Jump to content

Fixing NFL Divisional Structure


corta765

Recommended Posts

10 minutes ago, BuffBillsForLife said:

Somewhere, in another time and place, the rustbelt division exists and it is glorious.  Let the other 28 teams compete for the super bowl, we're competing for Lake Erie dominance.

BUF

PIT

CLE

DET

 

that's the 4 NFL stadiums that i've been to for almost all my 200 or so games

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 minutes ago, BuffBillsForLife said:

If two cities are both geographically close and culturally similar, you'll be able to grow a much stronger rivalry between the two teams, which is what having division opponents you play twice a year is all about.  What does Buffalo have in common with Miami or NYC?  If you just want to view your division rivals as an annual vacation you're missing the point of divisions entirely and you may as well just scrap divisions and do 16 team conference blobs instead. 

Even in a hypothetical rustbelt division, you would have 3-4 road games a year in more "interesting" cities you could go to.

 

Yeah.  Boston, NYC, and Miami have very little in common with Buffalo culturally or sports-wise.  We are nothing to the average Boston or NYC sports fan.  Miami people dont even care.  

 

 

If Cleveland were 6-2 and getting hyped, while we were 2-6.  I would legit feel jealousy.  It would be really easy to flip the hate switch on Pittsburgh as well.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, BuffBillsForLife said:

If two cities are both geographically close and culturally similar, you'll be able to grow a much stronger rivalry between the two teams, which is what having division opponents you play twice a year is all about.  What does Buffalo have in common with Miami or NYC?  If you just want to view your division rivals as an annual vacation you're missing the point of divisions entirely and you may as well just scrap divisions and do 16 team conference blobs instead. 

Even in a hypothetical rustbelt division, you would have 3-4 road games a year in more "interesting" cities you could go to.

 

Buffalo has nothing in common with NYC or Miami which is part of the fun. Back in the Marino Kelly days it was the blue collar vs the beach people and it was awesome. Rivalries in generally are highly overrated and only matter if your winning which goes back to my point of the NFL is more interesting with the divisions in a slightly strange structure the a basic boring regional one which every other sport does.

  • Like (+1) 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 hours ago, reddogblitz said:

 

how do you know this?

I guess from the 10 trillion player interviews I've seen in all sports for decades, the pro athletes I have personally known or talked to, and the general landscape of the sporting world in the 21st century.

 

Rivalries are a thing for fans, created by fans, and discussed by fans.  They are the only piece of the sports machine that sticks around long enough for the "rivalry" to have any meaning.   

 

Players approach the whole thing for what it is: a business.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 minutes ago, Nextmanup said:

I guess from the 10 trillion player interviews I've seen in all sports for decades, the pro athletes I have personally known or talked to, and the general landscape of the sporting world in the 21st century.

 

Rivalries are a thing for fans, created by fans, and discussed by fans.  They are the only piece of the sports machine that sticks around long enough for the "rivalry" to have any meaning.   

 

Players approach the whole thing for what it is: a business.

 

 

 

Thanks for explaining.  I must have missed those 10 trillion interviews.

 

I'm just thinking back to the 70s when I was a Cowboy fan and our rivalry was intense with Washington and NY and Philadelphia.  The players said so too.

 

When Jim Kelly comes out on the field before a game and says to the crowd "Now, let's squish some fish" it makes me think it was an epic rivalry for him (I was at that game.)  But maybe he is just doing it because he doesn't play anymore.

 

But that was back when real men played football and there was not as much money involved so perhaps you are right.

Edited by reddogblitz
  • Like (+1) 1
  • Haha (+1) 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 minutes ago, row_33 said:

you can't have a rivalry when both teams have sucked for 2 decades or one team has beaten the living pus out of the other for those 2 decades.

 

 

Its all predicated on situation.  There are only certain rivalries that are blood feuds that endure (PIT/CLE), (CHI/GB) (KC/OAK), (NFC East) for example.  And yes, for the most part its a fan thing unless the teams are battling at the top of a division.

 

Seattle/San Francisco is a good example of a rivalry that was predicated on the teams being good. They were in different conferences for a generation.  A few years ago, it was a battle for a few seasons, then San Francisco went into the tank and it fizzled.  Now its back again.

 

 

Personally, I dont think anything is lost if the Bills de-coupled with Miami, the Jets, and NE.  I am kind of sick of seeing them for 6 games of 16 every single season.  

  • Like (+1) 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 minutes ago, May Day 10 said:

 

Its all predicated on situation.  There are only certain rivalries that are blood feuds that endure (PIT/CLE), (CHI/GB) (KC/OAK), (NFC East) for example.  And yes, for the most part its a fan thing unless the teams are battling at the top of a division.

 

Seattle/San Francisco is a good example of a rivalry that was predicated on the teams being good. They were in different conferences for a generation.  A few years ago, it was a battle for a few seasons, then San Francisco went into the tank and it fizzled.  Now its back again.

 

 

Personally, I dont think anything is lost if the Bills de-coupled with Miami, the Jets, and NE.  I am kind of sick of seeing them for 6 games of 16 every single season.  

 

The Leafs and Canadiens allegedly have one but haven't played in the playoffs since 1978. Came close in 1993..... :(

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, May Day 10 said:

 

Its all predicated on situation.  There are only certain rivalries that are blood feuds that endure (PIT/CLE), (CHI/GB) (KC/OAK), (NFC East) for example.  And yes, for the most part its a fan thing unless the teams are battling at the top of a division.

 

Seattle/San Francisco is a good example of a rivalry that was predicated on the teams being good. They were in different conferences for a generation.  A few years ago, it was a battle for a few seasons, then San Francisco went into the tank and it fizzled.  Now its back again.

 

 

Personally, I dont think anything is lost if the Bills de-coupled with Miami, the Jets, and NE.  I am kind of sick of seeing them for 6 games of 16 every single season.  

 

If the Jets get their act together and the Bills continue to improve then I can see this rivalry heating up. Both teams have potential franchise QB's they are trying to build around. If these teams start battling for the division and meeting in the playoffs then it will be another great rivalry just like the Bills and Fins were during the Kelly/Marino days only with Allen and Darnold.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 minutes ago, Greg S said:

 

If the Jets get their act together and the Bills continue to improve then I can see this rivalry heating up. Both teams have potential franchise QB's they are trying to build around. If these teams start battling for the division and meeting in the playoffs then it will be another great rivalry just like the Bills and Fins were during the Kelly/Marino days only with Allen and Darnold.

 

it was fun to hate on Joe Namath, hasn't been quite the same for Chad Pennington or Richard Todd

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 11/7/2019 at 9:05 AM, GunnerBill said:

 

I would be interested in hearing that calculation because by my reckoning it is wrong. We have no such thing as state tax we have a national income tax. The threshold for high earners in 50% on earnings over £200,000. My working out on that means you get paid $28m a year you would take home about $14m a year. 

 

And that is before all the tricks you can use to reduce your tax liability. If you really kept a quarter of your income do you really think the world's best soccer players would continue to flood into the UK? 


The problem is, as American citizens, working outside the US, you have to pay American taxes as well. Not sure if you remember Boris complaining about it because he held American citizenship. Anything you earn outside the US over $160,000 you have to pay American tax on. So a player earning $28m here will pay $14m to the British government leaving them with $14m, then take away the $160,000 exemption, they would then have to pay US tax on $13.86m. That would get taxed at 45% leaving them with roughly $7.6m.

 

Perks of being a US citizen, so they say. I’m sure there are ways around it, I have no idea how Chelsea is doing it with Pulisic but obviously there is a way for them because I can’t imagine he’s giving up that much money.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, Wayne Cubed said:


The problem is, as American citizens, working outside the US, you have to pay American taxes as well. Not sure if you remember Boris complaining about it because he held American citizenship. Anything you earn outside the US over $160,000 you have to pay American tax on. So a player earning $28m here will pay $14m to the British government leaving them with $14m, then take away the $160,000 exemption, they would then have to pay US tax on $13.86m. That would get taxed at 45% leaving them with roughly $7.6m.

 

Perks of being a US citizen, so they say. I’m sure there are ways around it, I have no idea how Chelsea is doing it with Pulisic but obviously there is a way for them because I can’t imagine he’s giving up that much money.

 

for star athletes and other making $millions a side deal is cut in 2 seconds

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 minutes ago, row_33 said:

 

for star athletes and other making $millions a side deal is cut in 2 seconds


Oh I’m sure, I’m just explaining where they got that number from.
 

Although Boris Johnson, the former Mayor of London and sort of current Prime Minister has dual citizenship or did, I’m not sure anymore, and he would always complain about having to pay US taxes.

  • Awesome! (+1) 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Wayne Cubed said:


The problem is, as American citizens, working outside the US, you have to pay American taxes as well. Not sure if you remember Boris complaining about it because he held American citizenship. Anything you earn outside the US over $160,000 you have to pay American tax on. So a player earning $28m here will pay $14m to the British government leaving them with $14m, then take away the $160,000 exemption, they would then have to pay US tax on $13.86m. That would get taxed at 45% leaving them with roughly $7.6m.

 

Perks of being a US citizen, so they say. I’m sure there are ways around it, I have no idea how Chelsea is doing it with Pulisic but obviously there is a way for them because I can’t imagine he’s giving up that much money.

 

Yea I got it after my chat with @MAJBobby. The problem is the America tax system causes a double charge. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

20 hours ago, Nextmanup said:

I guess from the 10 trillion player interviews I've seen in all sports for decades, the pro athletes I have personally known or talked to, and the general landscape of the sporting world in the 21st century.

 

Rivalries are a thing for fans, created by fans, and discussed by fans.  They are the only piece of the sports machine that sticks around long enough for the "rivalry" to have any meaning.   

 

Players approach the whole thing for what it is: a business.

 

 

Which is fine, but the league is really about getting fans to watch on TV. The fans care about rivalries, which is why the NFL has always thought them to be important. If players, not fans cared about rivalries the NFL wouldn’t care at all. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Get rid of all the divisions. I would rather play against all teams more frequently. Maybe keep one traditional rivalry game and then just put everyone on a rotation. I hate the fact it might be another decade before Bills visit Lambeau. 

Top 6 or 8 in each conference make the playoffs. The fact a 7-9 Seattle team made the playoffs over other teams with winning records should have killed off the divisions. 

 

1 hour ago, Boatdrinks said:

Which is fine, but the league is really about getting fans to watch on TV. The fans care about rivalries, which is why the NFL has always thought them to be important. If players, not fans cared about rivalries the NFL wouldn’t care at all. 

Bears Packers

Cowboys Giants

Steelers Browns

What other rivalries really have any meaning in NFL? Like my other post I would be ok with one rivalry game for each team but it will be hard to define. Is it Miami or Jets for Bills? What is the rivalry game for Arizona or Tampa?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

×
×
  • Create New...