Seahawks possibly moving back to AFC?

[Popeyejones]

I think the PP is correct, the 32 team format has been working quite well and I think it's unlikely that they'd award two expansion teams and end up with some divisions that had five teams.

Yeah, as of right now I think this is pretty low on the list for eking more revenue out of the sport. I'd guess the order will be:

1) get teams out of declining markets into major markets (e.g. Rams and Raiders to LA, Bills to Toronto, Jags to London, etc.)

2) Lengthen the season.

3) Expand the playoffs.

4) Try to reboot an off-season farm leage a la NFL Europe.

5) Line enough pockets to keep the antitrust exemption while expanding games to Friday and Saturday.

6) Expand the league.

 

[chris98251]

And the NFL isn't breaking up SEA/SF for the sake of Oakland.

By the time this happens I doubt SEA/SF will still be a thing anymore. Harbaugh is probably coaching his last season with the 49ers. Or at least that's what every sports reporter in America has been saying the last few months.

And what conference would the London Expansion team be in?

AFC. They'll move the Pats there just for shits. Or better yet, they move the Bills there and rename them the Redcoats.

So Seattle and Santa Clara won't be rivals in 2015 ?

Thats the date they are talking about, consequently also the time that the Rams and or the Raiders can bail as well, these two teams are AFC and NFC so no change to alignment or history.

Dodger Stadium has been talked as a temporary home for the Raiders already, The Coliseum I imagine could be the home for the Rams for a Season as well.

 

[RiverDog]

Two teams in L.A again, good luck. I could see any of those three teams going, but two, no way after what happened last time.

As for Seattle moving again, not happening. Seattle has been treated like a stepchild with no conference since joining the NFL. if they were moved it would be the fourth time the team would be moved from one conference to another (They started in the NFC, moved to the AFC in year two, then moved back to the NFC in 2002). Seattle has started to develop some rivalries in the NFCW (at different times) and NFC overall (like with Chicago, Green Bay, New Orleans and Dallas) and now they have a legit winning history since they were pushed out of the AFCW after the 01 season. I just don't see Seattle getting moved again, I could see the Cards or Rams moved out, but not Seattle this time.

The first two expansion years were pre-planned for us to play in different conferences, and our expansion sister Tampa Bay also had to change with us.

The move in 2000 out of the AFC West was done because the league understandably wanted to maintain the old AFL rivalries. Otherwise, it would have made more sense to put Denver, Kansas City, St. Louis, and Arizona in one division and us, the Raiders, Niners, and Chargers in another. But the move in 2000 was done against our will, and unless Paul Allen consents to it, we ain't going anywhere.

My preference would be for the Rams to move back to LA. St. Louis has never fully adapted them. They're a baseball town, and their fan base is one of the least passionate in the game....next to the Cards, that is. As far as the Raiders go, I don't want anything to do with that thuggish fan base. That motley group is so ugly that they no longer play the Niners in preseason because of all the fan violence that results. It would be a nightmare playing them twice a season.

 

[HawkAroundTheClock]

How about the Raiders-to-San Antonio rumblings? Any chance of that, or is SA gunning for the role Seattle plays to the NBA?

If the Raiders become Texas' third NFL team, that leaves LA wide open for the Rams and/or Chargers, with no need for realignment. Also, Ed Roski wants 30% ownership of any franchise that moves into his proposed LA stadium. Would Mark Davis really go for that?

This article from September suggests it could be a ploy to get a new stadium in Oakland, but also says there's no concrete progress between Oakland and the Raiders.

http://www.cbssports.com/nfl/eye-on-foo ... -alamodome

Raiders owner Mark Davis has repeatedly said he wants to keep the team in Oakland, although he seems more than happy to keep flirting with other cities. Davis did say in February that Oakland was on its "last chance" to keep the Raiders.

 

[BocciHawk]

I've heard that the Ed Roski deal is totally dead and the NFL won't be doing business with him.

There are plenty of temporary options, the most obvious being the Rose Bowl which is under used and every year hosts multiple games as well as the Rose Bowl itself i.e. it wouldn't be much work to get it in a condition to use for two years of NFL games. Similar with LA Coliseum.

http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/20 ... rn-to-l-a/

AEG seems very likely to me. I also think the Stan Kroenke land makes a lot of sense for the Rams especially if it ended up being two teams, two stadiums i.e. he'd build the new Rams stadium on his land, and AEG would build a stadium for the Raiders or the Chargers.

 

[RiverDog]

How about the Raiders-to-San Antonio rumblings? Any chance of that, or is SA gunning for the role Seattle plays to the NBA?

If the Raiders become Texas' third NFL team, that leaves LA wide open for the Rams and/or Chargers, with no need for realignment. Also, Ed Roski wants 30% ownership of any franchise that moves into his proposed LA stadium. Would Mark Davis really go for that?

This article from September suggests it could be a ploy to get a new stadium in Oakland, but also says there's no concrete progress between Oakland and the Raiders.

http://www.cbssports.com/nfl/eye-on-foo ... -alamodome

Raiders owner Mark Davis has repeatedly said he wants to keep the team in Oakland, although he seems more than happy to keep flirting with other cities. Davis did say in February that Oakland was on its "last chance" to keep the Raiders.

I have a hard time believing that the league would consent to a move to San Antonio. They would not be entering a new market, they'd be splitting up an existing one, and let's not forget who's market they'd be splitting. Plus the Alamodome does not meet NFL standards and I haven't heard of a plan to build a new facility. IMO this is still just a ploy by Davis to make the city of Oakland nervous.

There's only one untapped market left in the continental US, and that's LA. After that, it's London.

 

[TXHawk]

It'll most likely be the Raiders and/or the Rams who move to LA. The league wants to keep the Chargers in San Diego.

 

[Mick063]

I would much rather watch the Hawks on CBS than FOX.

With the exception of Aikman, the entire FOX crew, especially their studio group, are extremely annoying. Bradshaw and Johnson are more concerned about providing a stand up comedy routine, than providing valuable insight. The problem is that their antics are simply not funny and distract/interrupt meaningful dialog.

 

[volsunghawk]

It will never happen, Denver,Oakland,Kansas City, and San Diego all original teams in the AFC and in the West, they moved us due to that in the first place and won't change it now.

Exactly this.

If they move the Raiders AND the Chargers to LA, they will definitely move one of them to the NFC. The NFL has always preferred to avoid having two teams coming from the same city in the same conference.

I don't think the NFL is married to history anyway, there's a fairly lengthy list of teams that have bounced from divisions or conferences in the past. Not to mention changing cities. And there has never been a commissioner in any sport ever who loved change for the sake of change more than Roger Goodell.

Though if they really wanted to keep the current alignment, there is an easy solution. Move the Rams to LA instead of the Chargers. Or just have one team go to L.A. Then nobody would have to change divisions or conferences.

If there is one thing we know about Goodell, it's that he worships the almighty dollar. I can only imagine how badly he wants to get the NFL back into America's second largest metro market. Which would also explain the greedy nature of the rumor (not one team moving but two).

I just don't see the NFL having success with this gambit, if the rumors are true. They've been unable to put a team in LA for 20 years now. I don't see how they're going to manage TWO in a short timeframe when it's never been proven that LA will support two teams. I can definitely see 1 team moving to LA, but two is a stretch.

The NFL was married enough to history in 2002 to move us out of the AFC West to protect all those old AFL rivalries.

I love the idea of the Rams moving back to LA. All the markers are there - previous history with the team, stadium problems, owner with a willingness to move outside his home territory (Kroenke may be a Missouri guy, but he owns a couple of Denver teams), etc.

But say in this bizarre scenario that the Raiders and Chargers both actually move back to LA, and the league wants one of them to switch conferences. I could easily see Arizona or St. Louis changing conferences more readily than the Seahawks. First off, Arizona doesn't have any more history with the other NFC West teams than we do, and I'd argue that our rivalry with SF is stronger than anything Arizona has with teams in the division. As for the Rams, I think there's a natural rivalry for them to be had with both Denver and KC as midwestern teams.

 

[hawksfansinceday1]

I just don't see the NFL having success with this gambit, if the rumors are true. They've been unable to put a team in LA for 20 years now. I don't see how they're going to manage TWO in a short timeframe when it's never been proven that LA will support two teams. I can definitely see 1 team moving to LA, but two is a stretch......

Agree with this 100%. LA hasn't even really supported one team since like the 70s, let alone two.

 

[SalishHawkFan]

Or better yet, they move the Bills there and rename them the Redcoats.

Brainstorm! Move the Redskins there and rename them the Redcoats. Problem solved!

 

[SalishHawkFan]

There's actually a huge opportunity to have conferences that make geographical sense along with moving into a great market and fixing a currently oversaturated market. Leave Oakland and San Diego where they are. Move St. Louis and Jacksonville to L.A. With a shakeup to the divisions, suddenly travel expenses for NFL teams becomes as an added bonus.

NFC West remains the same, but now Rams are much closer in L.A.
AFC West becomes Denver, SD, Oak and LA (rename Jaguars?)

Denver is the furthest east of all the western teams.

NFC South becomes Dallas, NO, TB, Atlanta
AFC South becomes Miami, Houston, Carolina, Tennessee

NFC Central is unchanged
AFC Central is KC, Indy, Cincy, Cleveland

NFC East becomes Washington, Philly, Giants, Patriots
AFC East becomes Pittsburgh, Buffalo, Jets and Ravens

 

[warden]

League rules say if two teams share a stadium, they cannot play in the same conference. If both Chargers and Raiders move to LA and share a stadium, then was has to move. Reports are that the Raiders have volunteered to change conferences if this scenario happens. Complete moot point, if the Rams end up moving to LA

 

[Pandion Haliaetus]

I'm not going to read through this whole thread but I say there is a chance of it happening.

Why, because there are just too many good teams and good QBs currently in the NFC.

Think about how many years they have left to milk out of Manning/Brady... not long.... then Rivers/Rothlisberger won't be long after.

So who does the AFC have? Its probably why we are getting force fed Luck on how great he is?

They'll be left to commercialize non-top 10 QBs in Alex Smith, Flacco, and Dalton. And the potential of Manziel, Tanehill, and Bortles. Talk about boring.

Now bring Wilson into the mix and you pretty much create a decade long rivalry between him and Luck and you got the new Manning/Brady cash cow.

Also, I wouldn't mind.

2-3 years from now Broncos will be rebuilding post-Manning and a 35 year old Rivers without Gates isn't scaring me, same with Smith in KC. If its 5 years from now, Russell will just be hitting his prime.

It would be freakin awesome to win a Lombardi as a QB in two different conferences. Best Ever.

 

[SalishHawkFan]

Win a Super Bowl in each conference. Pretty cool. And get back our age old rivalries? I could dig that.

 

[jlwaters1]

I converted to the Seahawks in 2003, mainly because of the switch to the NFC.
I've always rooted for NFC teams, I'd have to find a new team if we went back to the AFC. I hate the AFC West.

 

[TwilightError]

Not having to deal with whining whiner fans would be a bonus.

 

[hieroglyphics]

46 million people watched the two regular season games last year between SF & Seattle.

If money talks, which it seemingly does, then the league isn't breaking up this rivalry anytime soon. Not unless San Fran goes through another 10 years of misery.

 

[chris98251]

There's actually a huge opportunity to have conferences that make geographical sense along with moving into a great market and fixing a currently oversaturated market. Leave Oakland and San Diego where they are. Move St. Louis and Jacksonville to L.A. With a shakeup to the divisions, suddenly travel expenses for NFL teams becomes as an added bonus.

NFC West remains the same, but now Rams are much closer in L.A.
AFC West becomes Denver, SD, Oak and LA (rename Jaguars?)

Denver is the furthest east of all the western teams.

NFC South becomes Dallas, NO, TB, Atlanta
AFC South becomes Miami, Houston, Carolina, Tennessee

NFC Central is unchanged
AFC Central is KC, Indy, Cincy, Cleveland

NFC East becomes Washington, Philly, Giants, Patriots
AFC East becomes Pittsburgh, Buffalo, Jets and Ravens

Never ever ever going to happen, the Good Ole boys in the NFC East will not allow that conference to break up, too much History and influence,

As stated the AFC West will not change due to the same reasons and the historical aspects.

 

[chris98251]

I'm not going to read through this whole thread but I say there is a chance of it happening.

Why, because there are just too many good teams and good QBs currently in the NFC.

Think about how many years they have left to milk out of Manning/Brady... not long.... then Rivers/Rothlisberger won't be long after.

So who does the AFC have? Its probably why we are getting force fed Luck on how great he is?

They'll be left to commercialize non-top 10 QBs in Alex Smith, Flacco, and Dalton. And the potential of Manziel, Tanehill, and Bortles. Talk about boring.

Now bring Wilson into the mix and you pretty much create a decade long rivalry between him and Luck and you got the new Manning/Brady cash cow.

Also, I wouldn't mind.

2-3 years from now Broncos will be rebuilding post-Manning and a 35 year old Rivers without Gates isn't scaring me, same with Smith in KC. If its 5 years from now, Russell will just be hitting his prime.

It would be freakin awesome to win a Lombardi as a QB in two different conferences. Best Ever.

I love people that post starting with I did not read the thread and then offer an opinion.

As far as QB's, it's cyclic anyway, not long ago the NFC had Farve and who else?