Friday, May 25, 2001
Updated: May 30, 6:59 PM ET
User feedback: Realignment's good and bad
Users sounded off on the good and bad things about realignment. Below are the best responses. For Merril Hoge's and Mike Golic's list, click here.
Most of the geographical anomalies were dealt with and now the division names seem to have a meaning. I know most people are having a problem with Dallas, Miami and Indy, and I think the owners think too highly of the old rivalries, but overall they did a good job. I am looking forward to the Texans getting their butts whipped twice a year by the other team Houston didn't support.
Billy Joe Nagey
It's about time the NFL realigned. The Atlanta Falcons in the NFC West and the Arizona Cardinals in the NFC East? Give me a break! I think the new divisions are great and now some new regional rivalries can begin. I can't wait until the 2002 season!
The best thing about realignment is the games we'll be able to see. I like the idea that now everyone will play against everyone within a certain time span.
Holding on to old rivalries that do not make sense geographically is completely idiotic. The Colts had the opportunity to start local rivalries with the Bengals, Browns, Steelers, Lions, Rams and the Titans. nstead, they get one regional opponent and two in states surrounding the Gulf of Mexico. Get out a map and learn geography.
The worst thing about realignment is that it is now more likely that a team that does not deserve to be in the playoffs will make it. With each division guaranteed one representative in the postseason, it now becomes much easier for an 8-8 team to host a playoff game while a 9-7 (or even 10-6) is left out.
Port Angeles, Wash.
Now with only two wild-card teams and four division winners in each conference, I expect the NFL to make it an eight-team playoff bracket within the next five years. ... I don't want another NBA or NHL playoff scenario in the NFL.
I think eight divisions are too many. If they were divided geographically, it would almost make sense. How is Dallas still in the NFC East? The only answer I have heard is rivalries.
New Orleans, La.
The biggest blunder is Baltimore in the AFC North instead of Indianapolis. Sure, Modell voluntarily moved the Browns back in the AFL-NFL merger, but he also "voluntarily" moved his franchise from Cleveland to Baltimore and should have forfeited any favors the other owners might have felt for his previous decision. Also, Modell is only going to be the owner for a few more years and someone else will be the beneficiary of this blunder. Yet, Indy's proximity to the other teams in the AFC North will be around for a long time and would have created a better long-term rivalry within the area!
The worst thing about the NFC realignment plan is what happened to the NFC Central. The Vikes and Bucs used to have to fight to win the division. Now, the Vikes can win the North without even cracking 500. The Pack, Lions, and Bears would be lucky to combine for enough wins to make a decent season.
Staten Island, N.Y.
The NFL missed a territory rivalry when they left Miami in the East and put Jacksonville in the South. Isn't Miami the furthest SOUTH city in all of the league geographically? Has anyone in the NFL offices ever looked at a map?
Los Angeles, Calif.