NFL-AFL merger question

[rams80]

According to this.

1950 metro populations.

1. New York (14 mil)

2. Chicago (6.9 mil)

3. Los Angeles (4.8 mil)

4. Philadelphia (4 mil)

5. Boston (3.5)

6. Detroit (3.4)

7. Wash-Bal (2.9)

8. San Fran Bay Area (2.5)

9. Pittsburgh (2.2)

10. St. Louis (1.7)

11. Cleveland (1.5)

12. Minneapolis-St. Paul (1.2)

13. Dallas-Ft. Worth (1.1)

[Gothamite]

I think 1950 is a litle bit early for us to look at - the country changed a lot in the intervening decades.

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.

True enough.

Early 1950s? Don't know. But we're talking about mid- to late-60s, and Los Angeles was already well on its way to overtaking Chicago in terms of strict city population, and had already become the second-largest metropolitan area.

In fact, looking at the 1970 census, I found this little tidbit about metropolitan population in 1966 (which would seem to figure into the merger):

Most populous metropolitan areas:

1. New York (11,458,000)

2. Los Angeles (6,756,000)

3. Chicago (6,711,000)

4. Philadelphia (4,736,000)

5. Detroit (4,073,000)

6. Boston (3,227,000)

7. San Francisco/Oakland (2,942,000)

8. Washington, D.C. (2,612,000)

9. Pittsburgh (2,386,000)

10. St. Louis (2,272,000)

So of the three NFC divisions created by the merger, here are the metropolitan areas (by rank) in each one:

West - 2, 7, 21, 28

Central - 3, 176, 5, 15 (Green Bay always ruins the curve)

East - 1, 8, 4, 16, 10

So yes, the East had more large markets. But that's a pretty good distribution, with the other two divisions each having two top 10 markets. Not to mention that Atlanta was well known to be an up-and-comer (hence the Braves' move from the 18th largest metro area to the 21st), so that's another point to the West.

That's just from a pretty quick perusal of this document from the Census Bureau - maybe somebody can find more information in there to shed light on this.

[Mac the Knife]

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.

Sorry, you lose. At the time, while NFL television revenues were on the upswing, they weren't nearly as important as gate revenue in the league's overall economic picture. Television was important to be sure, but it wasn't that important.

[TBGKon]

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

Weird, because none of these really make sense at all. This one I made was probably another option not chosen:

West: LA, SF, DAL, NO

Central: STL, DET, MIN, GB, CHI

East: NYG, WAS, PHI, ATL

[Gothamite]

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.

Sorry, you lose. At the time, while NFL television revenues were on the upswing, they weren't nearly as important as gate revenue in the league's overall economic picture. Television was important to be sure, but it wasn't that important.

Even if it was true at the time, the NFL was certainly aware of the importance television would hold in the future - these weren't stupid men by any means, and they could see the future pretty clearly.

There's a reason that the NFL was able to overtake baseball. They embraced television, saw its potential, and shaped their sport accordingly.

[B-Rich]

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

Weird, because none of these really make sense at all. This one I made was probably another option not chosen:

West: LA, SF, DAL, NO

Central: STL, DET, MIN, GB, CHI

East: NYG, WAS, PHI, ATL

AGREED. That would have probably been the best at the time. New Orleans/Dallas would have become a decent rivalry (despite the fact that New Orleans would always be losing to Dallas). And when Tampa Bay came on line in '76, they would have been added to the NFC East and became pretty big rivals with Atlanta.

Not sure what would have happened with the Jacksonville/Carolina expansion in '95 however.... not that the actual eventual slots (Carolina in the NFC west) made any sense anyway....

And I still think that may have led to a better 32-team, 4 X 4 division layout in the NFCthan what we have today, regardless of expansion and franchise relocation.... probably something like this:

West: STL, SF, SEA, ARI

North: DET, MIN, GB, CHI

East: NYG, WAS, PHI, CAR

South: NO, ATL, DAL, TB

[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.

Sorry, you lose. At the time, while NFL television revenues were on the upswing, they weren't nearly as important as gate revenue in the league's overall economic picture. Television was important to be sure, but it wasn't that important.

Even if it was true at the time, the NFL was certainly aware of the importance television would hold in the future - these weren't stupid men by any means, and they could see the future pretty clearly.

There's a reason that the NFL was able to overtake baseball. They embraced television, saw its potential, and shaped their sport accordingly.

I lose, you're the expert? Gothamite has it exactly right. Foresight isn't a new invention and the NFL definitely had it in 1970. If anything you're underestimating the power of television even then. I'm not pulling this out of my ass. This is the documented reason the Dallas Cowboys are in the NFC East, not because the Maras wanted to vacation to Dallas once a year.

Besides, gate revenues would be there no matter what. In-stadium attendance and ticket sales are handled locally, but TV audiences are spread across a larger group of people over a larger area. It is not that absurd for them to worry about television ratings and what matchups would produce the highest audience.

[Mac the Knife]

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.

Sorry, you lose. At the time, while NFL television revenues were on the upswing, they weren't nearly as important as gate revenue in the league's overall economic picture. Television was important to be sure, but it wasn't that important.

Even if it was true at the time, the NFL was certainly aware of the importance television would hold in the future - these weren't stupid men by any means, and they could see the future pretty clearly.

There's a reason that the NFL was able to overtake baseball. They embraced television, saw its potential, and shaped their sport accordingly.

True, but unless they were nothing short of clairvoyant there was no way they could've envisioned Dallas growing like it has.

[Gothamite]

I disagree. Demographic patterns are easy to track, and it has been clear that southern and western cities were going to grow. As I said above, in the early 60s it was clear that Atlanta was going to grow bigger than Milwaukee, although Milwaukee was still a bigger market.

The NFL put a team in Dallas for a reason. They knew it was going to grow. You don't have to be clairvoyant, only perceptive, and the NFL at the time was certainly perceptive.

[rams80]

I disagree. Demographic patterns are easy to track, and it has been clear that southern and western cities were going to grow. As I said above, in the early 60s it was clear that Atlanta was going to grow bigger than Milwaukee, although Milwaukee was still a bigger market.

The NFL put a team in Dallas for a reason. They knew it was going to grow. You don't have to be clairvoyant, only perceptive, and the NFL at the time was certainly perceptive.

I thought they put a team in Dallas because the AFL put a team in Dallas.

[Mac the Knife]

I disagree. Demographic patterns are easy to track, and it has been clear that southern and western cities were going to grow. As I said above, in the early 60s it was clear that Atlanta was going to grow bigger than Milwaukee, although Milwaukee was still a bigger market.

The NFL put a team in Dallas for a reason. They knew it was going to grow. You don't have to be clairvoyant, only perceptive, and the NFL at the time was certainly perceptive.

I thought they put a team in Dallas because the AFL put a team in Dallas.

Exactly. If the NFL had intended to put a team in Dallas before the formation of the AFL, they had a chance - with Lamar Hunt himself. They didn't want to expand, not for an owner with deep pockets like Hunt, not in Houston with Bud Adams, not for anyone. The Dallas Cowboys owe their existence to Hunt's determination to get the AFL off the ground, not because of the omniscience of the NFL owners to see demographics and population shift.

[Gothamite]

I'm not buying that.

There was a reason that the NFL wanted to get into Dallas, and it wasn't just to tweak Hunt's nose. They wanted into Dallas because they could see the future coming.

[rams80]

I'm not buying that.

There was a reason that the NFL wanted to get into Dallas, and it wasn't just to tweak Hunt's nose. They wanted into Dallas because they could see the future coming.

So why didn't they try harder to keep the old Texans (disaster that they were) a going concern?

[Gothamite]

That was almost a decade earlier. Lot of things change in that time. Demographic changes that seemed clear in 1960 might not have been so in 1952.

[rams80]

That was almost a decade earlier. Lot of things change in that time. Demographic changes that seemed clear in 1960 might not have been so in 1952.

How about when they turned down his bids in 1958 and 1959. Am I to believe they suddenly changed their minds on Dallas' future in a year?

[Gothamite]

I think they changed their minds on expansion during that time, yes.

Don't forget that they offered him an expansion franchise, if he was willing to wait a few years (which is how long it too them to place a Dallas franchise anyway). The AFL might have forced their hands, to move into markets that they wanted anyway (the Twin Cities) ahead of schedule, but it didn't cause the NFL to go anyplace it wasn't already headed.

[Mac the Knife]

I think they changed their minds on expansion during that time, yes.

Don't forget that they offered him an expansion franchise, if he was willing to wait a few years (which is how long it too them to place a Dallas franchise anyway). The AFL might have forced their hands, to move into markets that they wanted anyway (the Twin Cities) ahead of schedule, but it didn't cause the NFL to go anyplace it wasn't already headed.

Actually, they didn't offer him jack :

- Hunt wanted a Dallas expansion franchise. The NFL said "No."

- Hunt wanted to buy the Chicago Cardinals and move them to Texas. The NFL said "No."

- Hunt offered to bring in Bud Adams as part of a Dallas & Houston expansion package (without Adams' knowledge at the time; kinda ballsy of him). The NFL said "No."

The NFL literally swiped away the Minnesota Vikings from the AFL because they could, and they put the Cowboys in Dallas solely to compete with Hunt's AFL Texans. In neither case did the NFL have any desire to expand into those cities other than to prevent the AFL from gaining a foothold in the markets. George Halas is on record saying exactly as much.

[Gothamite]

Halas said many things, not all of them completely true. Still, I'd love to see that quote.

But you're wrong about Hunt - he himself said that the NFL offered him an expansion franchise, if he would agree to their timeline. He didn't want to play by their rules, so he founded a new league. That's in Going Long.

[Magnus]

I didn't want to make a new topic, but I have a musing I wanted to post on you guys about the NFL.

I did this because of the decided lack of teams in the western half of the continent.

NFL West - Seattle, San Francisco, Oakland, San Diego, Arizona, Denver, Kansas City, St. Louis

NFL East - Pittsburgh, Philadelphia, NY Jets, NY Giants, Buffalo, New England, Tennessee, Indianapolis

NFL North - Minnesota, Green Bay, Chicago, Detroit, Cleveland, Cincinatti, Baltimore, Washington

NFL South - Dallas, Houston, New Orleans, Atlanta, Carolina, Jacksonville, Tampa Bay, Miami

16 game season.

Teams play all teams in their own division twice, and two of the 24 other teams, in a 12-year cycle.

The top 4 teams in each division make the playoffs.

(OR the top 3 in each division make the playoffs, making it a 12-team playoff, like it is now.)

The winners of each division are re-seeded 1-4, with #1 playing #4 and #2 playing #3.

The best two teams go to the Superbowl.

Done. Tell me what you think.

[Sport]

I didn't want to make a new topic, but I have a musing I wanted to post on you guys about the NFL.

I did this because of the decided lack of teams in the western half of the continent.

NFL West - Seattle, San Francisco, Oakland, San Diego, Arizona, Denver, Kansas City, St. Louis

NFL East - Pittsburgh, Philadelphia, NY Jets, NY Giants, Buffalo, New England, Tennessee, Indianapolis

NFL North - Minnesota, Green Bay, Chicago, Detroit, Cleveland, Cincinatti, Baltimore, Washington

NFL South - Dallas, Houston, New Orleans, Atlanta, Carolina, Jacksonville, Tampa Bay, Miami

16 game season.

Teams play all teams in their own division twice, and two of the 24 other teams, in a 12-year cycle.

The top 4 teams in each division make the playoffs.

(OR the top 3 in each division make the playoffs, making it a 12-team playoff, like it is now.)

The winners of each division are re-seeded 1-4, with #1 playing #4 and #2 playing #3.

The best two teams go to the Superbowl.

Done. Tell me what you think.

The scheduling and division system the NFL uses right now is pretty much perfect. As a fan you can map out the teams your team will play months in advance. Everything is even and it means that everybody will play each other at the minimum of once every 4 years. It creates a more unified league while your system would break it up. I'm very much a fan of the current system.

one more thing: stop reel line mints.