Simple fix: East - Cleveland, New York, Philadelphia, Pittsburgh North - Chicago, Detroit, Green Bay, Minnesota South - Atlanta, Baltimore, New Orleans, Washington West - Dallas, Los Angeles, San Francisco, St. Louis Now I just need to go back to 1967 to tell them my idea
East: Pittsburgh, Baltimore, Philadelphia, New York North: Detroit, Green Bay, Chicago, Cleveland South: Dallas, New Orleans, Washington, Atlanta West: Los Angeles, San Francisco, Minnesota, St. Louis
Atlanta and New Orleans were both new teams. Having them in same division may have bothered a few owners back then. But then we do have Jags and Houston in same division today so I guess it fine by our standards
Except only the Giants were in a former colony, plus one letter too many (Need a C-word that ends in L and has seven letters was the goal). But Century makes zero sense as well and missed the letter L. What would have been better was to drop the geographic pretense and do what the NHL did, name the divisions after people (Norris/Patrick/Smythe/Adams), but even the NHL abandoned this. Maybe "A rose by any other name would smell as sweet" and it just doesn't matter.
@@jackmessick2869 Bell, Thorpe, Camp, and ??? divisions? I could see it. Scratching my head as to who the 4th name should be. Halas and Lambeau would be candidates but you have to think other teams would object--I know Bert Bell owned the Eagles but he was more well-known as a commissioner than an owner.
@@pronkb000 if they wanted to name the division after a commissioner/president they could’ve used either Rozelle or Jim Carr. But who is camp? Tried looking him up and I haven’t seen anything.
Great story. But Christopher Columbus was not a controversial figure in 1966. They avoided the name because the District of Columbia's home team was not in the division, that's all.
I have been an amateur football historian for many years and this is the first time I've heard of the Federal Division. You have a few clips of #45 for the NY Giants in this video. That's Homer Jones; and in one of the clips he demonstrates his contribution to football culture: the celebratory spike after a TD.
I don't think it would've mattered if the division was called Century or Federal. Fans would not think that one division was not an NFL division, and plus, the Federal League in baseball was long gone by the 60's anyways.
Goew to show how old these NFL owners were considering they were concerned about a baseball league that existed at the turn of the century causing confusion with the public lol. Im sure most people even in the 60s had no memory or even knew about the existence of the Federal Baseball League
Great research, as usual. I had never heard of this story. One addendum--the Saints and Giants flip-flopped again in 1969 with the Giants going back to the Century and NO to the Capitol. That was the last time the NYG weren't with Dallas, Philadelphia and Washington in the same division.
I remember the 'East', 'west', and 'Central Divisions of the 70's. Would drive me crazy having the Saints and Falcons in the west, Cowboys in the east, etc...
And Tampa was in the NFC central division w/Minnesota, Chicago, Green Bay, and Detroit. Funny thing is that the weather contrast allowed a lot of crappy pre-Dungy Tampa teams to be semi-competitive at home divisional games (the Midwestern teams would suffocate in the thick Florida heat).
@@ryanjacobson2508 So true! Always remember feeling sorry for Tampa when playing at Green Bay late in the season when both teams were awful. Bay of Pigs is what C. Berman always called those games.😂😂
Great history lesson. Even including my pet peeve the "added bonus". That expression is redundant since a bonus never exists on its own but is alway something to be added. It's either "added benefit" or just "bonus".
I still think the oddest division ever was the AFC Central when Cleveland came back... and ya had Cincinnati, Cleveland, Houston, Pittsburgh, Baltimore, and Jacksonville for a year or two. They went from four teams to six.
The 49ers being in the NFC "West" and having to travel to Carolina, Atlanta, New Orleans and St. Louis every year, plus any road games against eastern AFC teams. I've heard them get picked on for having an easy division to win in the mid/late 90's which was mostly correct, but nobody mentions the amount of travelling between time zones that team had to do. Living in Steeler Country I kind of enjoyed that weird AFC Central alignment. The Steelers had a nice rivalry with Houston and Jacksonville. When they realigned Indy was originally supposed to join PIT, CLE & CIN in the AFC North, and the Ravens were supposed to go to the South but neither the Steelers or Ravens wanted to lose that rivalry.
@@bobross1550 They of course fixed that in 2002 for the most part when the Cardinals went to the NFC West and the Seahawks (who were in the NFC West in their inaugural season in 1976) went from the AFC to the NFC.
They could have called it the Continental Division, but I suppose that might have created confusion with the Continental Football League that was around at that time.
I love weird, "transitional" divisions. As a hockey fan, one of my favorites was the '70s version of the Norris Division. All of the old NHL divisions are pretty well-known among longtime fans, as most of them retained the majority of their makeup even after the mid-90s shift to more geographically-themed divisions (the Norris, for instance, basically began the Central Division. But the Red Wings were the only team commonly associated with the division that was a member in the '70s, even though all of the other classic members (Chicago, Minnesota, St. Louis, Toronto) did indeed exist back then. And it's not just a matter of "oh, eventually all these other teams got sent to another division and the Wings joined up with the rest to form the more recognizable version of the Norris". No, '70s Norris consisted of the Wings, Montreal, Pittsburgh, LA, and Washington (and later Hartford). The only real pre-existing rivalries were Detroit and Montreal, by virtue of being Original Six teams (though they both had at least two other Original Six teams that they'd consider bigger rivals than each other). And by 1981, these teams would be split up between all four of the existing divisions, where they would (for the most part) remain for decades. It's just odd because "Norris division" has very specific connotations to hockey fans, this lineup is nothing like those connotations, yet it lasted a surprisingly long time for an "oddball" division.
The NFL avoided duplication in 1967, but embraced it in 1970, with both the AFC and NFC having East, Central, and West divisions. The NFC Central from 1970-76 was identical to the NFL Central from 1967-69, and the media often ignored the distinction. Likewise, the AFC West from 1970-75 was identical to the AFL Western from 1960-67 (before Cincinnati entered). The current NFC North and AFC West are the only ones identical to their 1967 predecessors, while the NFC East is the same as the 1968 Capital Division.
As a Cleveland Browns fan, I was glad we were in the Century - with weak teams and we won the division all three years. Pittsburgh and New Orleans were very weak teams back then - only St. Louis posed a threat - but they were not amongst the league’s power teams. When you played New Orleans - it was a guaranteed win.
V Porter; You’re right - St. Louis played us tough (hated Jim Hart and John Gilliam). Thanks Steelers. That tie was the difference in the final standings.
@@denisceballos9745 Your assessment of the Cardinals of this period is 100% correct though, I will say; they had some really good teams in the late 60s/70s, but they were always a step or two behind someone else (Cleveland/Dallas/Washington) and weren't among the league's elites. Shame, really.
V Porter; Indeed - they underperformed in their two playoff games under Coach Coryell, getting blown out by Minnesota and then L.A. (‘74 and ‘75). I thought they should have won those games, but made too many mistakes.
4:13 I like that little drawing of a steel worker there; looks like a burlier version of the one on the Steelers' logo. Definitely the nadir of their history; they came in last all three years they were in the Century division, even including the one where they got second-year New Orleans as a division rival.
Such an interesting story...12 hours to come up with a name. I can't even imagine what that meeting was like. "Liberty" could have worked if Philly were in it. "Central Division" when there was already one named that is the lowest form of creativity ever :)......Federal Division--Yeah, that wasn't going to stick not starting with a "C"; The "Century" Division was one I never remember. Great story. Wonderful recap of history.
The USFL, had it played in 1986, would have comprised a "Liberty Division" and "Independence Division," because of its eight teams, three were in Florida and seven were east of the Mississippi.
@@targettoad691 I believe that's correct. They also would've had a rather unusual playoff format in '86, though off-hand the only detail of it I can remember is that 5 teams out of the 8 would've qualified.
Couple of New Orleans notes: 1. The city got the team that would be known as the Saints because Louisiana Senator Russell Long was instrumental in allowing the NFL to merge with the AFL despite the antitrust issues involved. 2. You mentioned the 1965 AFL All-Star Game in New Orleans as the reason the AFL didn’t want to expand there, but you didn’t go in depth as to what exactly happened. Future video teaser?
Not likely a future video, here's a good article about it (a really embarrassing moment) theundefeated.com/features/when-racism-drove-the-afl-all-star-game-out-of-new-orleans/
@@CheesusChristBC201 I thought the boys were god’s favorite team. That’s what the hole in the roof of Texas stadium was for. So you and your pops can watch your team?
@@CheesusChristBC201 I’m a Ravens fan myself and our rivalry is great. But, I wish we played against Washington and Philadelphia at least once per year because Baltimore has complex of being ignored and defeating those cities puts people in the B-more areas in a state of vindication.
@@stevev6384 Jerry nullified that agreement with God when he intentionally allowed Texas Stadium to fall apart in order to get his new toy. God said, “Fine. Good luck with this guy I made named Tom Brady.”
i would say the 1970 afc west they had so many ties the 1970 raiders were 8-4-2 chiefs were 7-5-2 and the chargers were 5-6-3 and the broncos were 5-8-1 that year
I started watch football in like 64 and all I can remember is my Giants being in the same division as the accursed cowgirls, Washington, Philadelphia and St Louis
I grew up in Connecticut, and it was no fun watching those Giants of the 1970s, especially when Tarkenton left. I will say though, that John McVey and Perkins had the Redskins number, and some years beat them both times. Those were fun games, but I grieved for Brad van Pelt and Harry Carson, to be stuck on such a team
Except by changing the name to the Century division, they ended up breaking the theme of all of the division names ending in L. Centennial Division. There you go. We could have saved everyone those 12 hours AND the continued debate during winter meetings. edit: also, great work as always on the video!
I used to have one of those big old "Pro Football Encyclopedia" books back in the 90s when I was growing up and I actually remember coming across these strange late 1960s NFL alignments when reading them and wondering to myself what must've been going on during that time. LOL Thanks for detailing that. :) My 12 year old self thanks you. LOL
The first BALTIMORE COLTS to play in the NFL were the remnants of the AAFC's Miami Seahawks- who had terrible attendance. The BALTIMORE COLTS kept the Miami Seahawks colors, green and silver, and played two years before folding in 1950. Then, after the Dallas Texans folded, the new BALTIMORE COLTS started in 1953. Some of the players from the Texans came to Baltimore like HOFers, Art Donovan and Gino Marchetti.
Check out how the hockey divisions evolved over time. At one point the Norris had Montreal, Los Angeles, Pittsburgh, Detroit, and Washington. Explain that to me.
Back then Columbus Day was a big celebrated holiday. You’re putting today’s standards into 1960’s era. If there was a Columbia Division for Columbus, it wouldn’t have been a big deal in the 60’s.
Well, I mean, the name would still have been problematic, even if people back then didn't realize/care; this is like saying Washington's old name wasn't problematic until people started complaining about it...
Agreed. You have to look at this within the context of the time. The division wasn't going to exist after 1969. Problematic in 2021. Not in 1966 when this meeting was being held. The video is about the decision being made THEN and the process that went into it, not how future historians would see it...
That's a stupid reason. In the 1960's people didn't care about things like that. If they decided against the name because it would be problematic in the 2000's, then you can predict the future and should have bet every game and become the richest men around.
And the 49ers had the distinct disadvantage of having to travel more than any team in the NFL against their divisional opponents. Although it can be argued, that they for a period of time had the weakest opponents also in that same time period.
@@scotthooper4170 The travel may have seemed like a disadvantage, but the 80s-90s Niners were statistically better on the road. The 49ers once held the NFL record for longest road winning streak (18 games from 1988-90). The weak NFC West division schedule that was used from 1978-94, which at the time guaranteed everyone in the division one game against the last place team in the other two divisions (East and Central) certainly helped
@@timfortune9 i agree! The Cards and Hawks were new division opponents for the established Niners and Rams that had always been in the West. Seattle was in the AFC until realignment and the Ninerd/Rams rarely plated the Cards as they were in the East for a long time, but it does make the most sense geographically. Also, by looking at a map, the AFC west is pretty spread out, never realized how far east the Chiefs were
Wrong. In 1988, when the Cardinals were the Phoenix Cardinals, only 400 miles from the Pacific Ocean, here was the NFC East: New York Giants (distance to Atlantic Ocean, 10 miles) Washington Redskins (distance to Atlantic Ocean, 25 miles) Philadelphia Eagles (distance to Atlantic Ocean, 60 miles) Dallas Cowboys (distance to Atlantic Ocean, 900 miles) Phoenix Cardinals (distance to Atlantic Ocean, 1800 miles)
It rumored for 8 hours one owner kept yelling just call it damm Eastern division. I always remember that Cowboys never go to NFC West, because of T.V. that how we got Falcons , and Saints in NFC west
Naming a division after Columbus back in that era would have been seen as patriotic rather than problematic, just putting that out there. It took a long time before the entire country was willing to admit he was a bad man
The entire country does not think he was a bad man. Stop believing majority opinions are those of small groups that yell and scream the loudest so they get on tv. Majority opinions are actually silent since most of them are held by large groups that have better things to do than gather together to yell and scream that they are content.
This is the first I'd heard of the "Federal Division" nomenclature, though I don't doubt the story. I had heard, from Art Rooney himself no less, that "Continental Division" was among those considered for what became the Century Division.
WAIT, that would have caused a similar problem to the Federal name, the Continental League was a proposed 3rd Major League from 1959, but it was scrapped and we got the New York Mets
@@bens5661 Nah. The Continental League never played a game and wasn't really big in the minds of sports fans. This is also true of the Federal League, which was by that time 50 years removed.
Now I'm actually curious to see if I can come up with a good name for that division. The exercise will provide quality level shower thoughts if nothing else. BTW, I do think it would have been cool to have every division align with similar descriptors like they tried to do back in the day. A lot more interesting than just labeling divisions with the direction the respective cities are supposed to be in.
Ah yes. My favorite division the NFC West consisting of the San Francisco 49ers, St. Louis Rams, New Orleans Saints, Atlanta Falcons and Carolina Panthers.
The NFL has always been geographically challenged. Dallas is not an Eastern city but the Cowboys have New York, Philadelphia and Washington as division opponents. Screwed up.
Until the 2002 addition of a 4th division the Arizona Cardinals along with the Dallas Cowboys, played in the NFC East, since nobody wanted to swap divisions with the Cards when they left St. Louis in the late 1980s. The Cowboys are still there which is probably the biggest geographical absurdity in the NFC (The AFC's absurdity is having the Dolphins in the East, where they are forced to play in 3 wintry cities late season as their fellow divisional rivals.)
When the NFL realigned the divisions for the AFL-NFL merger in the 1970 offseason, the NFC owners should have placed STL Cardinals & DAL Cowboys in the NFC West and NO Saints & ATL Falcons in the NFC East instead of vice-versa, too bad literally every NFC owner wanted to be parred with NO & ATL because of how weak they where (NO didn't even win the division until 1991-92.)
And going into this realignment, the NFL owners probably knew that they’d be doing it all over again when the merger became final (the Saints literally exist because one of the key legislators overseeing antitrust matters at the time was from Louisiana). Al Davis (behind whose back the merger was negotiated) must have been absolutely livid with the other AFL owners.
Kansas City Chiefs owner Lamar Hunt was the lead conspirator among the AFL owners who stabbed Al Davis in the back, the Raiders/Chiefs hatred for each other goes beyond the field of play.
NFL commissioner Pete Rozelle and (all) the original NFL owners had a deep seated hatred of Al Davis that never subsided. In fact,Davis often whined about the officiating against his Raiders from the merger onward until his death.
Another fun fact was for a time, when a team played two NFC Central teams in successive weeks, they lost the third game a higher percentage then any other division. Maybe this is why the division got the name “Black & Blue”. I can’t remember the specific years. But it was before Tampa Bay was place in the Central. So maybe 70’s early to mid?
@@scotthooper4170 when Minnesota joined long time rivals Detroit, Green Bay and Chicago. When the division formed and until the 1976 expansion the affectionately called the Black and Blue Division.
No matter what you'd call the division with chicago, green bay, detroit and minnesota in it, those teams could never be split apart, no matter how many times the league realigns.
What I wonder is why the Cowboys were originally in that “Capital” division (or for that matter the Eastern Conference) in the first place, I mean other than Los Angeles and San Francisco, Dallas was the westernmost NFL city at the time. If not for that, you could’ve had a “Western” division of Los Angeles, San Francisco, Dallas and St. Louis and avoided some of the wackiness of divisional alignment at all
The Cowboys first season (1960), they were in the West. They moved to the East when the expansion Vikings came in the league in '61 & were placed in the Western Conference.
Man, they over thought this more than that young couple who kept rejecting names because they could come up with a way to make fun of each of their choices
I'd rather the divisions not have directional names at all but instead have geographical or historical names, like the old NHL. I could get behind the AFC North being renamed the Thorpe Division or the NFC North being named the Great Lakes Division. Much more interesting than just cardinal directions that aren't entirely accurate anyway.
Yeah that is a way to honor your division with a historical name of someone from with in and ditch the directional theme. 8 guys could be honored right now
Informative video. Never knew this. On first hearing, the NFL owners should be drawn and quartered for believing fans of the NFL are so easily confused by names, similar sounding names, or would spend any time at all pondering why Philadelphia isn't in the Liberty Division. Stupid, but that's what owners are. "All the other divisions begin with C so this division must begin with C." They should have been slapped.
Tweaks I would make to the current alignment are: AFC: Baltimore: North --> East Miami: East --> South Indianapolis: South --> North NFC: Dallas: East --> South Carolina: South --> East
The reason the NFL doesn't realign their divisions all that often is because it messes up rivalries; I can see right now that with Baltimore and especially Dallas moving divisions that would be problematic. And the other teams wouldn't exactly be happy about losing those rivalries either!
The 8 divisions in the NFL have worked for the most part, since realignment came in 2002 thanks to the Houston Texans joining the league. But, If I could I would rearrange a few of those divisions. In the AFC, I'd have Indianapolis, Baltimore and Miami all switching places. The Colts in the AFC North, The Ravens in the East and the Dolphins in the South. And as far as the NFC goes, they've got it pretty good. I think I would swap Dallas in the East for Carolina in the South. Dallas is in the East for obvious reasons, but, geographically it doesn't make much sense.
As much as it would make sense: Ravens are in the North because they are the "old Cleveland Browns" and have a rivalry with the current Browns as well as the Steelers. Dolphins have longtime rivalries with the AFC East teams dating back to their entering the AFL in 1966. Indy should be in the north, but you'd have to do the other two changes that make it difficult to do.
It was probably good that they were so inept at naming divisions at that time. If they had had 4 solid division names, they might have felt they didn't need to merge to fix the mess.
Interesting trivia! I wonder if any of the owners at the time considered the name Waterfront division, as all of these cities were situated alongside major water sources: The Allegheny River in Pittsburgh, The Mississippi and Missouri Rivers in St. Louis, The Hudson River and Atlantic Ocean in New York, and Lake Erie in Cleveland. I know it doesn't begin with the letter "C" but it makes sense nevertheless.
The stuff about whether a potential division name suits the teams that play in it just reminds me of how in the 1920s & 30s the NHL had 10 teams divided by what country they played in, the Canadian and American divisions; except they then decided to have the New York _Americans_ play in the _Canadian_ Division. On top of that when the team now known as the Detroit Red Wings formed, they had to play a season in Windsor, Ontario, Canada before their arena in Detroit was built; so what you had for that one year was the sight of a Canadian team playing in the American Division and an American team (named *the Americans* no less) playing in the Canadian Division. Perhaps the NFL of 1967 cared too much about what their divisions were called; but then you have the NHL, who especially back then, didn't care at all.
1. The reason the NFL had American and National Divisions from 1950-52 was because it was a part of the merger between the All America Football Conference and the NFL; They decided to essentially name a Division after each league. 2. The reason the NFL expanded into New Orleans and Atlanta in the mid-1960's was because the League wanted an anti-trust exemption from Congress (so it could share TV revenues) and 2 influential Senators (Russell Long of Louisiana and Richard Russell of Georgia) extracted NFL teams for their respective states as part of the negotiations. 3. These Divisions were composed also to keep as many existing rivalries as possible intact. For example, Cleveland in the 1960's had great existing rivalries with Pittsburgh, St. Louis and the NY Giants. The Cowboys, Eagles and Redskins played each other twice a year as members of the Eastern Conference. Baltimore was in the same conference and already had great rivalries with San Francisco and Los Angeles as well as the teams of the Central Division. Baltimore was in the Western Conference since the 1950's, since it started out as the Dallas Texans before moving to Baltimore and being renamed the Colts, and it had developed rivalries with the other Western Conference teams (Detroit, Chicago, Green Bay) 4. The All America Football Conference was also started for the same reason as the American Football League; the NFL had refused to expand and there were owners who were being denied franchises. The AAFC was actually a well funded league that signed it's share of NFL players and more than it's share of college talent.
One other thing, when the NFL and AFL merged, three NFL teams who went to the AFC, BALTIMORE COLTS, steelers, and the Clowns. I thought I remember hearing when the NFL expanded, those teams would be moved back to the NFC. So, the first post merger expansion was when the Seahawks and TB came into the NFL in 76. But, the NFL put the Bucs in the AFC and Seattle in the NFC. The Bucs were actually in the AFC WEST, too!! Then in 77, the switched conferences, and the divisions and conferences stayed the same until the 93 expansion. The NFL had planned to expand much earlier, but the Raiders vs the NFL trial put those plans on the backburner.
The Tampa Bay Buccaneers went to the AFC East in 1976. The Seahawks to the NFC West. Then switched later. Each team moved to the other conference. Seattle to the AFC West. Tampa to the NFC Central.
Not to argue with you. But I don’t recall the boys ever in the AFC West. AFC East originally the to the NFC Central, before the NFC South. Probably a minor oversight. I do it all the time. Excellent knowledge/ memory though. This was one of the highlights of my youth. Before losing my father. God Bless, and please don’t take this the wrong way. We are on the same side, obviously having wonderful memories of what the NFL used to be.
@@scotthooper4170 Both 76 expansion teams were put in the West. Bucs in the AFC and Seahawks NFC. The AFC East had 5 teams in the division in 75. The AFC Central & West each had 4 teams. So, in your brilliant mind, the NFL would have one division with 6 teams? Brilliant. www.pro-football-reference.com/years/1976/index.htm
@@scotthooper4170 Just because you don't recall something, doesn't make it fact. Google can be a great friend. I didn't need Google to know that the Bucs were in the AFC West. I did use Google to confirm. Maybe you should do the same!
This would have made the most sense from a geographical perspective: Eastern: Baltimore, New York, Philadelphia, Washington. Western: Green Bay, Los Angeles, Minnesota, San Francisco. Southern: Atlanta, Dallas, New Orleans, Saint Louis. Northern: Chicago, Cleveland, Detroit, Pittsburgh.
Yes but it's not just a geographical issue as explained. They wanted to keep old rivalries going, as those are often the games fans like to buy tickets for and travel the most, at least in those days before so many playoff games. Thus, some teams that were nowhere near each other geographically, needed to stay in the same divisions
@@SC1089 baloney! hogwash! Dallas was a 1960 expansion franchise, so how did they establish an old rivalry with the Redskins or Eagles or Giants before 1967?
The BALTIMORE COLTS were always in the West because the Dallas Texans were in the west. When they folded, and the second BALTIMORE COLTS team came in, the Colts stayed in the west.
Very good point; Baltimore's western division placement makes much more sense when we remember that they were essentially the corpse of another team (which was the corpse of ANOTHER team itself).
Very good. Most people don’t know or remember that the Colts folded, the started again. Fewer yet remember that the came from the AAFC (All American Football Conference). A separate league. That merged with the NFL. That was in 1949, if I remember (my history) correctly. They came into the league with two other teams, the San Francisco 49ers, & the Cleveland Browns. Who had won all of the AAFC championships. Again, if I remember correctly.
They need to do some realignment again. I mean the Cowboys and WFT doesn't feel like a rivalry anymore since Washington dropped the Redskins name and the rumoured Commanders name doesn't fit. I think Carolina should be in the east and Cowboys in the south. Same goes for the Dolphins in the south, the Ravens to the east, and the Colts to the north.
The meetings to decide on post-merger alignment were BRUTAL--way more than the Federal/Century debate. The NFL had 16 teams and the AFL had 10, and NOBODY wanted to be one of the three to switch over to the "inferior" league.
I always thought an easier way the blend those leagues was to keep an East-West conference and add the AFL teams as its own division in each conference.
Dan Rooney was adamant about the Steelers not going over to the AFC, but his dad was a good NFL soldier and agreed to move. Besides, it kept their natural rivalry with the Browns who had already agreed to transfer.
Also, it really is weird that they insisted it was OK to put Baltimore and Atlanta in the Western division/conference when they were both farther east than every team in the Century division, minus New York. I guess it makes a little sense with Baltimore since they were always in the western conference, but Atlanta was a clean slate.
I remember being around ten years old in Cleveland trying to further understand football in general. My Dad did say these popped up NFL division names were a bit much to be desired. I was barely grasping the existence of the rise of popularity the AFL. Of course being biased towards the Browns and thier dominance within the division. I really liked the Century name.
Why not the Rivers divisiom? The Mssissippi ran through St. Louis, the three rivers are in Pittsburgh, Cleveland has the Cuyahoga, and the Hudson river is in New York.
There’s a bunch out there about the all star game so I won’t get too into the weeds of it, but in short, the game got moved out of New Orleans because New Orleans was extremely racist and didn’t provide transportation or hotel service to the black players
@@OfficialJaguarGator9 OK thanks, these are brilliant videos, I'll check out this story, what would recommend as a good video on this topic, Im from the UK, we didn't actually get football till 1982 when football team won sb17 v miami
@@Staceyatkinson4496 There's a really good documentary that was released in 2009 called Full Color Football. It talks about the history of the AFL. It's a five-parter, but all the parts are on RUclips. Part 2 talks about the all-star game
Other than having three of the five best teams in the conference in the same division why wasn't STL, DAL, SF, LA considered for a division with ATL and NO expansion?
I hate regional division alignment. I wish the major sports leagues would split by conferences and have no divisions at this point. When you have 7-9 teams getting home playoff games against 10/11 win teams your system is broken. It made more sense in past eras where a lot of teams would travel by train to road games but even then the NFL couldn't keep their regional divisions within regions.
As a young LA Rams fan I remember the old Coastal Division. San Francisco 49ers, Los Angeles Rams, New Orleans Saints, and Baltimore Colts. The 49ers and Saints stunk then so the Rams and Colts fought it out.
Here's how the old NFL SHOULD'VE aligned the teams and divisions before the 1970 merger: Eastern Conference Capitol Division: Western Conference Central Division: Dallas Chicago NY Giants Detroit Philadelphia Green Bay Washington Minnesota Eastern Conference Century Division: Western Conference Coastal Division: Baltimore Atlanta Cleveland Los Angeles Pittsburgh New Orleans St. Louis San Fran. This alignment would make better sense by where the cities are located and how they would be properly paired off in those divisions. Also, today's NFL should reuse the Central and Coastal divisions instead of using North and South as a way of keeping with the league's tradition. But then again, I guess that's why Roger Goodell sucks as a owner-friendly NFL commissioner.
@@michaelsmith5769 CNN: "The worst day in American history! Worse than the civil war, worse than 9/11!!" Yeah, it was basically a field trip through the capitol.
NFC West was odd since it had Atlanta and New Orleans in it. It got even more odd in mid 90s when Rams moved to St Louis and Carolina was added. With Cardinals (who were in NFC East) moving from St Louis to Arizona a few years earlier it would've made sense if Carolina or Rams flipped divisions with Cardinals.
Actually at one time the only team in the NFC West that was actually, well, west were the 49ers because the division was as follows: Atlanta Falcons Carolina Panthers New Orleans Saints St. Louis Rams SF 49ers Fun Fact, too. Once upon a time the Tampa Bay Buccaneers were in the AFC West and the Seattle Seahawks were in the NFC West. This was in both of their inaugural seasons(1976). Starting the next season the Seahawks were in the AFC West and the Bucs in the NFC Central(or NFC Norris).
Tampa Bay and Seattle played all teams in each conference over their first 2 seasons and played each other as well. Then in 1978 they were placed in the divisions they stayed in until the Texans made it an even 32 teams in 2002.
@@aaronholcomb237 they swapped conferences. The Bucs were in the AFC West and the Seahawks were in the NFC West in '76. This means the Seahawks were the first team to swap conferences twice.
Yes. In 1976 Tampa Bay was in the AFC West and Seattle in the NFC West, but they didn't play a traditional divisional schedule, instead playing each team from the conference once. Then they went to the divisions that they would be in until 2002 but had the same type of schedule in 1977. They didn't play a divisional schedule until 1978.
![Felix "Unfair" | [Stray Kids : SKZ-PLAYER]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/Oswujxm2Ag0/mqdefault.jpg)
Simple fix:
East - Cleveland, New York, Philadelphia, Pittsburgh
North - Chicago, Detroit, Green Bay, Minnesota
South - Atlanta, Baltimore, New Orleans, Washington
West - Dallas, Los Angeles, San Francisco, St. Louis
Now I just need to go back to 1967 to tell them my idea
Super tired 1967 owner: I’ve got a problem with your idea, kid. Baltimore is further North than St. Louis and D.C. Next idea?
East: Pittsburgh, Baltimore, Philadelphia, New York
North: Detroit, Green Bay, Chicago, Cleveland
South: Dallas, New Orleans, Washington, Atlanta
West: Los Angeles, San Francisco, Minnesota, St. Louis
Atlanta and New Orleans were both new teams. Having them in same division may have bothered a few owners back then. But then we do have Jags and Houston in same division today so I guess it fine by our standards
Bueno comprate un time machine
Where is Doc Brown and his DeLorean when you need him?
I feel like Colonial Division would’ve fit like all of their criteria, starts with a C ends with an L and fits the theme of patriotism well
If only you could travel back in time, use your knowledge of past events to become rich, buy an NFL team and have been at that meeting (sighs).
Except only the Giants were in a former colony, plus one letter too many (Need a C-word that ends in L and has seven letters was the goal). But Century makes zero sense as well and missed the letter L.
What would have been better was to drop the geographic pretense and do what the NHL did, name the divisions after people (Norris/Patrick/Smythe/Adams), but even the NHL abandoned this. Maybe "A rose by any other name would smell as sweet" and it just doesn't matter.
@@jackmessick2869 Bell, Thorpe, Camp, and ??? divisions? I could see it. Scratching my head as to who the 4th name should be. Halas and Lambeau would be candidates but you have to think other teams would object--I know Bert Bell owned the Eagles but he was more well-known as a commissioner than an owner.
@@pronkb000 Yeah, imagine the Bears in the Lambeau division, or the Packers in the Halas division. Hell would have to freeze over first😂
@@pronkb000 if they wanted to name the division after a commissioner/president they could’ve used either Rozelle or Jim Carr. But who is camp? Tried looking him up and I haven’t seen anything.
“Centennial Division” would’ve satisfied both criteria noted. Starts with “C” and ends with “al.”
I was thinking exactly the same thing.
Great story. But Christopher Columbus was not a controversial figure in 1966. They avoided the name because the District of Columbia's home team was not in the division, that's all.
I have been an amateur football historian for many years and this is the first time I've heard of the Federal Division.
You have a few clips of #45 for the NY Giants in this video. That's Homer Jones; and in one of the clips he demonstrates his contribution to football culture: the celebratory spike after a TD.
One of the few stars for the Giants during that horrid period from the mid '60s to the early '80s.
@@SteelerFanInRI He had great speed, but not especially good hands.
I would have suggested “Continental Division”
Another coincidence: All the division names were seven letters long (as was Federal).
I don't think it would've mattered if the division was called Century or Federal. Fans would not think that one division was not an NFL division, and plus, the Federal League in baseball was long gone by the 60's anyways.
Goew to show how old these NFL owners were considering they were concerned about a baseball league that existed at the turn of the century causing confusion with the public lol. Im sure most people even in the 60s had no memory or even knew about the existence of the Federal Baseball League
Great research, as usual. I had never heard of this story. One addendum--the Saints and Giants flip-flopped again in 1969 with the Giants going back to the Century and NO to the Capitol. That was the last time the NYG weren't with Dallas, Philadelphia and Washington in the same division.
I remember the 'East', 'west', and 'Central Divisions of the 70's.
Would drive me crazy having the Saints and Falcons in the west, Cowboys in the east, etc...
And Tampa was in the NFC central division w/Minnesota, Chicago, Green Bay, and Detroit. Funny thing is that the weather contrast allowed a lot of crappy pre-Dungy Tampa teams to be semi-competitive at home divisional games (the Midwestern teams would suffocate in the thick Florida heat).
@@ryanjacobson2508 So true! Always remember feeling sorry for Tampa when playing at Green Bay late in the season when both teams were awful.
Bay of Pigs is what C. Berman always called those games.😂😂
@@ryanjacobson2508 except for Doug Williams era Buc trans they were unwatchable until Hugh Culverhouse passed away.
Great history lesson. Even including my pet peeve the "added bonus". That expression is redundant since a bonus never exists on its own but is alway something to be added. It's either "added benefit" or just "bonus".
I still think the oddest division ever was the AFC Central when Cleveland came back... and ya had Cincinnati, Cleveland, Houston, Pittsburgh, Baltimore, and Jacksonville for a year or two.
They went from four teams to six.
The 49ers being in the NFC "West" and having to travel to Carolina, Atlanta, New Orleans and St. Louis every year, plus any road games against eastern AFC teams. I've heard them get picked on for having an easy division to win in the mid/late 90's which was mostly correct, but nobody mentions the amount of travelling between time zones that team had to do.
Living in Steeler Country I kind of enjoyed that weird AFC Central alignment. The Steelers had a nice rivalry with Houston and Jacksonville. When they realigned Indy was originally supposed to join PIT, CLE & CIN in the AFC North, and the Ravens were supposed to go to the South but neither the Steelers or Ravens wanted to lose that rivalry.
@@bobross1550 That division had five different champions over a five year period 1996-00, with a sixth team winning it in '04
@@bobross1550 They of course fixed that in 2002 for the most part when the Cardinals went to the NFC West and the Seahawks (who were in the NFC West in their inaugural season in 1976) went from the AFC to the NFC.
As well when the oilers became the titans for two years as well.
They could have called it the Continental Division, but I suppose that might have created confusion with the Continental Football League that was around at that time.
I love weird, "transitional" divisions. As a hockey fan, one of my favorites was the '70s version of the Norris Division. All of the old NHL divisions are pretty well-known among longtime fans, as most of them retained the majority of their makeup even after the mid-90s shift to more geographically-themed divisions (the Norris, for instance, basically began the Central Division. But the Red Wings were the only team commonly associated with the division that was a member in the '70s, even though all of the other classic members (Chicago, Minnesota, St. Louis, Toronto) did indeed exist back then. And it's not just a matter of "oh, eventually all these other teams got sent to another division and the Wings joined up with the rest to form the more recognizable version of the Norris".
No, '70s Norris consisted of the Wings, Montreal, Pittsburgh, LA, and Washington (and later Hartford). The only real pre-existing rivalries were Detroit and Montreal, by virtue of being Original Six teams (though they both had at least two other Original Six teams that they'd consider bigger rivals than each other). And by 1981, these teams would be split up between all four of the existing divisions, where they would (for the most part) remain for decades.
It's just odd because "Norris division" has very specific connotations to hockey fans, this lineup is nothing like those connotations, yet it lasted a surprisingly long time for an "oddball" division.
The nhl divisions were weird between 1974-1982
The NFL avoided duplication in 1967, but embraced it in 1970, with both the AFC and NFC having East, Central, and West divisions. The NFC Central from 1970-76 was identical to the NFL Central from 1967-69, and the media often ignored the distinction. Likewise, the AFC West from 1970-75 was identical to the AFL Western from 1960-67 (before Cincinnati entered). The current NFC North and AFC West are the only ones identical to their 1967 predecessors, while the NFC East is the same as the 1968 Capital Division.
As a Cleveland Browns fan, I was glad we were in the Century - with weak teams and we won the division all three years. Pittsburgh and New Orleans were very weak teams back then - only St. Louis posed a threat - but they were not amongst the league’s power teams. When you played New Orleans - it was a guaranteed win.
You're welcome for that tie against St Louis in 1968 that won you the division, since they swept you. Love, Steeler fans.
V Porter; You’re right - St. Louis played us tough (hated Jim Hart and John Gilliam). Thanks Steelers. That tie was the difference in the final standings.
@@denisceballos9745 Your assessment of the Cardinals of this period is 100% correct though, I will say; they had some really good teams in the late 60s/70s, but they were always a step or two behind someone else (Cleveland/Dallas/Washington) and weren't among the league's elites. Shame, really.
V Porter; Indeed - they underperformed in their two playoff games under Coach Coryell, getting blown out by Minnesota and then L.A. (‘74 and ‘75). I thought they should have won those games, but made too many mistakes.
They should have called it the Eerie division.
Atlanta Braves we’re in the MLB NL West Division for decades. Made for for some very late night viewing on Superstation WTBS on West Coast swings.
4:13 I like that little drawing of a steel worker there; looks like a burlier version of the one on the Steelers' logo. Definitely the nadir of their history; they came in last all three years they were in the Century division, even including the one where they got second-year New Orleans as a division rival.
Such an interesting story...12 hours to come up with a name. I can't even imagine what that meeting was like. "Liberty" could have worked if Philly were in it. "Central Division" when there was already one named that is the lowest form of creativity ever :)......Federal Division--Yeah, that wasn't going to stick not starting with a "C"; The "Century" Division was one I never remember. Great story. Wonderful recap of history.
Cederal division
The USFL, had it played in 1986, would have comprised a "Liberty Division" and "Independence Division," because of its eight teams, three were in Florida and seven were east of the Mississippi.
@@mactheknife7049 And of course, the NHL divisions from 1974 to 1993; Adams, Norris, Patrick and Smythe.
@@mactheknife7049 Wasn't it Arizona as the only team west of the Mississippi joining up with the 3 FL teams in the Independence division
@@targettoad691 I believe that's correct. They also would've had a rather unusual playoff format in '86, though off-hand the only detail of it I can remember is that 5 teams out of the 8 would've qualified.
I love your content. Keep up the great work.
Couple of New Orleans notes:
1. The city got the team that would be known as the Saints because Louisiana Senator Russell Long was instrumental in allowing the NFL to merge with the AFL despite the antitrust issues involved.
2. You mentioned the 1965 AFL All-Star Game in New Orleans as the reason the AFL didn’t want to expand there, but you didn’t go in depth as to what exactly happened. Future video teaser?
The New Orleans Saints. Another team formerly in the NFC West (1970-2001).
Not likely a future video, here's a good article about it (a really embarrassing moment) theundefeated.com/features/when-racism-drove-the-afl-all-star-game-out-of-new-orleans/
I love my current division the NFC East. We all equally hate each other and we all equally suck.
Literally
@@CheesusChristBC201 I thought the boys were god’s favorite team. That’s what the hole in the roof of Texas stadium was for. So you and your pops can watch your team?
@@stevev6384 My team is the Steelers bro
@@CheesusChristBC201 I’m a Ravens fan myself and our rivalry is great. But, I wish we played against Washington and Philadelphia at least once per year because Baltimore has complex of being ignored and defeating those cities puts people in the B-more areas in a state of vindication.
@@stevev6384 Jerry nullified that agreement with God when he intentionally allowed Texas Stadium to fall apart in order to get his new toy. God said, “Fine. Good luck with this guy I made named Tom Brady.”
i would say the 1970 afc west they had so many ties the 1970 raiders were 8-4-2 chiefs were 7-5-2 and the chargers were 5-6-3 and the broncos were 5-8-1 that year
5:00 The Rust Belt Division
I started watch football in like 64 and all I can remember is my Giants being in the same division as the accursed cowgirls, Washington, Philadelphia and St Louis
I grew up in Connecticut, and it was no fun watching those Giants of the 1970s, especially when Tarkenton left. I will say though, that John McVey and Perkins had the Redskins number, and some years beat them both times. Those were fun games, but I grieved for Brad van Pelt and Harry Carson, to be stuck on such a team
Should have called the "Central" division the Great Lakes Division and the Federal division the Central division.
Except by changing the name to the Century division, they ended up breaking the theme of all of the division names ending in L.
Centennial Division. There you go. We could have saved everyone those 12 hours AND the continued debate during winter meetings.
edit: also, great work as always on the video!
I used to have one of those big old "Pro Football Encyclopedia" books back in the 90s when I was growing up and I actually remember coming across these strange late 1960s NFL alignments when reading them and wondering to myself what must've been going on during that time. LOL Thanks for detailing that. :) My 12 year old self thanks you. LOL
The first BALTIMORE COLTS to play in the NFL were the remnants of the AAFC's Miami Seahawks- who had terrible attendance. The BALTIMORE COLTS kept the Miami Seahawks colors, green and silver, and played two years before folding in 1950.
Then, after the Dallas Texans folded, the new BALTIMORE COLTS started in 1953. Some of the players from the Texans came to Baltimore like HOFers, Art Donovan and Gino Marchetti.
I always liked Chris Berman calling it the NFC Norris
Check out how the hockey divisions evolved over time. At one point the Norris had Montreal, Los Angeles, Pittsburgh, Detroit, and Washington. Explain that to me.
Just found this channel and I love it.. UK NFL fan here
Back then Columbus Day was a big celebrated holiday. You’re putting today’s standards into 1960’s era. If there was a Columbia Division for Columbus, it wouldn’t have been a big deal in the 60’s.
Well, I mean, the name would still have been problematic, even if people back then didn't realize/care; this is like saying Washington's old name wasn't problematic until people started complaining about it...
Agreed. You have to look at this within the context of the time. The division wasn't going to exist after 1969. Problematic in 2021. Not in 1966 when this meeting was being held. The video is about the decision being made THEN and the process that went into it, not how future historians would see it...
That's a stupid reason. In the 1960's people didn't care about things like that. If they decided against the name because it would be problematic in the 2000's, then you can predict the future and should have bet every game and become the richest men around.
@@Lawomenshoops Yeah, in the '60s people cared about more important things, like the Beatles' blasphemous claims of being bigger than Jesus.
@@pronkb000 Ok dipshit
Maybe they should have gotten food, it's tough to find inspiration on an empty stomach
Yeah, imagine how snippy a room full of hangry old men frustrated about a name would be 🤣
Back in those days all a real man needed was a few packs of cigarettes and some strong coffee. And maybe a shot or two of rye or Scotch.
From 1995 to 2001 the NFC West consisted of:
San Francisco 49ers
Atlanta Falcons
Carolina Panthers
St. Louis Rams
New Orleans Saints
And the 49ers had the distinct disadvantage of having to travel more than any team in the NFL against their divisional opponents. Although it can be argued, that they for a period of time had the weakest opponents also in that same time period.
Post-realignment, the current NFC West is really the new division. The NFC South is more the successor of the old NFC West.
@@scotthooper4170 The travel may have seemed like a disadvantage, but the 80s-90s Niners were statistically better on the road. The 49ers once held the NFL record for longest road winning streak (18 games from 1988-90). The weak NFC West division schedule that was used from 1978-94, which at the time guaranteed everyone in the division one game against the last place team in the other two divisions (East and Central) certainly helped
@@timfortune9 i agree! The Cards and Hawks were new division opponents for the established Niners and Rams that had always been in the West. Seattle was in the AFC until realignment and the Ninerd/Rams rarely plated the Cards as they were in the East for a long time, but it does make the most sense geographically.
Also, by looking at a map, the AFC west is pretty spread out, never realized how far east the Chiefs were
Wrong. In 1988, when the Cardinals were the Phoenix Cardinals, only 400 miles from the Pacific Ocean, here was the NFC East:
New York Giants (distance to Atlantic Ocean, 10 miles)
Washington Redskins (distance to Atlantic Ocean, 25 miles)
Philadelphia Eagles (distance to Atlantic Ocean, 60 miles)
Dallas Cowboys (distance to Atlantic Ocean, 900 miles)
Phoenix Cardinals (distance to Atlantic Ocean, 1800 miles)
Great stuff. Keep it coming
It rumored for 8 hours one owner kept yelling just call it damm Eastern division. I always remember that Cowboys never go to NFC West, because of T.V. that how we got Falcons , and Saints in NFC west
Naming a division after Columbus back in that era would have been seen as patriotic rather than problematic, just putting that out there. It took a long time before the entire country was willing to admit he was a bad man
The entire country does not think he was a bad man. Stop believing majority opinions are those of small groups that yell and scream the loudest so they get on tv. Majority opinions are actually silent since most of them are held by large groups that have better things to do than gather together to yell and scream that they are content.
This is the first I'd heard of the "Federal Division" nomenclature, though I don't doubt the story. I had heard, from Art Rooney himself no less, that "Continental Division" was among those considered for what became the Century Division.
That was my first thought, why not go with Continental since it's on the Continent (Coastal made as much sense, as did Capital)
WAIT, that would have caused a similar problem to the Federal name, the Continental League was a proposed 3rd Major League from 1959, but it was scrapped and we got the New York Mets
@@bens5661 Nah. The Continental League never played a game and wasn't really big in the minds of sports fans. This is also true of the Federal League, which was by that time 50 years removed.
There was a pro football league from 1965-69 called the Continental Football League. Might have made things confusing
Wait, you heard from Art Rooney himself?! Like, you met Art Rooney, or he said this in an interview or something?
Look at how long it took to come up with the name Washington Commanders.
Do something on the strangest thing ever in 1960's NFL: the Playoff Bowl or AKA Loser Bowl or Toilet Bowl.
@Matt Joseph 3rd place playoff. Something to put on TV.
Now I'm actually curious to see if I can come up with a good name for that division. The exercise will provide quality level shower thoughts if nothing else. BTW, I do think it would have been cool to have every division align with similar descriptors like they tried to do back in the day. A lot more interesting than just labeling divisions with the direction the respective cities are supposed to be in.
Ah yes. My favorite division the NFC West consisting of the San Francisco 49ers, St. Louis Rams, New Orleans Saints, Atlanta Falcons and Carolina Panthers.
Yeah, because 4 of them were more east and sf was the only western team in that division.
The NFL has always been geographically challenged. Dallas is not an Eastern city but the Cowboys have New York, Philadelphia and Washington as division opponents. Screwed up.
Until the 2002 addition of a 4th division the Arizona Cardinals along with the Dallas Cowboys, played in the NFC East, since nobody wanted to swap divisions with the Cards when they left St. Louis in the late 1980s. The Cowboys are still there which is probably the biggest geographical absurdity in the NFC (The AFC's absurdity is having the Dolphins in the East, where they are forced to play in 3 wintry cities late season as their fellow divisional rivals.)
I always thought the Colts being in the AFC South was dumb.
When the NFL realigned the divisions for the AFL-NFL merger in the 1970 offseason, the NFC owners should have placed STL Cardinals & DAL Cowboys in the NFC West and NO Saints & ATL Falcons in the NFC East instead of vice-versa, too bad literally every NFC owner wanted to be parred with NO & ATL because of how weak they where (NO didn't even win the division until 1991-92.)
And going into this realignment, the NFL owners probably knew that they’d be doing it all over again when the merger became final (the Saints literally exist because one of the key legislators overseeing antitrust matters at the time was from Louisiana).
Al Davis (behind whose back the merger was negotiated) must have been absolutely livid with the other AFL owners.
Kansas City Chiefs owner Lamar Hunt was the lead conspirator among the AFL owners who stabbed Al Davis in the back, the Raiders/Chiefs hatred for each other goes beyond the field of play.
NFL commissioner Pete Rozelle and (all) the original NFL owners had a deep seated hatred of Al Davis that never subsided.
In fact,Davis often whined about the officiating against his Raiders from the merger onward until his death.
The Central Division had a unoffical nickname called the Black and Blue division
Or the "NFC Norris Division," per Chris Berman.
Another fun fact was for a time, when a team played two NFC Central teams in successive weeks, they lost the third game a higher percentage then any other division. Maybe this is why the division got the name “Black & Blue”. I can’t remember the specific years. But it was before Tampa Bay was place in the Central. So maybe 70’s early to mid?
@@scotthooper4170 when Minnesota joined long time rivals Detroit, Green Bay and Chicago. When the division formed and until the 1976 expansion the affectionately called the Black and Blue Division.
No matter what you'd call the division with chicago, green bay, detroit and minnesota in it, those teams could never be split apart, no matter how many times the league realigns.
I love this channel
Pittsburgh in the Batman jerseys!!!
We need to shift Miami to South, Ravens to East, Colts to North.
Of course! It makes sense. 👍
If you do that then you would need to move Dallas to the South and Carolina to the East.
Thanks for posting!!
Interesting as always.
And I thought the clubs that would form the NFC in 1970 took a long time to sort everything out (took an eternity to settle on divisional alignment)!
wow this is an awesome video! I never knew about this
What I wonder is why the Cowboys were originally in that “Capital” division (or for that matter the Eastern Conference) in the first place, I mean other than Los Angeles and San Francisco, Dallas was the westernmost NFL city at the time. If not for that, you could’ve had a “Western” division of Los Angeles, San Francisco, Dallas and St. Louis and avoided some of the wackiness of divisional alignment at all
"NO; WE NEED TO HAVE BALTIMORE AND ATLANTA IN THE WEST INSTEAD."
Because of T.V. rights Cowboys always be in the East.
@@erickennedy5993 true but the Cowboys didn’t really become “America’s Team” and the ratings darlings until after the division alignment happened
I think the other problem was that was rapidly developing into three of the better teams in the league in the same division beating each other up.
The Cowboys first season (1960), they were in the West. They moved to the East when the expansion Vikings came in the league in '61 & were placed in the Western Conference.
Man, they over thought this more than that young couple who kept rejecting names because they could come up with a way to make fun of each of their choices
I'd rather the divisions not have directional names at all but instead have geographical or historical names, like the old NHL. I could get behind the AFC North being renamed the Thorpe Division or the NFC North being named the Great Lakes Division. Much more interesting than just cardinal directions that aren't entirely accurate anyway.
Yeah that is a way to honor your division with a historical name of someone from with in and ditch the directional theme. 8 guys could be honored right now
Informative video. Never knew this. On first hearing, the NFL owners should be drawn and quartered for believing fans of the NFL are so easily confused by names, similar sounding names, or would spend any time at all pondering why Philadelphia isn't in the Liberty Division. Stupid, but that's what owners are. "All the other divisions begin with C so this division must begin with C." They should have been slapped.
Tweaks I would make to the current alignment are:
AFC:
Baltimore: North --> East
Miami: East --> South
Indianapolis: South --> North
NFC:
Dallas: East --> South
Carolina: South --> East
The reason the NFL doesn't realign their divisions all that often is because it messes up rivalries; I can see right now that with Baltimore and especially Dallas moving divisions that would be problematic. And the other teams wouldn't exactly be happy about losing those rivalries either!
The 8 divisions in the NFL have worked for the most part, since realignment came in 2002 thanks to the Houston Texans joining the league. But, If I could I would rearrange a few of those divisions.
In the AFC, I'd have Indianapolis, Baltimore and Miami all switching places. The Colts in the AFC North, The Ravens in the East and the Dolphins in the South. And as far as the NFC goes, they've got it pretty good. I think I would swap Dallas in the East for Carolina in the South. Dallas is in the East for obvious reasons, but, geographically it doesn't make much sense.
As much as it would make sense:
Ravens are in the North because they are the "old Cleveland Browns" and have a rivalry with the current Browns as well as the Steelers.
Dolphins have longtime rivalries with the AFC East teams dating back to their entering the AFL in 1966.
Indy should be in the north, but you'd have to do the other two changes that make it difficult to do.
The Central Division , now North created in 1967 has the same teams to this day Tampa Bay was in and left
Also the AFL/AFC West. Seattle was in until they returned (yes, returned) to the NFC.
It was probably good that they were so inept at naming divisions at that time. If they had had 4 solid division names, they might have felt they didn't need to merge to fix the mess.
The Central Capitol Century Coastal divisions were only from 1967-69
Interesting trivia! I wonder if any of the owners at the time considered the name Waterfront division, as all of these cities were situated alongside major water sources: The Allegheny River in Pittsburgh, The Mississippi and Missouri Rivers in St. Louis, The Hudson River and Atlantic Ocean in New York, and Lake Erie in Cleveland. I know it doesn't begin with the letter "C" but it makes sense nevertheless.
The stuff about whether a potential division name suits the teams that play in it just reminds me of how in the 1920s & 30s the NHL had 10 teams divided by what country they played in, the Canadian and American divisions; except they then decided to have the New York _Americans_ play in the _Canadian_ Division. On top of that when the team now known as the Detroit Red Wings formed, they had to play a season in Windsor, Ontario, Canada before their arena in Detroit was built; so what you had for that one year was the sight of a Canadian team playing in the American Division and an American team (named *the Americans* no less) playing in the Canadian Division.
Perhaps the NFL of 1967 cared too much about what their divisions were called; but then you have the NHL, who especially back then, didn't care at all.
1. The reason the NFL had American and National Divisions from 1950-52 was because it was a part of the merger between the All America Football Conference and the NFL; They decided to essentially name a Division after each league.
2. The reason the NFL expanded into New Orleans and Atlanta in the mid-1960's was because the League wanted an anti-trust exemption from Congress (so it could share TV revenues) and 2 influential Senators (Russell Long of Louisiana and Richard Russell of Georgia) extracted NFL teams for their respective states as part of the negotiations.
3. These Divisions were composed also to keep as many existing rivalries as possible intact. For example, Cleveland in the 1960's had great existing rivalries with Pittsburgh, St. Louis and the NY Giants. The Cowboys, Eagles and Redskins played each other twice a year as members of the Eastern Conference. Baltimore was in the same conference and already had great rivalries with San Francisco and Los Angeles as well as the teams of the Central Division. Baltimore was in the Western Conference since the 1950's, since it started out as the Dallas Texans before moving to Baltimore and being renamed the Colts, and it had developed rivalries with the other Western Conference teams (Detroit, Chicago, Green Bay)
4. The All America Football Conference was also started for the same reason as the American Football League; the NFL had refused to expand and there were owners who were being denied franchises. The AAFC was actually a well funded league that signed it's share of NFL players and more than it's share of college talent.
Good job on this. I learned sumthin
Great video, deserve more subs
You might think it was strange that Atlanta was in the same division as Los Angeles and San Francisco, but three years later, MLB liked the idea.
One other thing, when the NFL and AFL merged, three NFL teams who went to the AFC, BALTIMORE COLTS, steelers, and the Clowns. I thought I remember hearing when the NFL expanded, those teams would be moved back to the NFC. So, the first post merger expansion was when the Seahawks and TB came into the NFL in 76. But, the NFL put the Bucs in the AFC and Seattle in the NFC. The Bucs were actually in the AFC WEST, too!! Then in 77, the switched conferences, and the divisions and conferences stayed the same until the 93 expansion. The NFL had planned to expand much earlier, but the Raiders vs the NFL trial put those plans on the backburner.
The Tampa Bay Buccaneers went to the AFC East in 1976. The Seahawks to the NFC West. Then switched later. Each team moved to the other conference. Seattle to the AFC West. Tampa to the NFC Central.
@@scotthooper4170 thanks for repeating what I just said.
Not to argue with you. But I don’t recall the boys ever in the AFC West. AFC East originally the to the NFC Central, before the NFC South. Probably a minor oversight. I do it all the time. Excellent knowledge/ memory though. This was one of the highlights of my youth. Before losing my father. God Bless, and please don’t take this the wrong way. We are on the same side, obviously having wonderful memories of what the NFL used to be.
@@scotthooper4170 Both 76 expansion teams were put in the West. Bucs in the AFC and Seahawks NFC.
The AFC East had 5 teams in the division in 75. The AFC Central & West each had 4 teams. So, in your brilliant mind, the NFL would have one division with 6 teams? Brilliant.
www.pro-football-reference.com/years/1976/index.htm
@@scotthooper4170 Just because you don't recall something, doesn't make it fact. Google can be a great friend. I didn't need Google to know that the Bucs were in the AFC West. I did use Google to confirm. Maybe you should do the same!
This would have made the most sense from a geographical perspective:
Eastern: Baltimore, New York, Philadelphia, Washington.
Western: Green Bay, Los Angeles, Minnesota, San Francisco.
Southern: Atlanta, Dallas, New Orleans, Saint Louis.
Northern: Chicago, Cleveland, Detroit, Pittsburgh.
That made too much sense.
Yes but it's not just a geographical issue as explained. They wanted to keep old rivalries going, as those are often the games fans like to buy tickets for and travel the most, at least in those days before so many playoff games. Thus, some teams that were nowhere near each other geographically, needed to stay in the same divisions
@@SC1089 baloney! hogwash! Dallas was a 1960 expansion franchise, so how did they establish an old rivalry with the Redskins or Eagles or Giants before 1967?
The BALTIMORE COLTS were always in the West because the Dallas Texans were in the west. When they folded, and the second BALTIMORE COLTS team came in, the Colts stayed in the west.
Very good point; Baltimore's western division placement makes much more sense when we remember that they were essentially the corpse of another team (which was the corpse of ANOTHER team itself).
Very good. Most people don’t know or remember that the Colts folded, the started again. Fewer yet remember that the came from the AAFC (All American Football Conference). A separate league. That merged with the NFL. That was in 1949, if I remember (my history) correctly. They came into the league with two other teams, the San Francisco 49ers, & the Cleveland Browns. Who had won all of the AAFC championships. Again, if I remember correctly.
I didn't see this and posted a little more later .
@@scotthooper4170 it was 1950 that the AAFC merger happened. Everything else is correct.
Apparently having confusingly similar names was never considered a problem.
Why didn't they just go with north/east/south/west like nowadays?
I think it was more confusing to fans that you had a league with both the "Century" division and the "Central" division
They need to do some realignment again. I mean the Cowboys and WFT doesn't feel like a rivalry anymore since Washington dropped the Redskins name and the rumoured Commanders name doesn't fit. I think Carolina should be in the east and Cowboys in the south. Same goes for the Dolphins in the south, the Ravens to the east, and the Colts to the north.
The meetings to decide on post-merger alignment were BRUTAL--way more than the Federal/Century debate. The NFL had 16 teams and the AFL had 10, and NOBODY wanted to be one of the three to switch over to the "inferior" league.
It was eventually money that made it happen. One million dollars each.
I always thought an easier way the blend those leagues was to keep an East-West conference and add the AFL teams as its own division in each conference.
@@GBU61 Interesting idea. I guess they wanted to preserve the AFL vs. NFL dynamic for the Super Bowl as much as possible.
Dan Rooney was adamant about the Steelers not going over to the AFC, but his dad was a good NFL soldier and agreed to move. Besides, it kept their natural rivalry with the Browns who had already agreed to transfer.
@@darryljorden9177 Plus the million dollars didn’t hurt. Colts, Browns & Steelers each got it.
Always thought the name "Century Division" had a mystique to it. Sounded like a brand new line of automobiles.
😂😂😂😂
Also, it really is weird that they insisted it was OK to put Baltimore and Atlanta in the Western division/conference when they were both farther east than every team in the Century division, minus New York. I guess it makes a little sense with Baltimore since they were always in the western conference, but Atlanta was a clean slate.
I never understood why Atlanta was in the west for so many years.
*Norris Division in the Prince of Wales Conference has entered the chat*
I remember being around ten years old in Cleveland trying to further understand football in general. My Dad did say these popped up NFL division names were a bit much to be desired. I was barely grasping the existence of the rise of popularity the AFL.
Of course being biased towards the Browns and thier dominance within the division. I really liked the Century name.
They really should bring interesting division names back
Oh yeah I forgot to mention another head scratcher. When they put Tampa Bay in the NFC Central.
Tampa sorta makes sense in a central division since they line up to about Cleveland
One of the most bizarre pairings was Tampa with the AFC west and later the NFC Central.🤪
The idea was Tampa and Seattle would play over two seasons where they played everyone once.
Why not the Rivers divisiom? The Mssissippi ran through St. Louis, the three rivers are in Pittsburgh, Cleveland has the Cuyahoga, and the Hudson river is in New York.
america and football was great back then
What was awful about the 1965 championship game we need to know
There’s a bunch out there about the all star game so I won’t get too into the weeds of it, but in short, the game got moved out of New Orleans because New Orleans was extremely racist and didn’t provide transportation or hotel service to the black players
@@OfficialJaguarGator9 OK thanks, these are brilliant videos, I'll check out this story, what would recommend as a good video on this topic,
Im from the UK, we didn't actually get football till 1982 when football team won sb17 v miami
@@Staceyatkinson4496 There's a really good documentary that was released in 2009 called Full Color Football. It talks about the history of the AFL. It's a five-parter, but all the parts are on RUclips. Part 2 talks about the all-star game
It was Cleveland GreenBay in the mud and snow Packers won 23-12
The USFL used the Liberty Division for the 1986 season, but....
Yeah, and the other would have been the Independence Division.
I was a Generals fan back in the day.
You got that music sample from Garage Band, "Empire State Horns". I think is the sample
Other than having three of the five best teams in the conference in the same division why wasn't STL, DAL, SF, LA considered for a division with ATL and NO expansion?
I'll never understand why they didn't just go with N, S, E, W for the division names and tell Dallas to suck it up
I hate regional division alignment. I wish the major sports leagues would split by conferences and have no divisions at this point. When you have 7-9 teams getting home playoff games against 10/11 win teams your system is broken. It made more sense in past eras where a lot of teams would travel by train to road games but even then the NFL couldn't keep their regional divisions within regions.
As someone who watched the 2011 Steelers have to go TO Denver, I couldn't agree more.
Bueno si no te gusta tas hodiodo.
As a young LA Rams fan I remember the old Coastal Division. San Francisco 49ers, Los Angeles Rams, New Orleans Saints, and Baltimore Colts. The 49ers and Saints stunk then so the Rams and Colts fought it out.
Actually Atlanta played with the Colts, Rams and 49ers. The Saints were in the Eastern Conference.
Here's how the old NFL SHOULD'VE aligned the teams and divisions before the 1970 merger:
Eastern Conference Capitol Division: Western Conference Central Division:
Dallas Chicago
NY Giants Detroit
Philadelphia Green Bay
Washington Minnesota
Eastern Conference Century Division: Western Conference Coastal Division:
Baltimore Atlanta
Cleveland Los Angeles
Pittsburgh New Orleans
St. Louis San Fran.
This alignment would make better sense by where the cities are located and how they would be properly paired off in those divisions. Also, today's NFL should reuse the Central and Coastal divisions instead of using North and South as a way of keeping with the league's tradition.
But then again, I guess that's why Roger Goodell sucks as a owner-friendly NFL commissioner.
Last time I was this early, "mostly peaceful protesting" was still OK.
Is it not okay anymore? I don't bother keeping up with the so-called "news" which is actually communist propaganda and lies.
@@DolFan316 It stopped being OK on January 6.
@@michaelsmith5769 CNN: "The worst day in American history! Worse than the civil war, worse than 9/11!!"
Yeah, it was basically a field trip through the capitol.
That fumble at 4:20... Omfg nightmare
Not a fumble cause it didn’t touch the ground. It was just an interception
NFC West was odd since it had Atlanta and New Orleans in it. It got even more odd in mid 90s when Rams moved to St Louis and Carolina was added. With Cardinals (who were in NFC East) moving from St Louis to Arizona a few years earlier it would've made sense if Carolina or Rams flipped divisions with Cardinals.
Actually at one time the only team in the NFC West that was actually, well, west were the 49ers because the division was as follows:
Atlanta Falcons
Carolina Panthers
New Orleans Saints
St. Louis Rams
SF 49ers
Fun Fact, too. Once upon a time the Tampa Bay Buccaneers were in the AFC West and the Seattle Seahawks were in the NFC West. This was in both of their inaugural seasons(1976). Starting the next season the Seahawks were in the AFC West and the Bucs in the NFC Central(or NFC Norris).
Tampa Bay and Seattle played all teams in each conference over their first 2 seasons and played each other as well. Then in 1978 they were placed in the divisions they stayed in until the Texans made it an even 32 teams in 2002.
@@aaronholcomb237 they swapped conferences. The Bucs were in the AFC West and the Seahawks were in the NFC West in '76. This means the Seahawks were the first team to swap conferences twice.
Yes. In 1976 Tampa Bay was in the AFC West and Seattle in the NFC West, but they didn't play a traditional divisional schedule, instead playing each team from the conference once. Then they went to the divisions that they would be in until 2002 but had the same type of schedule in 1977. They didn't play a divisional schedule until 1978.
A narrator would explode this channel