Moving to AFC West?

[irocdave]

As mentioned it makes the most sense to have the Rams and Chargers move to LA. But...that leaves the Raiders in a huge dilemma. Their stadium is crap and the LA threat takes the legs out of any influence the Raiders have to get a new stadium. Same thing for the Chargers. The Rams should move back to LA. The only way the Hawks get moved back to the AFC is if Paul Allen agrees with it. That's what I remember from the last move, it was kinda forced on PA but the understanding was it wouldn't happen again without full consent from PA.

 

[Seafan]

No need for any moves. There is nothing wrong with two teams from the same city in the same division.

 

[chris98251]

Not same city, same stadium, that causes schedule conflicts.

 

[Polaris]

Not same city, same stadium, that causes schedule conflicts.

Indeed, and even if it weren't the same stadium,the NFL would insist that one team be AFC and one team be NFC if sharing a single market. You don't want to have two home games try to draw the same market at the same time. It's bad for business and the networks wouldn't cooperate.

 

[Seafan]

Other sports don't have a problem with two teams in the same division from same city.

It doesn't matter they are from the same division. They don't have the same fans.

If they are sharing the sme stadium they obviously won't be playing the same time. It makes no difference what division they are from.

 

[Seafan]

Not same city, same stadium, that causes schedule conflicts.

Tell that to the Giants/Jets. What conflicts. You don't play at the same time.

Three teams would be a possible problem.

The Raiders should work out a deal with Santa Clara. No sense in moving to LA and sharing with another team they can do that in the Bay area.

 

[MizzouHawkGal]

I haven't seen this post anywhere yet. I've been seeing reports linked on Facebook suggesting the Seahawks may move the AFC West if the Raiders/Chargers relocation is approved. I understand they don't want 2 teams from LA in the same conference, but why the Seahawks? I understand we have history in the AFC West, but we have built an awesome history in the NFC West at this point. Secondly, doesn't it make more sense to move the Rams to the AFC West if the Raiders/Chargers scenario were approved? That way, you're keeping far-western teams in one division, and midwest teams in one division (along with one LA team). Seems like an easier scenario for team travel expenses for both divisions.

Here is one of the sources: http://www.king5.com/story/sports/nfl/s ... /78298998/

Not going to happen. Seattle was in the NFCW their first year and only moved to the AFCW in 1977 or 1978 contigent on moving back to the NFC forever with realignment and never being moved again. We all know they should move the Rams back to Los Angeles and let the Chargers and Raiders fight it out. The Rams have actual history there from before my father was alive let alone me.

 

[chris98251]

Not same city, same stadium, that causes schedule conflicts.

Tell that to the Giants/Jets. What conflicts. You don't play at the same time.

Three teams would be a possible problem.

The Raiders should work out a deal with Santa Clara. No sense in moving to LA and sharing with another team they can do that in the Bay area.

They are not in the same conference, why it works.

 

[sutz]

Not same city, same stadium, that causes schedule conflicts.

Jets/Giants. Don't know if still do it, but did for many years.

 

[vin.couve12]

AFC no bueno, but even there somehow there is a damn Missoura team in it. Just let the Rams move there and be done with the truffle shuffle.

 

[MizzouHawkGal]

Not same city, same stadium, that causes schedule conflicts.

Jets/Giants. Don't know if still do it, but did for many years.

Not in the same conference just like Oakland/San Francisco. Same conference means major schedule conflicts and television market conflicts. Same division? Yeah right. My guess is the Rams go home and it's going to get bloody in California for the next year or two as the NFL sits back and accepts the highest bidder. Advantage belongs to Oakland given they have a fanbase in Los Angeles.

 

[TheRealDTM]

Other sports don't have a problem with two teams in the same division from same city.

It doesn't matter they are from the same division. They don't have the same fans.

If they are sharing the sme stadium they obviously won't be playing the same time. It makes no difference what division they are from.

except if they are in the same division they would play at the same time in the same stadium twice a year.

 

[lobohawk]

Kraft won't allow the Hawks to move. New England doesn't want a roadblock in their Conference.

 

[Polaris]

Kraft won't allow the Hawks to move. New England doesn't want a roadblock in their Conference.

Agreed, but let's also admit that the owners like Paul Allen by and large and the entire ownership group made a promise to PA that his team would NOT be forced to move again. It was the price the NFL paid for forcing the Seahawks to move in 2002.

I also think the Elway and the Rooney Family will also be dead set against moving Seattle as well.

 

[Seafan]

Other sports don't have a problem with two teams in the same division from same city.

It doesn't matter they are from the same division. They don't have the same fans.

If they are sharing the sme stadium they obviously won't be playing the same time. It makes no difference what division they are from.

except if they are in the same division they would play at the same time in the same stadium twice a year.

That's a problem? How? Haven't seen one example of a scheduling problem. Giants and Jets have done it for years. They each get 8 home games. Where is the conflict? I know, there isn't any. If there is no conflict for 2 NFL teams in the same stadium then there isn't any if they play in the same division either.

The Hawks will not move.

 

[themunn]

I think one thing the NFL massively misses compared to many other sports across the world is a true single-city rivalry - there's nothing quite like a city divided by colour (where that colour refers to their sports team!), two teams competing in the same division in the same city would almost instantly become one of the most fascinating rivalries in the league, by keeping them in different conferences à la New York, it's significantly dimmed given they only play once every 4 years and realistically never competing for the same prize

With that said, the Rams are the obvious choice of the three to move to LA so it's a relatively moot point

 

[HawkGA]

Other sports don't have a problem with two teams in the same division from same city.

It doesn't matter they are from the same division. They don't have the same fans.

If they are sharing the sme stadium they obviously won't be playing the same time. It makes no difference what division they are from.

except if they are in the same division they would play at the same time in the same stadium twice a year.

That's a problem? How? Haven't seen one example of a scheduling problem. Giants and Jets have done it for years. They each get 8 home games. Where is the conflict? I know, there isn't any. If there is no conflict for 2 NFL teams in the same stadium then there isn't any if they play in the same division either.

The Hawks will not move.

It's a TV scheduling conflict if they are in the same conference. Can't both be on CBS at the same time.

 

[dopeboy206]

If say the Rams move to the AFC...It would suck for the lone west coast team in the division. Imagine 3 divisional road games @ 10am.

 

[Trenchbroom]

We may move--money trumps all. If the price/incentives are right we could be thumping the Donks/Chiefs/Raiders 2x a year very soon.

They consider us a team with no history, and they always will. Which is why I have no issues with us changing uniforms every 7-10 years. Why not?

 

[HawkGA]

If say the Rams move to the AFC...It would suck for the lone west coast team in the division. Imagine 3 divisional road games @ 10am.

Broncos play at 1, not 10.