2012-02-24, 16:26 | Link #4602 | |
=^^=
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: 42° 10' N (Latitude) 87° 33' W (Longitude)
Age: 45
|
Quote:
=== 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.
__________________
|
|
2012-02-24, 18:58 | Link #4605 | |
=^^=
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: 42° 10' N (Latitude) 87° 33' W (Longitude)
Age: 45
|
Quote:
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.
__________________
|
|
2012-02-24, 20:16 | Link #4606 |
World's Greatest
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: San Francisco
Age: 36
|
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.
__________________
|
2012-02-24, 21:05 | Link #4608 | |
=^^=
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: 42° 10' N (Latitude) 87° 33' W (Longitude)
Age: 45
|
Quote:
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.
__________________
|
|
2012-02-25, 10:33 | Link #4610 |
Senior Member
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Suburban DC
|
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. |
2012-02-25, 14:58 | Link #4612 | |
World's Greatest
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: San Francisco
Age: 36
|
Quote:
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.
__________________
|
|
2012-02-26, 22:00 | Link #4615 | |
=^^=
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: 42° 10' N (Latitude) 87° 33' W (Longitude)
Age: 45
|
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... Quote:
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.
__________________
|
|
2012-02-27, 04:59 | Link #4616 |
You're Hot, Cupcake
Join Date: Aug 2008
Age: 42
|
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.
__________________
|
2012-02-27, 10:18 | Link #4617 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: Sep 2008
Age: 38
|
Quote:
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. |
|
2012-02-27, 12:50 | Link #4618 |
Senior Member
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Suburban DC
|
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. |
2012-02-27, 14:28 | Link #4619 |
Mama there goes that man!
Join Date: Jun 2010
Location: UK
|
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.
__________________
|
Tags |
american football, sports |
|
|