Wurm's Buccaneers pics reminded me that we're going to see new divisions in the NFL this year. Which divisions will be the most competitive? Which will be the weakest? Which rivalries were broken up that you will most miss?

AFC East
Jets, Dolphins, Bills, Patriots

AFC North
Steelers, Ravens, Bengals, Browns

AFC South
Colts, Jaguars, Titans, Texans

AFC West
Broncos, Raiders, Chargers, Chiefs

NFC East
Eagles, Redskins, Cowboys, Giants

NFC North
Packers, Lions, Vikings, Bears

NFC South
Falcons, Saints, Buccaneers, Panthers

NFC West
49ers, Cardinals, Seahawks, Rams


Off the top, I gotta think the NFC South looks to be the weakest division right now. The Bucs aren't as strong as they once were. The Panthers are awful and the Saints and Falcons are both in transition.

I will miss the Seahawks playing the Raiders and Broncos. Over the years, they played some wonderful games against each other.

I am looking forward to the Titans-Colts developing a real rivalry.

The AFC North will be a real dog fight if the Browns continue to improve and the Bengals get an offense to go with their D.

I agree with you George with the NFC South. I think the Bucs will run away with the division.

I think that the NFC West will be very tough. The Rams and Niners were playoff teams while the Seahawks are on a make-or-break year. No one knows how well the Cardinals will play. Good, bad or really bad...pick.

Probably the biggest rival I'll miss seeing is St.Louis vs. New Orleans. No matter how Sporadic the Saints are, they always seem to be able to "get it up" for the Rams.

The Titans vs. Ravens had become a pretty big rivalry but the Titans are a suspect team and the Ravens are ravaged.

I'm really gonna miss the Packers v. Bucs rivalry. It really was heated in the 1990s, highlighted by Favre and Sapp. And now those opportunities for TB to break the below-40-degree curse get fewer and farther between!

[quote]Originally posted by DCBucky:
I'm really gonna miss the Packers v. Bucs rivalry. It really was heated in the 1990s, highlighted by Favre and Sapp. And now those opportunities for TB to break the below-40-degree curse get fewer and farther between!

---

Who was the writer, in the mid or late 80's or so, when both the Pack and the Bucs stank ... who referred to games between Green Bay and Tampa Bay as the "Bay of Pigs"? Even though both have been good for a few seasons now, I still think of their games that way.

ESPN's Chris Berman was the first guy I remember referring to the Pack-Buc rivalry as "Bay of Pigs". Don't know if he stole it from someone else.

I'm not gonna miss anything about the old alignments. This new format is the best thing the NFL has generated in years!
My only wish was that they had dismantled the AFC and NFC and gone with a strictly regional format (like the NBA), but we all know there's no way they would ever institute such.
Can you imagine?
Northeast - Pats, Jets, Giants, Bills (watch as we turn NYers against one another!)
Atlantic - Eagles, Redskins, Ravens, Panthers (that whole DC-Baltimore feud heats up)
Southeast - Falcons, Bucs, Jags, Phins (if UF, FSU, and UM hate each other so much, why not take the idea to the pros?)
Midwest - Steelers, Browns, Colts, Bengals
Great Lakes - Bears, Vikes, Packers, Lions (would still keep everyone happy in that old group)
Southern- Saints, Texans, Cowboys, Titans (I could see this getting very hostile!)
Western - Rams, Chiefs, Broncos, Cards
Pacific - Chargers, Raiders, 49'ers, Seachickens!

Of course, I know that the NFL would never consider adopting my idea, but the concept of intra-regional blood feuds intrigues me.

[ April 06, 2002: Message edited by: AU Tiger in LA ]

Easiest division in 2002: Philly in the NFC East.
Hardest to predict: AFC West (flip a coin).


The new alignment will take some getting used to but 32 is a great # of teams.

As a Colts fan, I'm not very excited about the AFC South. Not much in terms of existing rivalries, and geographically none are very close. It probably makes sense to move the Colts out of the AFC East to achieve balance in numbers but I would have liked to see us in the AFC North.

[ April 06, 2002: Message edited by: Indy Mike ]

The only thing that disappoints me about the realignment -- and it's petty -- is that the NFC and AFC North didn't retain their old names of "Central" -- which instantly brings to mid the hard hitting, old school football of yore. After all, the East and West got to keep theirs ...

[quote]Originally posted by DCBucky:
the NFC and AFC North didn't retain their old names of "Central" --

---

What would you have it be - AFC South,East, - West,and CENTRAL? Doesn't make sense.

Yeah copman. Last time I looked at a compass it contained N,S,E and W. Didn't see a C on there.

When you think about it, how many dedicatated NFL fans have called this division by anything other than its longtime nickname, the "Black and Blue" ?? ??

I think the nickname will stay, and no one will care about the geographical name in a few months.....

-> Edited for especially sloppy typing

[ April 07, 2002: Message edited by: Wurm ]

[quote]Originally posted by AU Tiger in LA:
Yeah copman. Last time I looked at a compass it contained N,S,E and W. Didn't see a C on there.

---

Well guys, I'm not sure that the NFL employed that much logic in the realignment. Just as your glance at a compass turned up no "C" -- my look at a U.S. map found no Dallas in the "East". If they make exceptions for that, make exceptions for the Central
(like I said, it was a petty complaint on my part).

btw, doesn't Chris Berman also refer to the NFC Central as the "NFC Norris" -- those latecomers to the NHL like myself have only a vague idea of what that means. A little help anyone?

DCBucky, When the NHL first went to four divisions in 1974, they named them after hockey bigwigs of the past. The divisions were (Lester) Patrick, (Charles) Adams, (Conn) Smythe, and (James) Norris. They were essentially the East, Northeast, West, and Central divisions, resp., although that shifted a bit. The conferences were the the (Clarence) Campbell and (Prince of) Wales. The conferences consisted each of the two divisions, but that did not stay the same either. In 1993, they went back to using geographic designations for the 4 divisions and conferences.

To get on topic a little bit, the NFC West looks to be the toughest and the AFC South the weakest.

[ April 08, 2002: Message edited by: pat125 ]

[quote]Originally posted by copman:


What would you have it be - AFC South,East, - West,and CENTRAL? Doesn't make sense.

---

Doesn't really have to make sense. As another posetr said, there are still some teams (Cowboys, Dolphins, Colts) who would seem to be misplaced. Besides, the NCAA Tournament years ago was broken down into 4 regions (East, Mideast, Midwest, West). Now, for some reason, the Mideast has been replaced with South. And the NBA uses Atlantic, Pacific, Midwest and Central! Go figure!

[quote]Originally posted by DCBucky:

my look at a U.S. map found no Dallas in the "East".

---

Well - I agree that if they set up divisions with geographical names they should follow them. - I assume that this was a compromise made to pacify someone.

The NFC East was an obvious one. There are far too many old rivalries to break up the rivalries between the Giants, Iggles, deadskins and Cowboys. Can you imagine a season in DC without the Cowboys coming to town?

Besides tradition, the NFL had to get enough votes from the owners, and there was no way NY, Washington or Philly would give up there home games to the Cowboys, which always sell-out.


[quote]Originally posted by DCBucky:

Well guys, I'm not sure that the NFL employed that much logic in the realignment. Just as your glance at a compass turned up no "C" -- my look at a U.S. map found no Dallas in the "East". If they make exceptions for that, make exceptions for the Central
(like I said, it was a petty complaint on my part).

btw, doesn't Chris Berman also refer to the NFC Central as the "NFC Norris" -- those latecomers to the NHL like myself have only a vague idea of what that means. A little help anyone?

---

[quote]Originally posted by pat125:
DCBucky, When the NHL first went to four divisions in 1974, they named them after hockey bigwigs of the past. The divisions were (Lester) Patrick, (Charles) Adams, (Conn) Smythe, and (James) Norris. They were essentially the East, Northeast, West, and Central divisions, resp., although that shifted a bit. The conferences were the the (Clarence) Campbell and (Prince of) Wales. The conferences consisted each of the two divisions, but that did not stay the same either. In 1993, they went back to using geographic designations for the 4 divisions and conferences.

---

And to further clarify, the Norris Division was usually extremely weak compared to the others, so when the NFC Central became similarly weak, that's when Berman began calling it the NFC Norris.