What if the Jaguars moved to L.A.? (1 Viewer)

[weasel3515]

A friend of mine lives down in Jacksonville and has followed the team since it's inception and has a good feel for the pulse of the community. She is convinced the team will be leaving to L.A. as soon as a new stadium is finished there since the Jaguars can't sell out their current venue and are always subject to blackouts. I'm wondering how that would affect the divisions of the NFL? In these cost-conscious times, I don't think the NFL would be too thrilled to pay to have Indy, Houston and Tennessee all fly to L.A. and vice versa for the Jaguars for division games. I don't see the NFL breaking up the S.D.-K.C.-Oakland-Denver rivalries either. My best guess is that the Jaguars would be moved to the NFC West and St.Louis would get moved to the AFC South. Any thoughts?

 

[Ted Lange as your Bartender]

To me, if the Jags went to LA, I think the most likely scenario is that they'd stay in the AFC South for a while, kind of like the Cardinals in the NFC East all those years. The division alignment as it currently stands is really good, both from a geographical and rivalry standpoint. I also think the Rams are too entrenched historically as an NFC franchise to shift to the AFC.

If they did move the Jags to the NFC West (I agree that the former AFL bloc in the AFC West won't get broken up under any circumstances), I think they would shift either the Panthers or Bucs to the AFC South (Panthers because they came in the league with the Jags so that conference offset makes sense, Bucs because their first season was in the AFC), and the Rams (by default) get shifted to the NFC South.

I don't like those moves though, so I'd "penalize" the Jags for moving to LA by keeping them in the AFC South and making them make 3 cross-country trips for division games.

 

[weasel3515]

Hadn't thought about Carolina and Tampa Bay and you make a good case for both (Carolina really makes good sense). Somehow I doubt the NFL will expand beyond the current 32 as it works out perfectly for divisions and playoffs. I'm in agreement with my friend in Jacksonville that since L.A. is building a new stadium, it would make logical sense for the Jaguars to move there.

 

[QuizGuy66]

Actually I wouldn't be surprised if they stayed in the AFC and if they did actually break up the AFC West - even with the old rivalries. Kansas City would be a clear candidate to go over to the South. The main reason I think this will occur is money. Right now the AFC package is worth materially less the NFC package, primarily because there are many more small markets in the AFC. Having Los Angeles in the AFC would correct this imbalance to a degree.

-QG

 

[FUBAR]

To me, if the Jags went to LA, I think the most likely scenario is that they'd stay in the AFC South for a while, kind of like the Cardinals in the NFC East all those years. The division alignment as it currently stands is really good, both from a geographical and rivalry standpoint. I also think the Rams are too entrenched historically as an NFC franchise to shift to the AFC.

If they did move the Jags to the NFC West (I agree that the former AFL bloc in the AFC West won't get broken up under any circumstances), I think they would shift either the Panthers or Bucs to the AFC South (Panthers because they came in the league with the Jags so that conference offset makes sense, Bucs because their first season was in the AFC), and the Rams (by default) get shifted to the NFC South.

I don't like those moves though, so I'd "penalize" the Jags for moving to LA by keeping them in the AFC South and making them make 3 cross-country trips for division games.

While I could possibly see San Diego move out, Denver/KC/Oakland will never change. I'd change the Jaguars to the Los Angeles Cougars.

I pretty much agree with what you're saying, but the geographic/logical step IMO is for the Rams to move to the AFC South. Nothing else makes sense to me. You aren't taking Seattle/SF/Arizona out of the West, but that's where the LA Cougars would belong. You're not taking the Chiefs out of the AFC West.

By default, the Rams come out of the West, where do they go? Certainly not the NFC North or East. South makes some sense, but geographically St. Louis is too far. The AFC South would be Tennessee, Indianapolis, Houston and St. Louis, pretty much the middle of the country. I might see moving Indianapolis out of the South (geographically, it shouldn't be there anyway), but there's no better place for it.

OTOH, you could switch to 4 divisions of 8 teams each. East/West Conferences, North/South divisions.

NORTH EAST

Baltimore Ravens

Buffalo Bills

Cleveland Browns

New England Patriots

New York Jets

New York Giants

Pittsburgh Steelers

Philadelphia Eagles

SOUTH EAST

Atlanta Falcons

Carolina Panthers

Cincinnati Bengals

Indianapolis Colts

Miami Dolphins

Tampa Bay Buccaneers

Tennessee Titans

Washington Redskins

NORTH WEST (This division rocks for historical rivals - and horrible owners)

Chicago Bears

Denver Broncos

Detroit Lions

Green Bay Packers

Kansas City Chiefs

Minnesota Vikings

Oakland Raiders

Seattle Seahawks .

SOUTH WEST

Arizona Cardinals

Dallas Cowboys

Houston Texans

LA Cougars

New Orleans Saints

San Francisco 49ers

St. Louis Rams

San Diego Chargers

The Playoffs go to the 2 division winners getting byes, next 4 get in.

 

[weasel3515]

Cool idea (and good work on creating them!) about realigning into only two divisions for each conference although I bet the majority of the owners would be against it as they like (I'm guessing here) the fact that if they win a division they automatically qualify for the playoffs and that means twice as many guaranteed slots.

 

[Zoomanji]

As long as the NFL offices think KC and STL are in the West, Indy is south and Dallas is in the east it really doesn't matter

 

[FUBAR]

Cool idea (and good work on creating them!) about realigning into only two divisions for each conference although I bet the majority of the owners would be against it as they like (I'm guessing here) the fact that if they win a division they automatically qualify for the playoffs and that means twice as many guaranteed slots.

Thanks, the other thing I didn't consider is scheduling. But, if the NFL moves to an 18 game season, that's each team in the division twice (7*2) and half another division.

 

[Ted Lange as your Bartender]

To me, if the Jags went to LA, I think the most likely scenario is that they'd stay in the AFC South for a while, kind of like the Cardinals in the NFC East all those years. The division alignment as it currently stands is really good, both from a geographical and rivalry standpoint. I also think the Rams are too entrenched historically as an NFC franchise to shift to the AFC.

If they did move the Jags to the NFC West (I agree that the former AFL bloc in the AFC West won't get broken up under any circumstances), I think they would shift either the Panthers or Bucs to the AFC South (Panthers because they came in the league with the Jags so that conference offset makes sense, Bucs because their first season was in the AFC), and the Rams (by default) get shifted to the NFC South.

I don't like those moves though, so I'd "penalize" the Jags for moving to LA by keeping them in the AFC South and making them make 3 cross-country trips for division games.

While I could possibly see San Diego move out, Denver/KC/Oakland will never change. I'd change the Jaguars to the Los Angeles Cougars.

I pretty much agree with what you're saying, but the geographic/logical step IMO is for the Rams to move to the AFC South. Nothing else makes sense to me. You aren't taking Seattle/SF/Arizona out of the West, but that's where the LA Cougars would belong. You're not taking the Chiefs out of the AFC West.

By default, the Rams come out of the West, where do they go? Certainly not the NFC North or East. South makes some sense, but geographically St. Louis is too far. The AFC South would be Tennessee, Indianapolis, Houston and St. Louis, pretty much the middle of the country. I might see moving Indianapolis out of the South (geographically, it shouldn't be there anyway), but there's no better place for it.

OTOH, you could switch to 4 divisions of 8 teams each. East/West Conferences, North/South divisions.

NORTH EAST

Baltimore Ravens

Buffalo Bills

Cleveland Browns

New England Patriots

New York Jets

New York Giants

Pittsburgh Steelers

Philadelphia Eagles

SOUTH EAST

Atlanta Falcons

Carolina Panthers

Cincinnati Bengals

Indianapolis Colts

Miami Dolphins

Tampa Bay Buccaneers

Tennessee Titans

Washington Redskins

NORTH WEST (This division rocks for historical rivals - and horrible owners)

Chicago Bears

Denver Broncos

Detroit Lions

Green Bay Packers

Kansas City Chiefs

Minnesota Vikings

Oakland Raiders

Seattle Seahawks .

SOUTH WEST

Arizona Cardinals

Dallas Cowboys

Houston Texans

LA Cougars

New Orleans Saints

San Francisco 49ers

St. Louis Rams

San Diego Chargers

The Playoffs go to the 2 division winners getting byes, next 4 get in.

Geographically speaking, moving the Rams to the AFC South works in the "upsets the apple cart the least" sense, but I think it wouldn't happen due to TV purposes and territorial rights.I'm no expert on how games are currently televised in Missouri, or their fan dynamics, specifically in the central part of the state, but I have to believe that having the Rams and Chiefs in the same conference would really screw up territorial rights in Missouri for TV purposes. Right now it doesn't matter much since most of the Rams games are on Fox and the Chiefs' games are on CBS, so people who live in, say, Jefferson City, can see both teams on the different networks. But you move the Rams to the AFC, in a schedule conflict, only one of the games gets shown and the other teams' fans get screwed.

That's the type of thing that obviously doesn't matter to the 99% of us who don't live in central Missouri, but I guarantee that it would be a consideration/potential deal-breaker for the NFL in real life.

 

[Stewy]

Cool idea (and good work on creating them!) about realigning into only two divisions for each conference although I bet the majority of the owners would be against it as they like (I'm guessing here) the fact that if they win a division they automatically qualify for the playoffs and that means twice as many guaranteed slots.

Thanks, the other thing I didn't consider is scheduling. But, if the NFL moves to an 18 game season, that's each team in the division twice (7*2) and half another division.

I think it would make more sense from a scheduling standpoint to play each team in your division twice (14 games); two teams in the other division in your conference - rotate 2 teams per year so you play every team every four years (2 games); and then play a team of equal standing from the previous year in each division from the other conference so you get your SOS games in (2 games.)The drawback is that you don't play every team in the league every four years like it is now. In this way it'd be more like baseball where you rarely play the teams in the other conference/league. But, on the plus side, there is more of an emphasis on division play.

There could also be more done on determining your 2 in conference, other division games via SOS if desired. But, I thought it more important to rotate those games so there's more variation in scheduling each year.

 

[QUEZILLA]

I would think San Diego would be more likely to move, since they have an old stadium.

 

[pollardsvision]

As long as the NFL offices think KC and STL are in the West, Indy is south and Dallas is in the east it really doesn't matter

Yeah, I don't think it would really matter. I could see something if there's a re-alignment for another reason, but that would be it.I don't think the added cost would be much of a factor at all.They'd be adding the LA market and I assume there's financial incentive to leaving rivalries alone. The point brought up earlier about getting LA in the AFC is a good one too. The added money that CBS (or whoever) would pay for the AFC contract would certainly take care of a few extra miles on some flights.

 

[FUBAR]

As long as the NFL offices think KC and STL are in the West, Indy is south and Dallas is in the east it really doesn't matter

Yeah, I don't think it would really matter. I could see something if there's a re-alignment for another reason, but that would be it.I don't think the added cost would be much of a factor at all.

They'd be adding the LA market and I assume there's financial incentive to leaving rivalries alone.

The point brought up earlier about getting LA in the AFC is a good one too. The added money that CBS (or whoever) would pay for the AFC contract would certainly take care of a few extra miles on some flights.

What rivalries are on hallowed ground? KC/DEN/OAK

GB/CHI/DET

PITT/CLE (and I'm not real sure about this one)

DAL/NYG/WA/PHI

So you'd have to leave one division untouched, but the others can each lose a team - Minnesota like it or not just isn't that significant a rival of the Pack / da Bears / Kitties, neither is SD in with the Western rivals. Tell me if I'm missing something, but I don't get fired up for Seattle / San Fran or Carolina / Atlanta, etc.

 

[Chase Stuart]

As long as the NFL offices think KC and STL are in the West, Indy is south and Dallas is in the east it really doesn't matter

Yeah, I don't think it would really matter. I could see something if there's a re-alignment for another reason, but that would be it.I don't think the added cost would be much of a factor at all.

They'd be adding the LA market and I assume there's financial incentive to leaving rivalries alone.

The point brought up earlier about getting LA in the AFC is a good one too. The added money that CBS (or whoever) would pay for the AFC contract would certainly take care of a few extra miles on some flights.

What rivalries are on hallowed ground? KC/DEN/OAK

GB/CHI/DET

PITT/CLE (and I'm not real sure about this one)

DAL/NYG/WA/PHI

So you'd have to leave one division untouched, but the others can each lose a team - Minnesota like it or not just isn't that significant a rival of the Pack / da Bears / Kitties, neither is SD in with the Western rivals. Tell me if I'm missing something, but I don't get fired up for Seattle / San Fran or Carolina / Atlanta, etc.

Did you forget the AFC East?I get leaving Minnesota out of the NFC-N, although I don't agree with it. I don't see a reason to exclude SD, though.

 

[Adebisi]

Who cares? The Jaguars are one of the least relevant teams in the entire league.

 

[FUBAR]

As long as the NFL offices think KC and STL are in the West, Indy is south and Dallas is in the east it really doesn't matter

Yeah, I don't think it would really matter. I could see something if there's a re-alignment for another reason, but that would be it.I don't think the added cost would be much of a factor at all.

They'd be adding the LA market and I assume there's financial incentive to leaving rivalries alone.

The point brought up earlier about getting LA in the AFC is a good one too. The added money that CBS (or whoever) would pay for the AFC contract would certainly take care of a few extra miles on some flights.

What rivalries are on hallowed ground? KC/DEN/OAK

GB/CHI/DET

PITT/CLE (and I'm not real sure about this one)

DAL/NYG/WA/PHI

So you'd have to leave one division untouched, but the others can each lose a team - Minnesota like it or not just isn't that significant a rival of the Pack / da Bears / Kitties, neither is SD in with the Western rivals. Tell me if I'm missing something, but I don't get fired up for Seattle / San Fran or Carolina / Atlanta, etc.

Did you forget the AFC East?I get leaving Minnesota out of the NFC-N, although I don't agree with it. I don't see a reason to exclude SD, though.

Is the New England / Buffalo / Miami / Jets rivalry significant, historically? I'm not a fan and have never lived in any of those areas, but they just don't seem significant.I have lived in Kansas and while the trio have a great rivalry, San Diego isn't hated by any of them as much as the others. They're like the kid in your group of friends you won't call your best friend, is always there, but doesn't stand out. (taking out recent success or talent that is)

 

[Chase Stuart]

Is the New England / Buffalo / Miami / Jets rivalry significant, historically? I'm not a fan and have never lived in any of those areas, but they just don't seem significant.

I don't know how you measure historical significance, but they've been rivals for 50 years (slightly fewer for Miami).

 

[pollardsvision]

As long as the NFL offices think KC and STL are in the West, Indy is south and Dallas is in the east it really doesn't matter

Yeah, I don't think it would really matter. I could see something if there's a re-alignment for another reason, but that would be it.I don't think the added cost would be much of a factor at all.

They'd be adding the LA market and I assume there's financial incentive to leaving rivalries alone.

The point brought up earlier about getting LA in the AFC is a good one too. The added money that CBS (or whoever) would pay for the AFC contract would certainly take care of a few extra miles on some flights.

What rivalries are on hallowed ground? KC/DEN/OAK

GB/CHI/DET

PITT/CLE (and I'm not real sure about this one)

DAL/NYG/WA/PHI

So you'd have to leave one division untouched, but the others can each lose a team - Minnesota like it or not just isn't that significant a rival of the Pack / da Bears / Kitties, neither is SD in with the Western rivals. Tell me if I'm missing something, but I don't get fired up for Seattle / San Fran or Carolina / Atlanta, etc.

I don't think rivalries need to be "hallowed" or historically significant to prevent the NFL from wanting to break up the divisions to save some airline miles. Sure, Carolina/Atlanta, for example, doesn't have the historical signifcance of other rivalries, but they are important to the individual fan bases. There's no chance of turning them into big rivalries if they keep getting changed.

It's just not worth breaking them up to save cash. The NFL has been able to handle the cost of the 1600 mile journey from SD to KC.

 

[identikit]

AFC East

New England

Buffalo

NYJ

Baltimore

AFC North

Pitt

Cincy

Cleveland

Indy

AFC South

Houston

Tennessee

Miami

KC

AFC West

Denver

SD

Oakland

LA (Jax)

 

[cdwood]

AFC East

New England

Buffalo

NYJ

Baltimore

AFC North

Pitt

Cincy

Cleveland

Indy

AFC South

Houston

Tennessee

Miami

KC

AFC West

Denver

SD

Oakland

LA (Jax)

This seems like a reasonable realignment based on geography without even having to touch the NFC divisions. Problem is that it alters the realignment of every division in the AFC and there will probably be quite a few teams that will be upset at losing some of their current rivalries. Maybe I'm just skeptical about several teams being accomodating to Jax/LA for the sake of what looks like common sense.As for the basic premise of Jax moving to LA, I'm of the impression that the NFL will do almost anything to keep an existing team from moving to LA so that the NFL can get expansion fees from a new team in LA in the next round of expansion.

Christopher

 

[stevegamer]

Moving the Jaguars to LA means they still won't sell out, they willneed another new home in 10 years or so, and there will be no expansion fee from the next team to try and survive in LA.

No reason to do it.

 

[weasel3515]

So you think the NFL would go to 33 teams, or would one team get the axe permanently? The current 32 seems perfect. They tried pseudo-expansion with NFL Europe and it failed miserably. If L.A. gets an expansion team then I wouldn't be surprised if the Jags were allowed to go extinct.

 

[stevegamer]

I think the NFL will try to figure out a way, down the line, to get to 34 or 36 teams.

There was absolutely nothing wrong with 30, but they went to 32.

 

[FUBAR]

I don't think rivalries need to be "hallowed" or historically significant to prevent the NFL from wanting to break up the divisions to save some airline miles.

Sure, Carolina/Atlanta, for example, doesn't have the historical signifcance of other rivalries, but they are important to the individual fan bases. There's no chance of turning them into big rivalries if they keep getting changed.

It's just not worth breaking them up to save cash. The NFL has been able to handle the cost of the 1600 mile journey from SD to KC.

this IMO is a very good argument. As a Titans fan, I'm loving the recent rivalry with Indianapolis. Doesn't hurt that Peyton was a Volunteer either, but to me, IND/TEN is one of the best games of the year. I'm sure fans of other teams feel similarly about CAR/ATL, or even SF/SEA.

 

[trader jake]

I'd change the Jaguars to the Los Angeles Cougars.

That's hot.