American Sports Discussion (ie, Apolyton US Sports Bar) - Page 2

Imran Siddiqui · December 6, 2002, 04:56

Arizona would be best, because they are in the NFC West already. I've heard Indy, but they are in the AFC South right now.

They have the divisions actually set up decently now

.

LA does seem very apathetic about a football team. I can't understand why, but Hell, you got a San Diego team, an Oakland team, and a San Francisco team. California doesn't need another one

.

Ming · December 6, 2002, 05:01

With the exception of Dallas in the East, the divisions were set up pretty good. California has enough teams... and unless they build a great stadium in Los Angeles... it really doesn't make sense for anybody to move there.

Imran Siddiqui · December 6, 2002, 05:06

Well, Dallas is special. They have long rivalries with the Redskins and Giants. Also Jones might have pulled an Al Davis and sued

.

It makes no sense for anyone to be in LA, but the NFL wants that 2nd biggest market to have a team in it. It's the only US team sport, basically, that doesn't have a team in LA.

Ming · December 6, 2002, 05:13

With both Dallas and Washington sucking this year, this would have been time to cut the cord between the two teams... Dallas in the east is just plain silly.

LA maybe the second largest market, but the fans don't seem to care. How a team couldn't make money in LA, but make money in St Louis is beyond reality

Imran Siddiqui · December 6, 2002, 05:18

Quote:

With both Dallas and Washington sucking this year, this would have been time to cut the cord between the two teams... Dallas in the east is just plain silly.

Doesn't matter if they suck. It's like if Michigan and OSU sucked. Don't matter, the rivalry is still the important thing.

I think Dallas still should stay in the East. Ming, you just don't understand unless you came from an NFC East area

. Dallas is the hated team around NY and Philly

.

Ming · December 6, 2002, 05:21

Oh yes.. Dallas in the East..

that makes PERFECT sense

It's time for NEW rivalries... this would have been the best time to end this farce... But NOOOOOOO...

What a joke

Imran Siddiqui · December 6, 2002, 05:24

New rivalries?

Ming, I never thought you were the one to break tradition

.

So you wouldn't mind having just an East and West Conference in the NFL?

Ming · December 6, 2002, 05:27

I just think it's a joke that Dallas is in the East... call me silly, but they are WEST of the MISSISSIPPI... There is no reason for this. With all the key competitors sucking this year, this would have been a perfect time to end this farce. With profit sharing, it doesn't really make that big of diffence...

Imran Siddiqui · December 6, 2002, 05:33

Dallas/Washington, Dallas/NY Giants, and Dallas/Philadelphia MUST be preserved. I don't care if Dallas is in the West forever, they cannot be split apart if there is any justice.

It would be like splitting up Green Bay and Chicago into Midwest and Great Lakes or something.

You might as well end the NFC and AFC and combine them into one big conference.

I kinda prefer in hockey back in the days when the conferences were on names instead of geographical location. Then there wouldn't be the BS about teams in the same area have to be in the same division.

Ming · December 6, 2002, 05:39

The difference is... Green Bay. Detriot, and Minny are really in the same geographic area. Dallas in the east is a farce. Other teams had to change, why not Dallas. It's just absurd that they are in the east

Imran Siddiqui · December 6, 2002, 05:50

Then explain why do you tolerate St. Louis is in the West? The only reason they are there is because of the rivalry with San Francisco. How about Indianapolis in the South? Why is Baltimore in the North and Buffalo in the South? Can it be because Buffalo has great rivalries with Miami and NY Jets? Why is Kansas City in the West and Houston in the South? Because KC has a long standing rivalry with Oakland and Denver.

Face it, there are divisional rivalries that are MORE important than sillyness such as grouping all teams into a geographic reagion.

Ming · December 6, 2002, 05:52

St Louis is at least west of the mississippi

KC belongs in the west and Houston is in the south, so I have no problems with them... But Dallas in the EAST, what a joke

Imran Siddiqui · December 6, 2002, 05:58

I'll take traditional rivalries over stupid geographical divisions, any day.

And since Houston is WEST of Kansas City, it would make no sense for KC to be in the West and not have Houston be there as well.

Furthermore it isn't 1810, the Mississippi isn't the midpoint of the country, middle of Texas is

.

Ming · December 6, 2002, 06:00

If you are going to realign, it just makes sense to do it right. Dallas is the one team that just screams... It wasn't done right. Screw the rivalries... make new ones.

Imran Siddiqui · December 6, 2002, 06:05

Quote:

Screw the rivalries... make new ones.

Sorry, I'm not in favor of throwing away traditional rivalries at the drop of a hat. THEY are what make sports great.

I would never, ever, ever, ever support a plan that would seperate Dallas from Washington, Philly, and the NY Giants, and neither would any of those teams. The rivalries mean MUCH more than any geographical realignment.

Ming · December 6, 2002, 06:07

Oh please... they crammed Tampa Bay into the Central Division... and then had no problem putting them where they really belonged.
Dallas in the east is just a joke... If they were to play in a division that made more sense, nobody would care in a few years. JUST LOOK AT A FRICKEN MAP

Imran Siddiqui · December 6, 2002, 06:13

Quote:

If they were to play in a division that made more sense, nobody would care in a few years.

Says someone who has NOOOO idea.

Tampa Bay shifted from the Central to the South because you finally had an even number of teams in both leagues and instead of plugging teams where there is an opening, they could move teams around. It kinda helped that Tampa developed no real rivalries.

Real rivalries are why the East, North, and West in BOTH conferences are the way they are. The SOUTH in both conferences is where the rejects went. Those teams without rivalries went to the South. Arizona moved to the West because they didn't have any rivalries in the East and the same with Seattle in the AFC West.

Look at the East, North, and West in both conferences. Basically those are the rivalry divisions.

Like I said, it was really based on geography then Buffalo would be in the AFC North and Baltimore in the East, but what friken sense would that make? Buffalo has a rivalry against Miami and the Jets and you can't break that up.

JUST like, you CANNOT, until the NFL no longer exists, break up Dallas and Washington. Never, no how, no way.

Caligastia · December 6, 2002, 10:21

It might take a while (like 100 years or so), but I think eventually the US rugby team will be able to compete with major rugby nations. The sport is being played in many colleges around the country, and is growing fast among young people.

TV shows like Championship Rugby on Fox Sports World are bringing the sport to the masses, and americans are switching from stale, overcommercialised american football in droves. Rugby is dynamic and highly skillful - a true team sport. Its only a matter of time till it dominates the consciousness of sport lovers in the US.

reismark · December 6, 2002, 12:24

Quote:

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui
Tampa Bay shifted from the Central to the South because you finally had an even number of teams in both leagues and instead of plugging teams where there is an opening, they could move teams around. It kinda helped that Tampa developed no real rivalries.

I don't know about you, but I'd say Tampa Bay/Green Bay became one heck of a rivalry, especially with all the Favre/Sapp fun of the past five years.

Here's an interesting idea. Right now, teams play home-and-home series in their divisions (6 games), two home and away games against all the members of another division in their conference (4 games), a home and away game against one team each from the other two divisions (2 games), and two home and away games against all the members of a division in the other conference (4 games).

My suggestion: Institute what I'd call a "rivalry" game. This would match teams from different divisions (and possibly different conferences) so that obvious rivalries aren't ignored and new rivalries can be cultivated. The rivalry game would fit in under the parameters above, except it would recur each year (with the teams changing venue each year). You could have rivalries like this, every year:

Cleveland/N.Y. Giants (Remember the fifties?)
Dallas/Houston (What else did you expect?)
Baltimore/Indianapolis (You scum Colts abandoned us!)
Philadelphia/Tampa Bay (This is really turning into something...)
Oakland/San Francisco (Bay Area shootout! Battle of Jerry Rice! Be there!)
Carolina/Jacksonville (Expansion brothers who hate each other...)
Buffalo/Tennessee (This has quite the post-season history, dating back to Oiler times...)

Japher · December 6, 2002, 14:37

In addition to the two new overtime rules that are being considered I saw a proposal that is being considered that suggested that it would be the best to 6 points. Thus, eliminating the easy field goal for the win. I am not sure if it would occur through regular play or through the collegate system. I kind of like that idea.

As for NFL team restructure I think it is fine. This year is a great year for football, in all divisions. Well, Green Bays division sucks, but I even thought the Bears would being doing a lot better than they are.

Rivalry games? I don't know. I always enjoy those type of games, but having them play only once every four years during regular season only hypes those games even more. I like the current standing of the inter-division and inter-league play. I will, however, miss those rivalries that have developed over the pass several decades, but will also be interested in seeing new rivalries develop.

Some good rivalries that will develop and some that already are there:

San Diago/Oakland (miss the ol' Oakland/Denver)
Miami/New England
Eagles/Giants
Tampa Bay/New Orleans
San Francisco/St. Louis (miss the ol' SF/Dallas, though they play this weekend)

I could also see some rivalries develop for the "I don't want to be in last place" teams. Browns vs. Bengals seem to be in the running.

Imran Siddiqui · December 6, 2002, 16:21

Quote:

I don't know about you, but I'd say Tampa Bay/Green Bay became one heck of a rivalry, especially with all the Favre/Sapp fun of the past five years.

Are you even trying to compare the semi-rivalry of Tampa & Green Bay to the hatred and vitrol of Washington & Dallas (or Green Bay & Chicago, KC & Denver, etc)? Ha!

Quote:

In addition to the two new overtime rules that are being considered I saw a proposal that is being considered that suggested that it would be the best to 6 points.

The problem is that if one team scores a TD the game is over. I'd like to see the other team have at least one chance.

SlowwHand · December 6, 2002, 17:14

Quote:

Originally posted by Ming
If you are going to realign, it just makes sense to do it right. Dallas is the one team that just screams... It wasn't done right. Screw the rivalries... make new ones.

True. Like moving the Bears to the CFL.

Trivia time.
When Dallas was first working on getting a team, Washington was the team watched in the South.
Washington was adamant in their opposition to Dallas securing a team, because they wanted the fan base kept intact.
Redskin management worked both overtly and covertly to prevent Clint Murchinson from getting approval for a team.
Murchinson was able to gain rights to the Redskins fight song, and added that to his bargaining power.
From those first days, the rivalry has only deepened.

You that think you have a rivalry going, just think you have a rivalry going.

"Develop another rivalry".

Ogie Oglethorpe · December 6, 2002, 17:29

Quote:

Originally posted by Ming
Pitt has shown some interest ever since Penn St. joined.

They can get killed in either conference, and the Big 10 could provide them with more money in the long run.

Please, please, please. I would love to have Pitt in the big 10. Ahh the days of chanting Sh1t on Pitt!

Yet another reason I hated PSU going to the big 10. We lost our best rivalry!!

Ogie Oglethorpe · December 6, 2002, 17:32

Quote:

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui

I think Dallas still should stay in the East. Ming, you just don't understand unless you came from an NFC East area

. Dallas is the hated team around NY and Philly

.

Its kind of a religion.

While NY and Philly teams have a mutual despising it pales in comparison to Dallas, which is why Dallas has to remainin the East else rating would plummet in the metro NY and Philly areas.

What pisses us off even more is that we hate them passionately and all they care about is some stinkin redskins rivalry.

Talk about unrequited hate.

SlowwHand · December 6, 2002, 17:35

The Cowboys don't even really care about Philly. That's the hell of the deal. The Eagles have this outpouring of emotion, and Dallas just doesn't care.

Speaking of Terrell Owens

, should he find his way onto midfield this year, Roy Williams was nominated to correct him.

walruskkkch · December 6, 2002, 17:37

You just want to see those cheerleaders.

Ogie Oglethorpe · December 6, 2002, 17:38

Quote:

Originally posted by SlowwHand
The Cowboys don't even really care about Philly. That's the hell of the deal. The Eagles have this outpouring of emotion, and Dallas just doesn't care.

Grrr..... Hate like a man you....you.... you.... Grrrr

DanS · December 6, 2002, 17:46

"The sport is being played in many colleges around the country, and is growing fast among young people."

For some reason, I doubt a keg could be brought onto the field in a professional game. Just wouldn't work right.

Caligastia · December 6, 2002, 18:04

Quote:

Originally posted by DanS
"The sport is being played in many colleges around the country, and is growing fast among young people."

For some reason, I doubt a keg could be brought onto the field in a professional game. Just wouldn't work right.

Is alcohol the only thing that can convince an american to play rugby?

DanS · December 6, 2002, 18:17

I'm not ruling it out, but I can't think of anything.