AnimeSuki Forums

Register Forum Rules FAQ Members List Social Groups Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read

Go Back   AnimeSuki Forum > General > General Chat

Notices

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old 2012-02-27, 16:20   Link #4621
Samari
World's Greatest
 
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: San Francisco
Age: 27
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kyuu View Post
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...



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.
Well it doesn't really matter. Cowboys and Redskins will always be around. Just like Bears and Packers, Eagles and Giants, Rams and 49ers, and Patriots/Jets. Another team coming in won't change that.
__________________

"Every light must fade, every heart return to darkness!"
永遠不要失去信心,你的命運。
Samari is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2012-02-27, 16:45   Link #4622
Kyuu
=^^=
 
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: 42 10' N (Latitude) 87 33' W (Longitude)
Age: 35
Quote:
Originally Posted by Samari View Post
Well it doesn't really matter. Cowboys and Redskins will always be around. Just like Bears and Packers, Eagles and Giants, Rams and 49ers, and Patriots/Jets. Another team coming in won't change that.
Don't forget Niners-Cowboys... oh wait... that fizzled.

Quote:
Originally Posted by solomon View Post
Indeed, the Skins-Boys rivalry is NOT artificial,
Of course, that wasn't artificial. They're not in the same division, where the geography doesn't make sense. Just like how Patriots-Colts is not artificial. Rivalries like these formed because both teams were good for a while. But notice, Cowboys-Niners isn't much of a rivalry anymore - just because both teams have sucked for the past decade (or more).

Could there become a Giants-Packers rivalry? Time will tell on this one.
Kyuu is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2012-02-27, 17:02   Link #4623
solomon
Senior Member
 
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Suburban DC
Kyuu I get what you are saying, but if you take that mode of thinking, then technically speaking you'd have to have realignment every so often (30 years) because the rivalries "aren't interesting or genuine".

These things are cyclical you know? Frankly the divisions for any sports should be as concise as possible for travel schedules and easy reach for rival fanbases to create buzz. Anything else is just extra.

What's more while it depends on the respective division somewhat, I doubt most big wigs would see such a realignment proposal as a financially prudent decision. Especially in the NFC East and North. Money would be at stake, why rock the boat? That history has equaled money, only when bridges are burned (like in some college scenarios) do people want big change.
solomon is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2012-02-27, 17:52   Link #4624
Kyuu
=^^=
 
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: 42 10' N (Latitude) 87 33' W (Longitude)
Age: 35
Quote:
Originally Posted by solomon View Post
Kyuu I get what you are saying, but if you take that mode of thinking, then technically speaking you'd have to have realignment every so often (30 years) because the rivalries "aren't interesting or genuine".
Well. I'd only advocate "realignment" in the event of team expansion, like back with 2002 - moving from 3-divisions per conferences to 4. Aligning any other time would be a waste of money, time, effort, and sanity.

Even so, in the event where team expansion does occur, it should not be absolutely necessary to retain previous divisional alignments for the sake of "historical" rivalry. If a rivalry is really that historic, it'll still exist regardless of divisional alignment.

And indeed. Not forgetting the cyclical nature of competition. After all, Bears-Packers have been blah, until both teams are playoff level, which they actually have for the past 5-7 years.

And yup. Change... oh so hard to come by when money is involved, isn't it?

Now, imagine for the CFL to finally ditch their ridiculous rules and join the NFL. Wouldn't that be something? (Who am I kiddin'... XD)
Kyuu is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2012-02-27, 17:59   Link #4625
GDB
Senior Member
 
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Age: 28
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kyuu View Post
If a rivalry is really that historic, it'll still exist regardless of divisional alignment.
But if a team doesn't play that often, then the rivalry becomes more ho-hum. The whole idea behind the rivalry, from a financial standpoint, is to make money. Why would you throw that money away just because? Let's take Ravens-Steelers as an example, since I know enough about that to make this comparison:

A Ravens-Steelers game in Baltimore has tickets in the nose-bleed section sell for about $200. And they sell out damned fast. Ravens-Cardinals, however, sell for maybe $79, and that's for good seats. Not mid-field good, but still in the first 15 rows or so. Why would ownership give up two games that sell that well, and get such high ratings, just because? Even if they still played once a year like Pats-Colts did, that's still one less game of such high revenue/viewing.

And really, why would team X playing team Y be more inherantly interesting than team Z? Just because they don't play as often? What if it turns out to be more boring?
GDB is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 2012-02-27, 18:22   Link #4626
Kyuu
=^^=
 
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: 42 10' N (Latitude) 87 33' W (Longitude)
Age: 35
FYI. I've been to a Bears-Packers game. So, I most certainly do have a general feel of the "divisional" rivalry aspect, because just a little bit more is at stake in such a game.

Nevertheless, ticket prices vary by team and level of performance. (Oh, how sad it is to look at the Chicago Bears graph)

http://seatgeek.com/football-nfl-ticket-prices/

Based on the money then. Cowboys with NFC East will remain a hot sell. For other teams/divisions, it is not that much of a factor.

===

EDIT: And another thing missing. Past NFL alignments. I doubt we've looked much into those. Sadly, these configurations aren't in Wiki. So, part of me is actually look for those -- to dump into there.

:3
Kyuu is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2012-02-27, 18:40   Link #4627
Samari
World's Greatest
 
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: San Francisco
Age: 27
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kyuu View Post
Don't forget Niners-Cowboys... oh wait... that fizzled.
Right, because 49ers/Cowboys are in the same division like everyone else I listed #tryagain
__________________

"Every light must fade, every heart return to darkness!"
永遠不要失去信心,你的命運。
Samari is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2012-02-27, 18:52   Link #4628
Dilla
'Sup Ballers
 
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: North Carolina, USA
Age: 25
Quote:
Originally Posted by Last Sinner View Post
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.
Or DE Melvin Ingram. A corner is also just as possible in Morris Claiborne or Dre Kirkpatrick.

Other less likely possibilities are OT or a very, very small possibility of WR.

The Rams intent to trade down and are talking with Miami, Washignton, and Cleveland. I presume all those teams are going after RGIII.
Dilla is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2012-02-27, 19:32   Link #4629
Kyuu
=^^=
 
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: 42 10' N (Latitude) 87 33' W (Longitude)
Age: 35
Quote:
Originally Posted by Samari View Post
Right, because 49ers/Cowboys are in the same division like everyone else I listed #tryagain
Alright. How do you feel about Browns-Bengals games? These two are rivals by virtue of their origins centering around Paul Brown. With these two being so mediocre for a ridiculously extended period of time -- it is somewhat ludicrous to label this example as a "rivalry".
Kyuu is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2012-02-28, 10:48   Link #4630
Last Sinner
For Gnomeregan!
 
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: Summoner's Rift
Age: 33
Send a message via MSN to Last Sinner
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dilla View Post
Or DE Melvin Ingram. A corner is also just as possible in Morris Claiborne or Dre Kirkpatrick.

Other less likely possibilities are OT or a very, very small possibility of WR.

The Rams intent to trade down and are talking with Miami, Washignton, and Cleveland. I presume all those teams are going after RGIII.
Rams did say they were intent on keeping Bradford, which is fair enough. All 3 of those teams need a good QB. You'd figure Miami would be ready for a good run after RG3 gets a couple of years under his belt. Washington and Cleveland are much trickier projects.
__________________
Last Sinner is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2012-02-28, 14:09   Link #4631
GDB
Senior Member
 
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Age: 28
I dunno, Washington surprisingly isn't that far off from being a contender. While they only won 5 games, but look at this:

Lost to Dallas by 2
Lost to Philly by 7
Lost to Dallas by 3
Lost to New England by 7
Lost to Minnesota by 7

That's another five games that they lost by a touchdown or less. Toss in San Francisco, which they lost by 8, and suddenly they're an 11-win team. Even you keep them at 10 wins, that's still more than the Giants had to get into the playoffs.
GDB is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 2012-02-28, 16:26   Link #4632
solomon
Senior Member
 
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Suburban DC
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kyuu View Post
Alright. How do you feel about Browns-Bengals games? These two are rivals by virtue of their origins centering around Paul Brown. With these two being so mediocre for a ridiculously extended period of time -- it is somewhat ludicrous to label this example as a "rivalry".
Look what ever is the hot rivalry will naturally change based on the strength of what ever team. But it's not so much the NFL fault that a rivalry such as that sucks, it those teams fault for sucking.

Just because you may not have an interest in it from a national standpoint doesn't make it necessarily invalid. I say again, the only major criteria for conferences should be regional cohesion as far as the NFL is concerned. And even then you have to make some concessions, Dan and Jerry make WAYYY too much money on the Skins-Boys rivalry to scrap it.
solomon is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2012-02-28, 18:04   Link #4633
Samari
World's Greatest
 
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: San Francisco
Age: 27
Quote:
Originally Posted by GDB View Post
I dunno, Washington surprisingly isn't that far off from being a contender. While they only won 5 games, but look at this:

Lost to Dallas by 2
Lost to Philly by 7
Lost to Dallas by 3
Lost to New England by 7
Lost to Minnesota by 7

That's another five games that they lost by a touchdown or less. Toss in San Francisco, which they lost by 8, and suddenly they're an 11-win team. Even you keep them at 10 wins, that's still more than the Giants had to get into the playoffs.
What? Well we can play that game all day long. If they won this game, this game, this game, and this game in this fashion then they'd be 16-0. Washington is light years from being a contender. Especially on offense. They don't have a quarterback. They don't have a running back, and they don't really have any wide receivers other than over-the-hill Santana Moss. Washington is awful.
__________________

"Every light must fade, every heart return to darkness!"
永遠不要失去信心,你的命運。
Samari is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2012-02-28, 18:06   Link #4634
Samari
World's Greatest
 
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: San Francisco
Age: 27
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kyuu View Post
Alright. How do you feel about Browns-Bengals games? These two are rivals by virtue of their origins centering around Paul Brown. With these two being so mediocre for a ridiculously extended period of time -- it is somewhat ludicrous to label this example as a "rivalry".
Rivalries aren't built by just being in the same division. They are built by being in the same division and having success with both franchises. The Bengals and Browns haven't done this for very long since the merger.
__________________

"Every light must fade, every heart return to darkness!"
永遠不要失去信心,你的命運。
Samari is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2012-02-28, 18:33   Link #4635
GDB
Senior Member
 
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Age: 28
Quote:
Originally Posted by Samari View Post
They don't have a quarterback.
I know. I was just responding to the idea that only Miami (out of Miami, Washington, and Cleveland - those who have a chance at RGIII) is close at all to making a good run by showing that they were close in games while not having a quarterback. So, if they got RGIII and he's what he's hyped to be, then they become contenders if he so much as adds 7-9 points per game over Grossman.
GDB is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 2012-02-29, 03:58   Link #4636
Last Sinner
For Gnomeregan!
 
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: Summoner's Rift
Age: 33
Send a message via MSN to Last Sinner
My reasoning was Miami has a good defense while on offense they have Reggie Bush and Brandon Marshall. Washington's D is okay but their offense definitely isn't. Cleveland...they've got more issues that require much more than just RG3 to solve.
__________________
Last Sinner is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2012-02-29, 04:34   Link #4637
Dilla
'Sup Ballers
 
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: North Carolina, USA
Age: 25
Hmm, apparently, the star of the Combine was Dontari Poe, a 6'4, 350 lb nose tackle that had a 4.8 40 time (very, very impressive for a man his size) and moved like a 290 lb DE on the drills. At lot of armchair draft "experts" has now moved him from the late 1st - early 2nd round to as high as my Carolina Panthers with the 9th pick. Interesting, I'm usually wary of workout warriors, though, but I was already aware of Poe and was hoping that Panthers took him in the 2nd round a month ago, so I guess I'll do a little armchair scouting work.



He sure as hell doesn't like he is 350 lbs.

Edit: He was also been accused of taking plays off, but despite the fact that he is a physical freak, being the only good player on the defense of a pooty team that only won 5 games in 3 years and having to play almost every down will do that.

Last edited by Dilla; 2012-02-29 at 04:54.
Dilla is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2012-02-29, 04:42   Link #4638
Dilla
'Sup Ballers
 
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: North Carolina, USA
Age: 25
BTW, with the Packers being able to resign Jermichael Finley expect the Packers to franchise Matt Flynn then dangle him for trade bait for a draft pick. I expect Seattle sitting at 12 would be willing to part ways with that pick, probably with some kind of performance incentive.
Dilla is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2012-02-29, 08:54   Link #4639
GDB
Senior Member
 
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Age: 28
I actually read that they don't intend to tag and bag him. They feel that goes against the spirit of the tag.
GDB is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 2012-02-29, 11:03   Link #4640
ChainLegacy
廉頗
 
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: Massachusetts, US
Age: 25
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dilla View Post
Hmm, apparently, the star of the Combine was Dontari Poe, a 6'4, 350 lb nose tackle that had a 4.8 40 time (very, very impressive for a man his size) and moved like a 290 lb DE on the drills. At lot of armchair draft "experts" has now moved him from the late 1st - early 2nd round to as high as my Carolina Panthers with the 9th pick. Interesting, I'm usually wary of workout warriors, though, but I was already aware of Poe and was hoping that Panthers took him in the 2nd round a month ago, so I guess I'll do a little armchair scouting work.



He sure as hell doesn't like he is 350 lbs.

Edit: He was also been accused of taking plays off, but despite the fact that he is a physical freak, being the only good player on the defense of a pooty team that only won 5 games in 3 years and having to play almost every down will do that.
I could run a 4.8 40 back in high school, and I'm probably the same proportions (5'8 240 at the time); I don't think that shit means much cuz I was never a spectacular player (decent for high school but that's it). Now, when you're a good player and good in the combine, then it might mean something, but you gotta know how to use it.
ChainLegacy is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Tags
american football, sports

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 09:40.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
We use Silk.