NFL-AFL merger question

[dirwuf]

Can anyone tell me how it was decided that it would be the Colts, Browns and Steelers moving to the AFC to join the old AFL teams? The logic of putting the Browns and Bengals in the same division was offset by having the Steelers and Eagles in different conferences. What's the real story?

[NJTank]

I know the Browns wanted to go because they were part of the AAFC, the 49ers were also part of the AAFC, but Al Davis prevented the 49ers from moving.

Pittsburgh was moved because of their rivalary with Cleveland and the fact they were never very good.

Baltimore was moved because Washington was an older franchise.

[Mac the Knife]

Tank is incorrect on all counts. Sorry, old bean.

Simple truth: in each case, the teams moved grudgingly, and only after Pete Rozelle enticed each of them by allocating to them $3 million each from the money received from the Jets and Raiders from "infringing" on the 49'ers and Giants territories in the merger.

Pittsburgh moved essentially because Art Rooney (correctly) thought the Steelers would fare better competitively in the newly minted AFC. Cleveland moved because Pittsburgh did and the thought of being in a division with Cincinnati, Pittsburgh and Houston appealed to them. Baltimore did because of the payoff, coupled with a guarantee (one that ultimately didn't materialize, actually) that they'd face the Redskins in regular season games in each of the first five years post-merger.

[NJTank]

Oh well I thought I knew, I was not around back then, and the story is not wide known.

[Luigi74]

Tank is incorrect on all counts. Sorry, old bean.

Simple truth: in each case, the teams moved grudgingly, and only after Pete Rozelle enticed each of them by allocating to them $3 million each from the money received from the Jets and Raiders from "infringing" on the 49'ers and Giants territories in the merger.

Pittsburgh moved essentially because Art Rooney (correctly) thought the Steelers would fare better competitively in the newly minted AFC. Cleveland moved because Pittsburgh did and the thought of being in a division with Cincinnati, Pittsburgh and Houston appealed to them. Baltimore did because of the payoff, coupled with a guarantee (one that ultimately didn't materialize, actually) that they'd face the Redskins in regular season games in each of the first five years post-merger.

Art Modell from his hospital bed begged Art Rooney to move the Steelers with the pitch that the merger could be called off if they didn't move. It wasn't until Pete Rozelle told Rooney that the division set-up would be Pittsburgh, Cleveland, Cincy and Houston that he agreed to move.

Carol Rosenbloom moved the Colts for the $3 million payday, being placed in a eastern division remember they had always been in the NFL western divisions to that point, he saw a rivalry with the Jets due to SBIII and having a yearly visit to Miami was a big deal.

[wdm1219inpenna]

All interesting things that make sense, but I never before heard tell of.

The one thing I did know however, was when it came time to determine how the 6 divisions would be created, the owners apparantly could not agree, so was it Rozelle's secretary, or somebody's secretary selected it out of a hat. Apparantly all the different permiations of the division realignments were written down and placed into a hat, and the secretary picked out the one that held fast from 1970 - 2001. Supposedly there was only 1 combination that had placed Dallas in the NFC East and Minnesota in the NFC Central, and it appeared that it worked out ok, although having Atlanta & New Orleans in the WEST made no sense, and eventually Carolina, but now w/the 8 division realignment, it does, for the most part, make sense geographically. Some geographic items were ignored to maintain the long time rivalries which = big bucks for the teams and the league.

[B-Rich]

The one thing I did know however, was when it came time to determine how the 6 divisions would be created, the owners apparantly could not agree, so was it Rozelle's secretary, or somebody's secretary selected it out of a hat. Apparantly all the different permiations of the division realignments were written down and placed into a hat, and the secretary picked out the one that held fast from 1970 - 2001.

Correct, but according to Going Long by Jeff Miller, the selections were only for the NFC portion of the NFL.

There were five (5) selections placed in a vase, and the secretary, Thelma Elkjer, pulled out the winner, was which officially known as "Plan No. 3" (I guess out of the 5).

[ZapRowsdower8]

Here is her obituary. It mentions her picking the envelope and some of the other options.

http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html...;pagewanted=all

[PittsburghSucks]

Can anyone tell me how it was decided that it would be the Colts, Browns and Steelers moving to the AFC to join the old AFL teams? The logic of putting the Browns and Bengals in the same division was offset by having the Steelers and Eagles in different conferences. What's the real story?

The reason the Browns went to the AFC was just Modell's pure greed. He did it for the money. He also thought his Browns would rule the AFC & go to many Super Bowls. lol

[Mac the Knife]

Yeah, the AFC alignment was hashed out rather quickly. The NFL (NFC) owners couldn't agree to squat when it came to the 1970's realignment. Rozelle at one point locked the doors at one meeting to discuss the issue, and when he found out owners were slipping off to the bathroom to swig down airplane-sized bottles of liquor they'd brought with them, he locked the bathroom door as well.

In the end the story of the secretary came to bear and the alignment was decided by lot. In truth of the five 'finalist' plans picked (I don't recall the details of each off-hand), I remember thinking that the one that was selected was the worst of the five. To me it seemed pretty obvious:

East - Atlanta, NY Giants, Philadelphia, Washington.

Central - Chicago, Detroit, Green Bay, Minnesota, New Orleans.

West - Dallas, Los Angeles, St. Louis, San Francisco.

Back then there was no Cowboy-Redskin rivalry worth preserving, and future expansions would've been far easier (slipping the Bucs into the NFC East in '76 instead of the AFC West followed by a move to the NFC Central, Carolina to the NFC Central in 1995 while sliding New Orleans or Minnesota to the NFC West, etc.) It also would've avoided having two teams west of the Mississippi (Dallas, Phoenix) represented in the EASTERN division.

[Luigi74]

Yeah, the AFC alignment was hashed out rather quickly. The NFL (NFC) owners couldn't agree to squat when it came to the 1970's realignment. Rozelle at one point locked the doors at one meeting to discuss the issue, and when he found out owners were slipping off to the bathroom to swig down airplane-sized bottles of liquor they'd brought with them, he locked the bathroom door as well.

In the end the story of the secretary came to bear and the alignment was decided by lot. In truth of the five 'finalist' plans picked (I don't recall the details of each off-hand), I remember thinking that the one that was selected was the worst of the five. To me it seemed pretty obvious:

East - Atlanta, NY Giants, Philadelphia, Washington.

Central - Chicago, Detroit, Green Bay, Minnesota, New Orleans.

West - Dallas, Los Angeles, St. Louis, San Francisco.

Back then there was no Cowboy-Redskin rivalry worth preserving, and future expansions would've been far easier (slipping the Bucs into the NFC East in '76 instead of the AFC West followed by a move to the NFC Central, Carolina to the NFC Central in 1995 while sliding New Orleans or Minnesota to the NFC West, etc.) It also would've avoided having two teams west of the Mississippi (Dallas, Phoenix) represented in the EASTERN division.

The Bucs were only in the AFC West in 1976 because the NFL set it up so the Bucs and Seahawks would play every NFL team in their first two seasons.

Also remember the owners in cold weather cities wanted a warm weather team in their division so they could get away from the cold for a week, so the Giants, Eagles and Redskins owners really wanted Dallas or New Orleans in their division when things were being drawn up.

[Mac the Knife]

Also remember the owners in cold weather cities wanted a warm weather team in their division so they could get away from the cold for a week, so the Giants, Eagles and Redskins owners really wanted Dallas or New Orleans in their division when things were being drawn up.

A valid point which I'd completely forgotten about. Good recollection, ltp!

[Sport]

Yeah, the AFC alignment was hashed out rather quickly. The NFL (NFC) owners couldn't agree to squat when it came to the 1970's realignment. Rozelle at one point locked the doors at one meeting to discuss the issue, and when he found out owners were slipping off to the bathroom to swig down airplane-sized bottles of liquor they'd brought with them, he locked the bathroom door as well.

In the end the story of the secretary came to bear and the alignment was decided by lot. In truth of the five 'finalist' plans picked (I don't recall the details of each off-hand), I remember thinking that the one that was selected was the worst of the five. To me it seemed pretty obvious:

East - Atlanta, NY Giants, Philadelphia, Washington.

Central - Chicago, Detroit, Green Bay, Minnesota, New Orleans.

West - Dallas, Los Angeles, St. Louis, San Francisco.

Back then there was no Cowboy-Redskin rivalry worth preserving, and future expansions would've been far easier (slipping the Bucs into the NFC East in '76 instead of the AFC West followed by a move to the NFC Central, Carolina to the NFC Central in 1995 while sliding New Orleans or Minnesota to the NFC West, etc.) It also would've avoided having two teams west of the Mississippi (Dallas, Phoenix) represented in the EASTERN division.

You're forgetting the most important thing, even greater than geography and it's the reason that Dallas, New York, Philadelphia and Washington all found themselves in the NFC east. I'm talking of course about the money generated from having the largest television markets (at the time) in the same division. They guaranteed themselves large TV audiences for every game. That took precedent over geography or warm weather in terms of importance to the owners, I can bet you that.

[dirwuf]

You're forgetting the most important thing, even greater than geography and it's the reason that Dallas, New York, Philadelphia and Washington all found themselves in the NFC east. I'm talking of course about the money generated from having the largest television markets (at the time) in the same division. They guaranteed themselves large TV audiences for every game. That took precedent over geography or warm weather in terms of importance to the owners, I can bet you that.

Well you'd lose that bet on several counts...first of all, how are Dallas, Philly and Washington bigger TV markets than Chicago and LA? If anything, they did their best to spread the big markets across the 6 divisions.

[MadmanLA]

You're forgetting the most important thing, even greater than geography and it's the reason that Dallas, New York, Philadelphia and Washington all found themselves in the NFC east. I'm talking of course about the money generated from having the largest television markets (at the time) in the same division. They guaranteed themselves large TV audiences for every game. That took precedent over geography or warm weather in terms of importance to the owners, I can bet you that.

Well you'd lose that bet on several counts...first of all, how are Dallas, Philly and Washington bigger TV markets than Chicago and LA? If anything, they did their best to spread the big markets across the 6 divisions.

Well, you look at the market sizes, today's NFC East is represented by four of the top ten largest television markets: New York City (#1), Philadelphia (#4), Dallas-Fort Worth (#5), and Washington (#9). You want to go further, let's breakdown the rest of the divisions and their market sizes:

NFC South

Atlanta (#8)

Tampa Bay (#13)

Carolina (Charlotte, #25)

New Orleans (#53)

NFC North

Chicago (#3)

Detroit (#11)

Minnesota (Minneapolis-St. Paul, #15)

Green Bay (#70, plus it ties in with Milwaukee, market #34)

NFC West

San Francisco (#6)

Arizona (Phoenix, #12)

Seattle (#14)

St. Louis (#21)

AFC East

New York Jets (#1)

New England (Boston, #7)

Miami (#16)

Buffalo (#50)

AFC South

Houston (#10)

Indianapolis (#26)

Tennessee (Nashville, #30)

Jacksonville (#49)

AFC North

Cleveland (#17)

Pittsburgh (#22)

Baltimore (#24)

Cincinnati (#33)

AFC West

Oakland (#6)

Denver (#18)

San Diego (#27)

Kansas City (#31)

As you see, there's a balance of mixing the bigger markets with the smaller markets in most of the other divisions, except in the AFC North, where with the slight exception of Cincinnati (which is the 4th smallest market in the NFL), the markets of Baltimore, Cleveland, and Pittsburgh are all pretty similar in size. These listings here are just the sizes of the immediate areas of these teams, and it's not counting neighboring areas without teams (notably Los Angeles, Sacramento, Dayton, Memphis, Knoxville, Birmingham, Columbus [Ohio], Orlando, Portland [Oregon], San Antonio, etc.)

[Sport]

You're forgetting the most important thing, even greater than geography and it's the reason that Dallas, New York, Philadelphia and Washington all found themselves in the NFC east. I'm talking of course about the money generated from having the largest television markets (at the time) in the same division. They guaranteed themselves large TV audiences for every game. That took precedent over geography or warm weather in terms of importance to the owners, I can bet you that.

Well you'd lose that bet on several counts...first of all, how are Dallas, Philly and Washington bigger TV markets than Chicago and LA? If anything, they did their best to spread the big markets across the 6 divisions.

Tex Schramm disagrees with you. See MadmanLA's post above. At that time those were 4 of the biggest markets and putting LA in a divison with Philadelphia, Washington, and New York makes less sense than putting Dallas in the same division because of the extra geographical distance. You were already stuck with the Bears-Packers-Lions rivalries so you lump them together. The Reason Dallas is in the NFC East and not the most logical divisional alignment has nothing to do with the cold weather owners wanting a once a year vacation. It's all about television revenue for the league and having all the big markets together makes for more viewers which makes for more money. Why's that hard to understand?

[gueman]

Can anyone tell me how it was decided that it would be the Colts, Browns and Steelers moving to the AFC to join the old AFL teams? The logic of putting the Browns and Bengals in the same division was offset by having the Steelers and Eagles in different conferences. What's the real story?

Well this is the NFL, and like 99% of all of these types of questions about the NFL the answer will always be MONEY!

[dirwuf]

I understand what you're saying McCarthy, but the fact is at no point in time have Dallas, Washington or Philadelphia been bigger markets than Chicago or Los Angeles.

[Luigi74]

After looking it up in the great book "The Making of the Super Bowl" by Don Weiss and Chuck Day, there were 119 proposed NFC alignments with the following five being the ones that went into the bowl.

#1

West - LA, SF, Dallas, St. Louis

Central - Chicago, GB, Detroit, NO

East - NYG, Wash, Philly, Minn, Atlanta

#2

West - LA, SF, Chicago, GB, Detroit

Central - Dallas, NO, Atlanta, St. Louis

East - NYG, Wash, Philly, Minn

#3 The one picked

West - LA, SF, Atlanta, NO

Central - Chicago, GB, Detroit, Minn

East - NYG, Wash, Philly, Dallas, St. Louis

#4

West - LA, SF, Dallas, NO

Central - Chicago, GB, Detroit, Atlanta

East - NYG, Wash, Philly, St. Louis, Minn

#5

West - LA, SF, NO, Atlanta

Central - Chicago, GB, Dallas, St. Louis

East - NYG, Wash, Philly, Detroit, Minn

[BBTV]

I understand what you're saying McCarthy, but the fact is at no point in time have Dallas, Washington or Philadelphia been bigger markets than Chicago or Los Angeles.

Philadelphia had a large market before Chicago and Los Angeles were even conceived.

Actually, I'd be curious to see how all of those metropolitian areas looked size wize in the early '50s. LA really didn't start taking off until around then, and I don't know much about Chicago's history (though I'm sure it was one of the biggest metro areas by the early 1900s.)

Your point stands if you qualify it for the time of the merger.