San Diego Chargers 3 Kansas City Chiefs 4 Oakland Raiders 5 LA expansion team 6 San Antonio expansion team NFC Central 1 Green Bay Packers 2 Chicago Bears 3 Minnesota Vikings 4 Detroit Lions 5 New Orleans Saints 6 Atlanta Falcons East 1 Dallas Cowboys 2 New York Giants 3 Washington Redskins 4 Philadelphia Eagles 5 Carolina Panthers 6 Tampa Bay Buccaneers West 1 Seattle Seahawks 2 Arizona Cardinals 3 San Francisco 49ers 4 Los Angeles Rams 5 Las Vegas expansion team 6 St Louis expansion team Would make the scheduling easy as well. 10 division games and then you just play one other division (3 home, 3 away) I think your geography could be doing with a little polishing. For example Colts are both more central and less east than the bengals, steelers, browns and ravens. I also think it is highly unlikely that two divisions would take 2 teams - they would be a single expansion team is 4 divisions. Whilst we are at it, lets increase the playoffs to 32. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nightmare Posted January 14, 2016 Share Posted January 14, 2016 Is there not a city in Texans that wants a Franchise. San Antonio, maybe? In fact just done a Google search and looks like members of the Raiders Organisation has already visited and spoke with City Officials Mark Davis met with SA officials a few months ago. It's generally thought this was just a bluff to try and get a better deal from Oakland which didn't work. The problem with San Antonio is that it's Cowboys territory and Jerry Jones has a huge influence in the NFL. He won't want a team there, so it's very likely that SA won't get a team. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Antiochas III Posted January 14, 2016 Share Posted January 14, 2016 I think your geography could be doing with a little polishing. For example Colts are both more central and less east than the bengals, steelers, browns and ravens.When has geographical location actually mattered? What matters is what makes the NFL money. That is why in the 2001 realignment Dallas stayed in the NFCE rather than the Panthers joining the ranks when they made the NFCS. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sloop John B Posted January 14, 2016 Share Posted January 14, 2016 Of course there's always the Toronto chestnut now that the Bills are staying put. Certainly a football following there and every other American sport has tried cracking Canada with varying success. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
strichener Posted January 14, 2016 Share Posted January 14, 2016 When has geographical location actually mattered? What matters is what makes the NFL money. That is why in the 2001 realignment Dallas stayed in the NFCE rather than the Panthers joining the ranks when they made the NFCS. Which no-one is disputing. However Mr Bairn has completely re-designed the leagues on what appears to be on a geographical basis. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.