While many have floated out the idea of relocating teams to various cities (London, LA, Toronto), I have read (and I believe this to be the more likely event) that the league would much rather add a new round of expansion teams to the league. Do you think it could happen? If so, how, and which cities would you add to the mix?

---

"Let us not become conceited, provoking and envying each other." Galatians 5:26

2015 NFL Draft - Analyzing Targets www.jungle.jaguars.com/index.php?/topic/7892-2015-nfl-draft-analyzing-targets/

San Antonio, LA, London and a city in Canada would seem to be the front runners for any expansion teams. 

---

I don't think you'll see expansion for a very long time. 32 teams is honestly the perfect amount.

---

THERE IS A SKELETON INSIDE OF YOU.

 

RIGHT NOW. THIS IS NOT A JOKE.

Could it? Sure

---

I don't think you'll see expansion for a very long time. 32 teams is honestly the perfect amount.

is it? Honestly?

---

I'm not sure how it would be possible, if you want the divisions to have an equal number of teams.


If you add two new teams you have 34. Which wouldn't be divisible by any sensible number


If you add three more teams you have 35, you could have 7 groups of five or 5 groups of seven. But having an odd number of divisions is messy


And if you added four more team (which I think is the realistic maximum) you have 36. You could have nine divisions of four, or six divisions of six.


Of those I think six divisions of six is the only workable format. But do you really want divisions with six teams in each ? And can the league support four more franchises in one go ?


Or am I missing an obvious answer ?

---

I'm not sure how it would be possible, if you want the divisions to have an equal number of teams.


If you add two new teams you have 34. Which wouldn't be divisible by any sensible number


If you add three more teams you have 35, you could have 7 groups of five or 5 groups of seven. But having an odd number of divisions is messy


And if you added four more team (which I think is the realistic maximum) you have 36. You could have nine divisions of four, or six divisions of six.


Of those I think six divisions of six is the only workable format. But do you really want divisions with six teams in each ? And can the league support four more franchises in one go ?


Or am I missing an obvious answer ?

 

The obvious answer is realignment. Get rid of the N/S/E/W divisions, go to 34 teams, have 17 teams in each division, go to 18 games per season, and have every team in each conference play every other team in the conference once along with two games against the teams in the other conference based on the prior year's record.

 

Of course the main change would be that you'd get rid of the possibility of 8-8 or 7-9 teams making the playoffs based on the weakness of their division, which seems to be unpopular among NFL ownership, but it's the most logical course for the NFL to take.

 

This way they could add a team in LA and add one in London or an eastern area of Canada.

---

6 divisions of 6 would be interesting.  


4 new teams:

Alabama Armadillos

Oregon Beavers

Oklahoma City Roughriders

Vegas Vipers


AFC:


AFC East-

New England Patriots

Indianapolis Colts

Buffalo Bills

Miami Dolphins

New York Jets

Tampa Bay Buccaneers


AFC Central-

Pittsburgh Steelers

Cleveland Browns

Cincinnati Bengals

Baltimore Ravens

Jacksonville Jaguars

Tennessee Titans


AFC West-

Denver Broncos

San Diego Chargers

Oakland Raiders

Kansas City Chiefs

Houston Texans

Vegas Vipers


NFC:


NFC East-

Dallas Cowboys

Washington Redskins

New York Giants

Philadelphia Eagles

Carolina Panthers

Atlanta Falcons


NFC Central-

Green Bay Packers

Chicago Bears 

Minnesota Vikings

Detroit Lions

New Orleans Saints

Alabama Armadillos

 

NFC West -

Seattle Seahawks

Arizona Cardinals

San Francisco 49ers

St. Louis Rams

Oklahoma City Roughriders

Oregon Beavers

---

I was wrong about Trent Baalke. 

I prefer the 6x6 idea to the divisions of seventeen (which could make a lot of teams in the bottom half of the table irrelevant part way through the season)


Can the NFL cope with such a big leap in numbers though ?


And more worryingly, what happens if one of those international teams fails ?

---

Oh and "go beavers !"

---

Well just to add my opinion. The league has had an uneven number of teams before ( the Texans were added just in early 2000s), so that argument might not be a big issue. And as far as whether a team will fail or not, that's a possibility regardless of the number of teams. This would also be a good way to counteract the coming playoff team increase.

---

"Let us not become conceited, provoking and envying each other." Galatians 5:26

2015 NFL Draft - Analyzing Targets www.jungle.jaguars.com/index.php?/topic/7892-2015-nfl-draft-analyzing-targets/

There is bad quarterback play with 32 teams, would hate to think it would be like with more teams. I vote no expansion now.

---

I prefer the 6x6 idea to the divisions of seventeen (which could make a lot of teams in the bottom half of the table irrelevant part way through the season)


Can the NFL cope with such a big leap in numbers though ?


And more worryingly, what happens if one of those international teams fails ?

 

Actually the 17 and 17 design works better in most ways due to the fact that teams stop getting to be in safe divisions.

 

A good example is New England, they can go 14-2 or they can go 9-7 and likely still make the playoffs due to their division. They're competing with three bottom feeding teams, but if you take away the safety of the get into the playoffs free button that the division winner gets then suddenly a team that is 6-6 going into December has a more realistic chance of making the playoffs if they're 10-6 because there isn't an 8-8 or 9-7 team taking up a spot by default because they were lucky enough to be in the right division.

 

Not to even mention the fact that everyone actually playing everyone else in the conference evens out the schedule in a way we've never seen before. No more feasting on the dregs of a bad division.

---

If it happens it is a conspiracy to get Tebow back to the NFL.

---

What if the NFL adds 4 new teams giving the league 36 teams. Add another conference NFC, AFC, IFC (international football conference). Each conference gets 12 teams have 3 divisions in each conference each division has 4 teams. 12 teams make the playoffs...each division leader. 

---

"Don't argue with an idiot, people watching may not be able to tell the difference."

Actually the 17 and 17 design works better in most ways due to the fact that teams stop getting to be in safe divisions.


A good example is New England, they can go 14-2 or they can go 9-7 and likely still make the playoffs due to their division. They're competing with three bottom feeding teams, but if you take away the safety of the get into the playoffs free button that the division winner gets then suddenly a team that is 6-6 going into December has a more realistic chance of making the playoffs if they're 10-6 because there isn't an 8-8 or 9-7 team taking up a spot by default because they were lucky enough to be in the right division.


Not to even mention the fact that everyone actually playing everyone else in the conference evens out the schedule in a way we've never seen before. No more feasting on the dregs of a bad division.

But in a tight division (for instance the NFC North) you can go from third place to playoff place with a couple of wins, keeping the division interesting right until the final weeks. A couple of wins in a seventeen team division might not get you as far.


Look at the English Premier League (which has 20 teams) and you'll see that midway through the season half the teams stand little chance of breaking into the top six. Ok, it's a bit different because some teams are financially much better off, but if a few of the better NFL teams start to run away with a 17 team division, the rest could very quickly be playing for draft position.


But I accept there are arguments for a large division too.

---

But in a tight division (for instance the NFC North) you can go from third place to playoff place with a couple of wins, keeping the division interesting right until the final weeks. A couple of wins in a seventeen team division might not get you as far.

 

I'm not understanding your point. If all of the playoff spots are gained by actual merit rather than divisional alignment how is that less dramatic or enjoyable?

 

Does it matter if three teams are all in the race to get into the playoffs at 7-9 or 8-8? Maybe it does to the specific fans of those teams, but personally I'd rather see the best teams earn their way in and not have to deal with the problem the cardinals had last year where 10-6 wasn't good enough because the packers made it in at 8-7-1.

---

I don't see it happening at least not for a while. More teams means less cut of the revenue pie and the owners don't seem to be eager to share more money if they don't have too.

---

"Before you criticize a man, walk a mile in his shoes. That way, if he gets angry, he's a mile away and barefoot."

I'm not understanding your point. If all of the playoff spots are gained by actual merit rather than divisional alignment how is that less dramatic or enjoyable?


Does it matter if three teams are all in the race to get into the playoffs at 7-9 or 8-8? Maybe it does to the specific fans of those teams, but personally I'd rather see the best teams earn their way in and not have to deal with the problem the cardinals had last year where 10-6 wasn't good enough because the packers made it in at 8-7-1.

My point is that with smaller divisions more teams are playing meaningful matches for longer. Simple as that really.


And as most fans follow a team (rather than being neutral supporters of the sport as a whole). I think that's important. But you might feel differently.


Yes, the current system is unfair at times though.

---

I don't see it happening at least not for a while. More teams means less cut of the revenue pie and the owners don't seem to be eager to share more money if they don't have too.

Also true.

---