NFL and College Football (American Football) Thread

[Samari]

Originally Posted by Mr. DJ

not to interrupt your catfight, but owners are idiots too

Too bad Jerry Jones won't swallow his pride and hire a GM. Jerry clearly hasn't been getting the job done since the 90's.

[Kyuu]

Originally Posted by solomon

On the one hand, it's really fun to watch you guys go at it.....

On the other, you gotta admit, this kinda does validate the crtiticism our non-sport fans girlfriends give us when we get WAYYYYYYY too into stuff like this......

Yea. I was about to say. The rules are the rules. Deal with it. So what if the Niners had a weaker schedule than the Saints, due to being in a weak division? The Saints lost to the freakin' Rams - and that was a deciding factor.

===

Personally, I would love to see a complete NFL re-alignment after expansion. For example, take the Cowboys out of the NFC East finally. Screw "traditional" rivalries.

[Samari]

The NFC South wasn't even that superior. They had three more wins than the NFC West this season.

[GDB]

Originally Posted by Kyuu

Personally, I would love to see a complete NFL re-alignment after expansion. For example, take the Cowboys out of the NFC East finally. Screw "traditional" rivalries.

What's wrong with traditional rivalries? It spices things up and the players play their hardest.

[Kyuu]

Originally Posted by GDB

What's wrong with traditional rivalries? It spices things up and the players play their hardest.

Teams know each other well... perhaps... TOO well. If you keep marketing the same old thing... well... it's just that... the "same old crap". If you mix things up a little, then maybe... just maybe... some different "flavors" may come about.

I mean: did anyone miss Tampa Bay aligned with the NFC North? No.

Also. Back in the day, like 1930's back in the day, there was this Bears-Giants rivalry. Of course, that's been gone.

[Samari]

Rivalries are never going away because they make money. They always show Cowboys/Redskins on primetime even if the teams are both really bad from the previous season, they are still marking that one as a primetime game. Chalk that one up to the East coast bias.

[Mr. DJ]

Cowboys and Indians

[Kyuu]

Originally Posted by Samari

Rivalries are never going away because they make money. They always show Cowboys/Redskins on primetime even if the teams are both really bad from the previous season, they are still marking that one as a primetime game. Chalk that one up to the East coast bias.

The past decade:

We had the Colts-Patriots. And they're not even in the same division. It just happened that both teams were simultaneously good; and scheduling often put the two against each other year-after-year.

Point of the matter. These "rivalries" do not necessarily have to be in the same division. Therefore, it should be acceptable to move teams out of certain divisions and still retain the rivalries, while potentially creating new ones.

[GDB]

That's all well and good if a team only has one rivalry in a division. But the NFC East and AFC North, for example, are basically two 4-way rivalries.

[solomon]

Yea, I can understand what Kyuu says on one hand, they are talking about drastically overhauling the set up of the NHL geographically for closer proximity and regional cohesion (generally speaking)

http://www.nhl.com/ice/news.htm?id=604852

On the other hand as a Redskins fan, I treasure the hated rivalry we have with the 'Boys, and wouldn't like to see that go away.

[Dilla]

Traditional rivalries need to stay imo.

[Samari]

Originally Posted by Kyuu

The past decade:

We had the Colts-Patriots. And they're not even in the same division. It just happened that both teams were simultaneously good; and scheduling often put the two against each other year-after-year.

Point of the matter. These "rivalries" do not necessarily have to be in the same division. Therefore, it should be acceptable to move teams out of certain divisions and still retain the rivalries, while potentially creating new ones.

But a lot of rivalries derive from being in the same division for years. If the Cowboys and Redskins played each other once every one or two seasons it wouldn't be the same as playing twice a year. Not even close.

The only reason we had the Patriots and Colts having a rivalry was because they were winning their division every single season for the past ten years. That doesn't usually happen in this day and age, having two teams in the same conference go on a run like that. Regardless, that has nothing to do with screwing up historical rivalries. The kind of games that really get the fans pumped up. Using out of division rivalries as an excuse to justify screwing up division rivalries where you play an opponent twice a year (you are GUARANTEED to play that opponent not once, but twice) is simply dumb.

[Last Sinner]

Kalil be one impressive offensive linesman rookie. Wonder where that guy will go.

When is the draft btw?

[GDB]

He's going to go to the Vikings. That's about 70% assured. Can't be more sure, since who knows if their front office is sane or not. Draft is late April, like the 26th or something.

[Kyuu]

Originally Posted by Dilla

Traditional rivalries need to stay imo.

Traditional rivalries can also translate as "same old crap". I happen to be a Bears fan:

So, I'll advocate by championing the Bears-Packers rivalry as the epitomy of NFL rivalries based on how old it is and the runs they've had over the decades. And no other NFL rivalry compares to this.

Even so, I'm willing to limit this to one game a year.

However...

Originally Posted by Samari

But a lot of rivalries derive from being in the same division for years. If the Cowboys and Redskins played each other once every one or two seasons it wouldn't be the same as playing twice a year. Not even close.

This twice a year thing is done out of "fairness". Ensuring that both teams in a "rivalry" have a fair shot at each other's homefields. If my Bears happen to lose to the Packers in one of the games, there does stem that hope of getting a win in the "other game".

But what happens when one or both teams suck? It's pretty much a done deal for both teams. The montage of "any given Sunday" best applies to teams, who simply don't know each other OR two balanced teams.

Case in point, these divisional "rivalries" are artificial. This is particularly true for some of the "newer rivalries". They only exist because teams were put in the same division. Niners-Seahawks? Once upon a time, the Seahawks were AFC. Remember that?

===

When it comes to these "rivalries", I'm willing to go more "liberal" about it in the event of the next re-alignment. Though, I'm not willing to go as far as dissolve this NFC-AFC thing. Not, yet.

Regardless, this sort of discussion is moot - until the next NFL expansion comes about.

When I get a chance, I'll look more into the history of these NFL divisions. Back in the early early early early day, it used to be just two conferences: East and West. Of course, plenty of things happened since then.

[Last Sinner]

I presume Carolina will get either Coples or Brockers with their first round pick. Richardson was getting talked up big time in the leadup to the Combine - that's the one I'm really wondering about where they will go.

[GDB]

Originally Posted by Kyuu

Case in point, these divisional "rivalries" are artificial. This is particularly true for some of the "newer rivalries". They only exist because teams were put in the same division. Niners-Seahawks? Once upon a time, the Seahawks were AFC. Remember that?

Sure, some rivalries are artificial, but some aren't. Case in point: AFC North. Steelers and Browns have had a rivalry for decades. When the Browns became the Ravens, a lot of that rivalry came with them. Now that the Ravens and Steelers are constantly competing for the top, that rivalry is intensified into what ESPN (or was it NFL Network... probably NFL Network) claims is the greatest rivalry currently in the NFL. The Steelers and Browns are still rivals, you just don't hear about it much because the Browns suck. And since the Ravens were the former Browns, the Browns are rivals with the Ravens. The only real "outsider" here are the Bengals, but at least they got the in-state thing going with the Browns.

I know the NFC East is similar in terms of rivalry, I just don't know the full history because I don't really care.

[solomon]

Indeed, the Skins-Boys rivalry is NOT artificial, it may be diluted some by the fact that neither team is a dynamo in anymore, but that doesn't stop the interest locally and nationally, otherwise why would NBC show them for Sunday Night Games EVEN when they sucK?

And then there is NYG and The Iggles, ESPECIALLY in those cases where proximity breeds contempt.

NFC North is awesome because EVERYONE is right next to each other, why mess that up just cause some shmoes in California "don't care"? Now a monkey will be thrown into the wrench if someone (Minny) ends up moving to LA.

[Elo the Blue]

Originally Posted by Last Sinner

I presume Carolina will get either Coples or Brockers with their first round pick. Richardson was getting talked up big time in the leadup to the Combine - that's the one I'm really wondering about where they will go.

I have no idea where Richardson will go either. There are a good number of teams with top-15 picks that could use an upgrade at RB. But as talented as Richardson is, the RB position has become so devalued in recent years.

[GDB]

Exactly. I really don't understand why any team would take a RB in the first round unless they were completely set everywhere else. And really, what team is completely set everywhere except at RB?