NFL Conference Divisions??? Does any of this make sense?

Question

NFL divisions are definitely not geographical these days. Dallas (in the NFC East) is more western than KC & STL (both in the West). It is also more southern than Indy (which is in the AFC South). The Bengals (in the AFC North) are more southern than Indy (which I just stated was considered the South). And the most southern team (the Dolphins) are in the AFC East (however this one is actually very East so it's ok).

Personally, I think the NFL division should completely disregard the geographical distinctions when Dallas and Miami are both designated as East.

Answer 1

I think it is because of all the expansion teams. The Colts used to be in the AFC East until the Texans became a team. The Panthers screwed things up too, as they used to be in the NFC West. They cannot have 5 teams in one division and 3 in another because of the way they make their schedules. It doesn't make sense, but you have to live with it. I think the change that would make most sense would be to make the Panthers in the NFC East and the Cowboys in the NFC South.

Answer 2

Geographical divisions made sense when players had full time jobs and played football for fun and air travel was both expensive and not available.  At this point its safe to say traveling costs are not and issue for any NFL team.  

The current divisions will not change because there are great rivalries.  However, I do agree that instead of calling the divisions by geographic names, they should give them different names.  

But what would you call the divisions?  I think it would be cool if they were named after Hall of Fame players.  

Answer 3

Nope.  Never has and never will.  They should have done a better job during the realignment a few years ago, when they went from 3 divisions per conference to 4.  At least they moved Arizona out of the East and into the West.  Much of the reluctance to change has to do with rivalries that have existed for decades.

Answer 4

It is a lot better than it used to be.  It has a lot to do with traditional rivalries.

Answer 5

Right on BUT, wait till Toronto joins the league to see confusion>>>

Answer 6

they do completely disregard the geographical divisions, because this is a 17 game season, not 162, not 82. guys arent on the road for 3 weeks then come home for a series..its not baseball so the traveling area is not a major factor during the season

when the 3 divisions were initally growing (East West Central), it was based on competition, and the same happend with the newer 4 division setup, which actually made things more geographically correct (Arizona was NFC East, Caronlina and Atlanta were NFC West!!!!!)

now it makes more sense than it did before, but still not a whole lot, but it really doesnt matter that much. I wouldnt trade the NFC East rivalries for anything  

Answer 7

It's actually closer to geographic reality than it used to be, when Atlanta and New Orleans were in the NFC West. They just didn't want to be completely disruptive of all the traditional rivalries when they reorganized.

Answer 8

Right, GO JAGUARS !!!!!!!!!

Answer 9

Old rivalries from when there were fewer divisions.

Pats-Jets-Dolphins

Giants-Eagles-Cowboys-Redskins

49ers-Rams (who used to play in LA)

Browns-Bengals-Steelers

Answer 10

they only kept Dallas in the NFC East to maintain huge rivalries between the 4 teams!

plus who cares if it's geographical or not!

Answer 11

Ask the comissioner what the deal is.

Answer 12

It never made sense to me either. The AFC is more accurate than the NFC as far as location though. I would assume it had something to do with teams relocating over the years and staying in the same division.