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

[34=Sweetness]

Cut the Packers (for obvious reasons) and the Lions for being hilariously bad. Keep the rest.

[dream_017]

There are 17 of the current 32 franchises that have appeared in 5 or more championship games. There are 16 teams that have 2 or more championship wins. There are 10 teams that have a better than .500 winning % in championship games. There are only 7 teams that fit into all 3 of those categories. Wouldn't you say that those 7 should make the cut?

[moochman]

I think the Pitts/Phillie merger would technically be the Stiggles, no?

What is the point of contraction anyway? If we decreased the size of the league we would still only have one winner each year. Wouldn't the best franchises then become that much better and the marginal ones become weak, or future Lions if you will?

Better answer is to hold owners accountable for the teams lack of competitivness. Say a team is run like Lions for a five year period (remembering that most franchises can be turned around in as little as 3 years) that franchise would be put on probation and every season that team doesn't have a winning record the profits for that season are given to local charities. That would ensure that deadbeat owners like William Clay Ford, for example, wouldn't make any money for putting forth a garbage team.

[dmacblue]

for William Clay Ford, ........read Brown, Mike

[spodog]

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?

Well, they have failed when measured by the old yard stick of turnstiles.

LA is one of the top media markets in the country, however, and even if the team played 16 away games a year, they would add value to the NFL merely by the increase in ratings in the country's #2 TV market.

[moochman]

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?

Well, they have failed when measured by the old yard stick of turnstiles.

LA is one of the top media markets in the country, however, and even if the team played 16 away games a year, they would add value to the NFL merely by the increase in ratings in the country's #2 TV market.

Interesting point. Why the NFL doesn't find a way to make it work in LA is beyond strange. One would think it would behoove the league to have a franchise there yet they insist on wanting some owner to foot the bill for stadium costs plus franchise fees/or relocation. You'd think they could find a better way since it would helping themselves in the long run.