CHOICE SCREEN Posted September 28, 2012 Share Posted September 28, 2012 The Pats rivalry is one-sided. Pats fans don't consider us a rival. They don't consider us an NFL team. PTR exactly why I would support a move to the North. It just makes sense. We have no rivals in the east anymore Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Orton's Arm Posted September 28, 2012 Share Posted September 28, 2012 Can you honestly imagine not playing the pats* jets and smiling dolphins twice a year though? I see what you're saying, but I just couldn't go for it. There's too much built up hate for the current 3 in our division. Don't worry: you can build up hate faster than you think! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ddaryl Posted September 28, 2012 Share Posted September 28, 2012 wouldn't bother me a bit.. Getting bored of Miami Jets and tNew england every year Geographically it makes more sense, having a rustbelt division of blue collar town teams would be cool Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Original Byrd Man Posted September 28, 2012 Share Posted September 28, 2012 Seeing how many Bills fans went to Cleveland, and how many Steeler fans came to RWS pre-season, I bet much more intense rivalries would develop if the Bills were in the AFC North. We could swap with the Ravens. They would fit great in the AFC East. Comments? PTR As a die hard Fins hater who was present for all 20 losses and the following wins, I would miss the rivalries with the Fins, Jets, and Pats but felt then and now a "Blue Collar/Rust Belt" rivalry would have benefited all 4 teams and their respective cities. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bud Adams Posted September 29, 2012 Share Posted September 29, 2012 The Pats rivalry is one-sided. Pats fans don't consider us a rival. They don't consider us an NFL team. PTR So they were beaten by a non-NFL team in last year's season opener? Interesting. BA Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SouthernMan Posted September 29, 2012 Share Posted September 29, 2012 Rivalries such as Dallas and NY Giants are antiquated holdovers from when Dallas was an expansion team in 1960 and there were fewer options for placement in a division. When recent realignment was instituted, it should have had greater consideration to geography. Because of proximity and more similar demographics among the populations, new (and better) rivalries would have quickly evolved. In college, Florida and Georgia have a strong rivalry - largely because of proximity to each other. Can anyone fathom Florida and Nebraska in the same division? You'd think it was bizarre. When the Dallas - Giants rivalry was formed, there was no team in Indianapolis, Arizona, Cincinnati, Carolina, Tampa, Seattle, Miami, New Orleans, Jacksonville, Tennessee, etc. Furthermore, there were 2 separate leagues, so having the expansion Houston Oilers of the AFL in the same division wasn't an option. As far as a Dallas-Giants or Buffalo-Miami match ups go, the way the schedule rotation is setup, these teams would meet at least every 4 years. More often if they had similar finishes in their respective divisions. There is no perfect scenario, but I would have blown the whole thing up and started over without any regard to conferences or previous division. Call the conferences and divisions whatever you want. See attached map - tell me that wouldn't make a lot more sense than the way it's currently configured. Conference 1 NY Jets, NY Giants, Philadelphia, New England Minnesota, Green Bay, Chicago, Indianapolis Dallas, Houston, New Orleans, Tennessee Seattle, KC, St Louis, Denver Conference 2 Buffalo, Pittsburgh, Cleveland, Detroit Tampa, Miami, Jacksonville, Atlanta Washington, Baltimore, Carolina, Cincinnati San Fran, San Diego, Arizona, Oakland Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts