And to put another issue you keep harping on to bed... I'm well aware of NFL/AFL history. I understand quite well why it is aligned as it is. That doesn't mean it's necessary. There is no really good reason to have two separated conferences, it's only that way because it's always been that way. That, to me, isn't a reason, it's an excuse.

Tell the people who decided to move the Seahawks to the NFC and the Colts to the AFC that "you cannot mix AFL teams with National teams".

I never said this was "perfect", I said it was better. The only way for it to be perfect is to force teams to relocate in order to make it perfect, and I believe the individual teams should make those decisions themselves based on their own fiscal well-being.

I believe firmly, however, that either of the alignments I've posted would improve league-wide revenue by an appreciable degree.

Preseason? really?

Yes, Dallas and Houston are already rivals. That's my point. They play one meaningful game every 4 years, and that's a travesty. It's a natural rivalry, not an artificial one, and that's the kind of rivalry the NFL should promote.

Divisions create artificial rivalries, thus divisions should be organized so that they already include natural rivalries rather than creating fake ones.

I get you, I realize there's a "reason", but for the most part that reason (as the NFL puts it) is tradition... which, to me, is the same as saying "It's always been that way, damn it, so that's how it's gonna stay."

In other words: I disagree with their reasons and think they're being hard headed and leaving money on the table. Just like the NCAA rejecting a playoff out of "tradition".

Nice post. I agree with you that rivalries are all about the fans and thus geographic proximity is key. Having lived in Texas, I know how big the Cowboys/Texans rivalry is and how **** it could be. God may come first in Texas, but football is certainly number two

My main issue was with your placement of Indy but you fixed that with your "older" realignment.

Don't have any division names, but I would go with an even more geographic alignment, almost completely based on proximity. Using a - to link must have geographic rivalries that I wouldn't break.

--- Eastern Conference ---
NE-NYJ-NYG-PHI (Philly's proximity to NYC is more relevant than even Buffalo to NY and Philly to Pitt)
PIT-CLE BUF DET (BUF is a lot closer to all these 3 locales than it is to NYC)
BAL-WAS CAR-ATL
MIA-TB-JAC NO

--- Western Conference ---
SF-OAK SD-ARI (hugely prefer, the proximity of ARI and SD to forcing SEA into this group)
HOU-DAL DEN-KC (Denver and KC is a good rivalry that gets to be preserved by not having to stick ARI here)
CHI-GB-MIN SEA (it's the only place SEA can go and the core 3 are kept together)
CIN IND STL TEN (this kind of worked itself out from what was left though breaking up Cincy-Cleveland is the worse of it)

Biggest question mark overall would be swapping DET and CIN.

I like that, Layoneil. Overall, looks pretty tight.

As I said before, no matter what you do, one team is going to be out of place. It was Cincinnati and Indianapolis in the two I did, it's Seattle in yours... you can't avoid it. But it's still better than the current NFL alignment.

I would love to see a divisional overhaul based on geographic locations. Personally, I'd love to see a HOU, DAL, NO grouping.

Check out my custom map, lol http://i327.photobucket.com/albums/k...teams_mapA.jpg

Another good one... and as always, one team just seems out of place (Carolina in this case).

reallignment is too much for the league. People get all worked up over it. I do think some changes could be made. I know as a Cleveland fan I can't lose my Pitt games and my Balt games. For me the in state rival game is my least important game for me. (in division)

Ok so as I'm looking through this I;m wondering really just whats wrong with the way things are. Granted some teams are down but parity is a beautiful thing that happens in all sports and should be looked upon as anyone can win. Ok realistically the Browns,Raiders,etc will never win anytime soon. But having said that look at where the Cardinals were just a few years ago. I'm not so sure relocating team is the answers. Do I think rival teams oughtta play more often? Not with the current schedule of 16 games but there talking about moving to an 18 game schedule and that could make things interesting. Good luck with your idea's though.

maybe im too much of a traditionalist but for somr reason there is a bad taste in my mouth. I cant imagine the Browns and Steelers not playing twice a year or especially Giants vs Eagles or Giants vs Cowboys. But I understand where you are coming from. I remember when the Cardinals used to be in the NFC East.