If you had to cut the NFL in half, what teams would you cut?

[flotsamnjetsam]

I would use team history, success, prestige, etc as factors. You can use whatever you want to determine which teams are worth keeping around. Obviously, this would never happen in reality as there is too much money to be made by having 32 teams, so this is purely hypothetical. To even the playing field a little, I'll only take into account teams/games in the Super Bowl era. So...teams 1-16 would remain in the NFL, and teams 17-32 would be cut. And remember, there is no difference between 1 and 16, only between 16 and 17.

MADE THE CUT (get to stay in the NFL)

1. Dallas Cowboys - 5 championships, Americas team
2. San Fransisco 49ers - 5 championships
3. Pittsburgh Steelers - again, cant argue with the team's success
4. Green Bay Packers - prestigious
5. New England Patriots - Dynasty of the 2000s, and made Super Bowl apperances in the 80s and 90s
6. New York Giants
7. Chicago Bears - only 1 championship, but the tradition is there
8. Washington Redskins
9. Oakland Raiders - 6 years of sucktitude doesnt outweigh 30 years of excellence
10. Denver Broncos - history of success
11. Minnesota Vikings
12. Indianapolis Colts
13. Miami Dolphins - having the only perfect season gets them over the hump
14. Philadelphia Eagles
15. Buffalo Bills - something has to be said for making 4 straight Super Bowls
16. Kansas City Chiefs

DIDN'T MAKE THE CUT

17. Cleveland Browns
18. New York Jets
19. Baltimore Ravens
20. Tampa Bay Bucs - one ring doesn't quite make up for decades of losing
21. St. Louis Rams
22. Tennessee Titans
23. San Diego Chargers - getting a little better
24. Atlanta Falcons
25. Seattle Seahawks
26. Cincinnati Bengals - at least they've been in a couple of Super Bowls
27. Carolina Panthers - a victim of being too new
28. Jacksonville Jaguars - see above
29. New Orleans Saints
30. Arizona Cardinals - the Clippers of the NFL
31. Houston Texans - again, too new
32. Detroit Lions - yuck

As a Jets/Giants fan, the 1st 6 teams to go would be the Pats, Dolphins, Bills, Cowboys, Eagles, & Redskins. Then I'd axe Indy & AZ because they both used to be in our divisions. Then I'd axe Houston, Jax, Car, & Balt because they're too new (like you said). Last 4 would be Detroit, NO, Tenn & Cleveland because they've never played in a SB.

Unless I am mistaken the Titans lost to the Rams in '99.

Oops!

OK, keep Tenn & axe Oakland just to piss off Al Davis.

[Kilroy]

I love how people only look at recent history when deciding to cut teams

You mean there was football before the Super Bowl?

[treat24]

I love how people only look at recent history when deciding to cut teams

trueness, the post above yours by britsox made me laugh. apparently a dominant decade and 4 superbowl appearances along with a few more championship game appearances gets you cut in his league...

[eaglesrule]

I'm biased, but cutting the Eagles is silly. Been around since 1933, won the NFL championship twice, been to two Super Bowls, and they were pretty good during the Buddy Ryan era. To say that they were "only good" this decade is absurd. They were bad in the 70s and the late 90s, (brief upswing with Rhodes), and then were good for almost all of this decade. There are tons of teams more deserving of being cut.

[BritSox]

I love how people only look at recent history when deciding to cut teams

trueness, the post above yours by britsox made me laugh. apparently a dominant decade and 4 superbowl appearances along with a few more championship game appearances gets you cut in his league...

It's a sixteen team league. The Pats have had a dominant decade (2000s to date) and a bigger market. The Phins have more historic success and a bigger market. The Bills are a team that often get talked about as potentially getting moved, and have never won a superbowl. Which of Pats/Giants/Phins/Eagles would you cut to include the Bills? That's the four biggest markets on the Eastern Seaboard.

Or you could cut the Steelers. Nope, they've got a far better history and a bigger market.

If you're cutting the league in half, it isn't even a tough decision. They're one of the first to go. I mean, Grover cut the Browns, ffs. Only Green Bay has a smaller market than BUF, but GB is one of the great historic franchises of the game. The Bills ain't. They made the playoffs twice between the merger and that four-year run. They've gotten out of the divisional round once since. They're not representative of an otherwise-barren region, either, like the Seahawks or Saints.

[treat24]

I love how people only look at recent history when deciding to cut teams

trueness, the post above yours by britsox made me laugh. apparently a dominant decade and 4 superbowl appearances along with a few more championship game appearances gets you cut in his league...

It's a sixteen team league. The Pats have had a dominant decade (2000s to date) and a bigger market. The Phins have more historic success and a bigger market. The Bills are a team that often get talked about as potentially getting moved, and have never won a superbowl. Which of Pats/Giants/Phins/Eagles would you cut to include the Bills? That's the four biggest markets on the Eastern Seaboard.

Or you could cut the Steelers. Nope, they've got a far better history and a bigger market.

If you're cutting the league in half, it isn't even a tough decision. They're one of the first to go. I mean, Grover cut the Browns, ffs. Only Green Bay has a smaller market than BUF, but GB is one of the great historic franchises of the game. The Bills ain't. They made the playoffs twice between the merger and that four-year run. They've gotten out of the divisional round once since. They're not representative of an otherwise-barren region, either, like the Seahawks or Saints.

I was talking about the Vikings, not the Bills, one of the original 16 teams when the league expanded in 1967 (founded in 61 though). 4 superbowl appearances in the 70's coupled with some nfc championship game appearances throughout their history. And many many division championships and playoff appearances. They aren't on the east coast either. I would keep GB, Min, Chi without a seconds thought. They weren't the steelers, but the purple people eaters and fran were a dominant team. More so than some of the teams you put in. And make for a much better case.

You're argument for "market" falls on deaf ears... you should throw a fictional LA team in there if you wannna discuss market playing a factor

[Amazinz]

We could always merge the Steelers and Eagles and return to the glory of the Steagles.

[treat24]

We could always merge the Steelers and Eagles and return to the glory of the Steagles.

i like it

[joejlitz]

1. No Steegles - ever again!
2. Cutting the Iggles is ridiculous, as some of the other posters have mentioned.
3. Spodog - I never understood why LA is such a "viable" place for another NFL team. Everyone looks at the market size, but does anyone look at their history? They've gotten several chances to support an NFL team and have failed. Why try to shove a square peg into a round hole?
4. Unlike MLB and the NBA, the NFL has not suffered (IMO) from expansion. The talent dilution as a result of expansion in the other sports have caused several teams to mire in "crappyness" for several years and makes the game worse. Not too many teams in the NFL (Lions excluded - sorry) stay bad for extended years at a time.

In sum - cut no teams no matter what! But I am not sure I would be for adding teams, either. I love the NFL just as it is.
Great thread!

[BritSox]

I was talking about the Vikings, not the Bills, one of the original 16 teams when the league expanded in 1967 (founded in 61 though). 4 superbowl appearances in the 70's coupled with some nfc championship game appearances throughout their history.

My bad. I was trying to think who 'four superbowl appearances and a couple championship games' meant, and the Bills were the obvious thought.

And many many division championships and playoff appearances. They aren't on the east coast either. I would keep GB, Min, Chi without a seconds thought. They weren't the steelers, but the purple people eaters and fran were a dominant team. More so than some of the teams you put in. And make for a much better case.

You're argument for "market" falls on deaf ears... you should throw a fictional LA team in there if you wannna discuss market playing a factor

Uh, I mentioned the LA possibility.

But I wouldn't cut GB or Chi, which we're agreed on. I imagine you wouldn't cut the Steelers. That leaves the Browns or Chiefs. Browns have a better history. Chiefs have the regional argument. Vikes to me are a meh time. They don't stand out on a single one of the criteria. They're not top 10 in terms of history, they're in a small market, they don't represent an otherwise unrepresented region.