Jump to content
  • Welcome!

    Register and log in easily with Twitter or Google accounts!

    Or simply create a new Huddle account. 

    Members receive fewer ads , access our dark theme, and the ability to join the discussion!

     

Redditor Geographically based Divisions


MichaelNewtonII

Recommended Posts

That would lead to regions declaring that their area is more dominant, lol.

Any map that has us playing Maryland and Pennsylvania teams instead of teams from the south is a faulty map. Regional rivalries trump national geography. If you discount rivalries, my ideal realignment would be:

Great Lakes Division - GB, MIN, CHI, DET
Mid-Atlantic Division - BAL, PIT, PHI, WAS
Mid-West Division - STL, IND, CIN, CLE
Northeast Division - BUF, NYG, NYJ, NE
Southeast Division - ATL, CAR, TEN, JAX
Southwest Division - ARI, DEN, KC, DAL
Sun Belt Division - HOU, NO, TB, MI
West Coast Division - OAK, SF, SD, SEA

I think this would more accurately portray regional and/or cultural geography, which would lead to shorter travel and better rivalries. All Northeast teams would be together, as would the mid-atlantic. The toughest thing to get around is the huge swath of mountain west land the NFL doesn't touch, but linking them to Texas and Missouri makes sense - in contrast, you can basically divide the midwest however you want. Additionally, the NC/GA/TN cultural region would be linked with Jacksonville, a conservative city. The Sun Belt is the biggest stretch but linking all the Gulf-area teams seems fair.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Based soully on the map, I'd slide Pitt into the division with Philly, Washington, and Baltimore and move us in with Cinci, Cleveland, and Indy.  That makes more sense.  Still, really interesting concept that'll never work due to idiocy.  That, and when London and La get teams, it's gonna screw all of this up.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.


×
×
  • Create New...