Monday, June 06, 2005

What if?

I have read that the Chargers or the Saints may move to LA if they don't get a new stadium. While I really could care less if either of these teams moves to LA...It did bring up an interesting thought.

What happens if the Saints move to LA? I know the NFL tried pretty hard to align the four divisions in each conference ...Would they keep the Saints in the NFC South? That's like having the Falcons in the NFC West! So if they move the Saints to the NFC west, the only team that would make sense to move would be the Lambs. But where would you move the Lambs to ???

The only division that would make any sense would be the East and in order to do that the Cowboys would be the only logical choice to move and fill the void left in the NFC South. I happen to like the way the divisions would look then ...It will never happen but what if??? What would that mean to the Seahawks chances of winning a super bowl if these changes were made? Would we miss the Lambs? or would we be the same old Seahawks regardless of who is in our division?

10 comments:

  1. I would personally hate to let the rams go to another division. I hate them so very much, I could never raise that kind of passion when playing the saints.  

    Posted by PaulieP

    ReplyDelete
  2. If franchises keep acting like "free agents" and move to the city with the best offer, I think it's time for the NFL, and all sports leagues in general, to drop the geograpical designations on their divisions.

    Air travel is as commonplace as bus rides were in the 50s, and it's not like these guys are changing planes in Chicago everytime they fly across country, so what's it matter if a team from NY in in the same division as a team from LA?

    In an earlier thread, I mentioned naming divisions based on icons and legends of the game. Granted, no Giant fan worth his salt wants to be in the Landry division, just as no Bears fan would want their team in the Lombardi division, so that ain't happening.

    So why not lose the City name all toghter, and just break the divisions down arbitrarily?

    Here's my recommendation for a 6 division breakdown, with 5 teams in each with two divisions of 6 teams:

    Carnivorous Mammals (5): Bengals, Jags, Lions, Bears, Panthers

    Herbevor Mammals(5): Bills, Dolphins, Colts, Broncos, Rams

    Humans (6): Texans, Buccaneers, Raiders, Patriots, Packers, Cowboys

    Birds (5): Seahawks, Falcons, Cardinals, Ravens, Eagles

    Inatimate Objects (5): Jets, Browns, Steelers, Chargers, 49ers

    Myths & Legends (6): Cheifs, Redskins, Titans, Giants, Vikings, Saints

    This preserves some heated rivalries, Giants-Redskins, Seahawks-Cardinals, Bills-Dolphins, Bears-Lions, and makes sensible divisions WHEREEVER the teams happen to be playing. 

    Posted by alba

    ReplyDelete
  3. that was great alba...that must of took a LONG time to come up with


    I have been wondering the same thing with this situation...I think if the NFL wants an LA team so much...move the Rams back, preserving the division...and LA still has a lot of Rams fans...

    the move the Saints to St. Louis (wait...St. Louis Saints??!?!?!)...technically they can say they are in the south, as the Colts are in a south division despite not being a soutern city

    i agree with PP...the Rams make a great rival to beat up on...and dont move them while they are on their way down!!!


    I personally love the Chargers and Saints (3rd and 4th favs, respectively...YES! I like the Aints!!!...so sue me)...I would hate for them to move

    ReplyDelete
  4. And shame on you GOX for assuming these are the same old Hawks. Regardless of who they play. Our problem isn't the opponents we play, it's how we've played those opponents, and if the team continues to improve we have nothing to worry about any of the teams we play.

    And I'd also hate to lose the Lambs as an opponent, it was tough enough when we lost having the Raiders as our arch nemesis.  

    Posted by vin

    ReplyDelete
  5. Hey I just asking a question...Alba I like your post but the 49ers need to move divisions ...as they are a person they belong in the Humans or myth division.

    ReplyDelete
  6. Sadly, that only took about 10 minutes to come up with, as I was trying to get it posted before leaving to pick up my daughter at daycare! (nothing like a deadline to coax good prose out of a writer!)

    And GOX, I don't want to argue, because I know the team is named after teh prospectors of the gold rush era, but if you've seen them play recently, how could you argue that they're not inanimate objects? 

    Posted by alba

    ReplyDelete
  7. Not to nit-pick you any more Alba, but dolphins are carnivorous, and browns (for reasons unknown to people outside of Cleveland) are carnivorous animals, dogs. Actually my dog is omnivorous, she like apples and carrots, but anyway... 

    Posted by Josh from SC

    ReplyDelete
  8. And if you move Saints from South to West, you can certainly move St Louis from West to South, makes more sense than the aforementioned Colts. St Louis is kinda south anyway. Although the Cowgirls makes sense too, but move St Louis to the east? 

    Posted by Josh from SC

    ReplyDelete
  9. everyone's a critic!! :-) 

    Posted by alba

    ReplyDelete
  10. Back to the topic at hand, the rose bowl was eliminated as a site for a future NFL team, which makes me happy. The last thing we needed going into these talks about shared revenue was another team moving into a college stadium. Unlike Colin Cowherd, (I'm always disagreeing with him) I think the construction of new stadiums is good for the league and for each team and city. If a team can pass a vote approving a new stadium, it shows the cities dedication to the team. Likewise, if an owner wishes to put money into a team, it shows his dedication.  

    Posted by PaulieP

    ReplyDelete