1970 realignment questions

[ChrisBabcock]

I have some questions about the 1970 merger realignment and late 60s NFL divisional alignment. First, I know there were a bunch of ideas thrown around as to how the new look 1970s NFL would break down divisionally. Does anyone know what some of the ideas that were scrapped were? I know that the 2002 realignment ideas were widely publicized. I think I heard once something about Philadelphia, Minnesota and Atlanta switching conferences instead of Cleveland, Baltimore and Pittsburgh. I do know what one proposal was to leave it unbalanced at 16 teams and 10 and have each subsequent expansion team be added to the AFC. We wouldn’t have had even conferences until 2002 if they would have went for that!

Secondly, in regards to the late 60s NFL divisions. Where did they come up with those names all starting with C? Central obviously makes sense. Coastal because 2 teams were from the east coast and 2 from the west coast? Capitol just because Washington was in it? What about weirdly named Century division? I’m also curious as to why the Giants and Saints swapped divisions in 1968 and then flipped back the next year.

Chris

[Rupert Patrick]

I have some questions about the 1970 merger realignment and late 60s NFL divisional alignment. First, I know there were a bunch of ideas thrown around as to how the new look 1970s NFL would break down divisionally. Does anyone know what some of the ideas that were scrapped were? I know that the 2002 realignment ideas were widely publicized. I think I heard once something about Philadelphia, Minnesota and Atlanta switching conferences instead of Cleveland, Baltimore and Pittsburgh. I do know what one proposal was to leave it unbalanced at 16 teams and 10 and have each subsequent expansion team be added to the AFC. We wouldn’t have had even conferences until 2002 if they would have went for that!

Chris

There were a number different divisional alignments, and the owners could not agree on one so Rozelle put them in a vase and had his secretary pick one.

http://mmqb.si.com/2014/07/08/nfl-histo ... lf-merger/

They had the AFC set, but there were issues with the NFC realignment. I was unable to find the other realignment plans. Of the various proposals, I know the one that was chosen was the only one with Dallas in the Eastern Division, the other plans had the Vikings in the East. Also, the plan that was chosen was the only one that had Minnesota, Green Bay, Detroit and Chicago in the Central division. I think the plan that was chosen was the best, although I would have put Dallas in the Central or West instead of the East.

[Citizen]

I don't have many answers for Chris, but I agree that the era of the Capitol, Century, Central and Coastal divisions really was an oddity.

The merger (and therefore realignment) had been agreed on and was just a few years from being implemented, correct? Why shuffle teams around and create newly named divisions when they would only exist for three seasons? Were they planning on keeping some of the divisions intact besides the Central? Even with the addition of New Orleans, it would have been just as easy to ride out the decade with two eight-team conferences and a proto-wildcard system.

And yes, Central makes sense and Coastal makes partial sense (I’ll give you Baltimore, since a bay is technically part of the ocean, but Atlanta is a four-hour drive from the seashore). But I can find only one (current) capitol city in the Capitol division. And Century sounds like they just used the first word starting with a C that came to mind.

Finally, it was a realignment, but it never stayed aligned: The Saints and Giants swapped divisions for 1968, then switched back for 1969.

[Mark L. Ford]

The divisions that were originally announced in December 1966 were Central, Coastal, Capitol and.... Federal. At the NFL owners meeting in February, when the alignment was approved, the Federal Division was renamed, probably after someone thought of the pattern of four C names. Century was no less silly than Federal for New York, St. Louis, Pittsburgh and Cleveland, and sounded innovative. I'm still not sure which coast Atlanta was on...

[ChrisBabcock]

Cool history. Thanks!

Also, the plan that was chosen was the only one that had Minnesota, Green Bay, Detroit and Chicago in the Central division.

Weird... one would think this grouping of 4 teams would be impossible to break up! But almost a half century of hindsight might be making me think that. That one year Giants/Saints flip flop is still odd to me. I wonder if in '67 when they were discussing realignment they just couldn't decide so it was a compromise for them to switch divisions every year.

[Mark L. Ford]

Cool history. Thanks!

Weird... one would think this grouping of 4 teams would be impossible to break up! But almost a half century of hindsight might be making me think that. That one year Giants/Saints flip flop is still odd to me. I wonder if in '67 when they were discussing realignment they just couldn't decide so it was a compromise for them to switch divisions every year.

The 1968 flip flop was ridiculous (the idea, I recall, was so the Saints could get beat up by all 15 of the other teams in their first two years of existence, rather than in their first three years).
New York moved to the same Capitol division as Dallas, Washington and Philadelphia that year. But while three teams were playing their interconference games against the Central Division (Green Bay, Minnesota, Chicago, Detroit), the Giants were playing the four teams in the Coastal instead, which defeated the whole purpose of the system, which was that all four teams in a division would have the same opponents. That year, of course, New Orleans was playing against those Central Division teams, while its division rivals were playing the Coastal. The next year, things went back to how they had been in 1967 and the NFL's four divisions had balanced schedules again, though that wouldn't have lasted after the merger was completed anyway.

[Mark L. Ford]

I have some questions about the 1970 merger realignment and late 60s NFL divisional alignment. First, I know there were a bunch of ideas thrown around as to how the new look 1970s NFL would break down divisionally. Does anyone know what some of the ideas that were scrapped were?
Chris

To answer the other question, this is always hard to locate, but it was in several AP reports on January 17, 1970 . The AFC alignment was already agreed upon, and the NFL narrowed it down to five plans for the NFC. The NFC Central would have been completely different in one plan. In the other four, the Cowboys-Redskins rivalry wasn't going to happen, and the Vikings weren't grouped with the Bears and Packers. What Mrs. Elkjer had to choose from were these (capitals to emphasize the differences):

Plan 1: NFC East-- N.Y. Giants, Philadelphia, Washington, ATLANTA, MINNESOTA,
NFC Central-- Chicago, Detroit, Green Bay and NEW ORLEANS
NFC West-- Los Angeles, San Francisco, DALLAS, ST. LOUIS

Plan 2: NFC East-- N.Y. Giants, Philadelphia, Washington, MINNESOTA,
NFC Central-- ATLANTA, DALLAS, NEW ORLEANS, ST. LOUIS
NFC West-- Los Angeles, San Francisco, CHICAGO, DETROIT, GREEN BAY

Plan 3: NFC East-- Dallas, N.Y. Giants, Philadelphia, St. Louis, Washington,
NFC Central-- Chicago, Detroit, Green Bay, Minnesota
NFC West-- Atlanta, New Orleans, Los Angeles, San Francisco

Plan 4: NFC East-- N.Y. Giants, Philadelphia, Washington, MINNESOTA, ST. LOUIS
NFC Central-- Chicago, Detroit, Green Bay , ATLANTA
NFC West-- Los Angeles, San Francisco, DALLAS, NEW ORLEANS

Plan 5: NFC East-- N.Y. Giants, Philadelphia, Washington, MINNESOTA, DETROIT
NFC Central-- Chicago, Green Bay, ST. LOUIS, DALLAS
NFC West-- Atlanta, New Orleans, Los Angeles, San Francisco

While Plan 3 preserved the old "Black and Blue Division" in the NFL Central (and before that, the Vikings' rivals in the Western Conference), the AP comment at the time was that it was "a lottery-type draw that left Chicago, Green Bay, Detroit and Minnesota cold and unhappy".

[ChrisBabcock]

Its amazing that the Cowboys ended up in the East just by a 1 in 5 chance. Looking at these, it probably would have made the most geographic sense to go with plan 1. Maybe swapping the Lions and Vikings though.

[JKelly]

Going back to the original question on this post. The proposal to leave the NFC with 16 teams and the AFC with 10 did that include a expansion plan as to when they anticipated the leagues to even out? I would have to assume the NFL would not have waited until the early 2000's to do it.

It seems to me that in hindsight Oakland would have benefited the most from that proposal at least thru the 1970's.

[ChrisBabcock]

I'm pretty sure it was in an edition of this book, which I have an edition of. (1981)
For the life of me I can't find it in there now.

http://www.amazon.com/Sports-Encycloped ... tball+neft