Jumping in the Wayback Machine: Why is Indy in the AFC South?

[Amnorix]

Godef has it right. This was discussed hotly when it happened iwth the realignment. While it's not "geographically correct", it did the best job of preserving the hotter rivalries between the various teams. The Dolphins had long histories with the other 3 teams in the AFC North, and the Colts did not.

The Ravens (nee Browns), Browns, Steelers are obviously a foursome with a long, bloody history of intra-divisional hatred, and the Bengals fit in better with that group than the Colts.

So the Colts got slotted in the next best place.

The NFC equivalent is Dallas, in the NFC East, while many other teams would make more geographic sense (Carolina Panthers for one). The Seahawks also moved from the AFC to the NFC just to make it all work better (16 teams per conference).

 

[Fixit]

Wouldn't it have made more sense for Miami to go? You know, seeing as the other Florida team is in the AFC South, and Florida is, well, way souther of Indiana.

Any theories?

 

[chrisfx811]

I asked my buddy from Indy this.
Cincy is further south than Indy, yet they go the North.
It would have made sense to put Indy in the North, Miami in the South and Pittsburgh in the East.
Evidently, the NFL powers that be value the tradition of certain rivalries more than geographical accuracy.

 

[primetime]

Keeping the AFL teams together, perhaps, since Indianapolis was the odd man out in the East?

 

[PatsSox363804]

Miamis history with the Jets, Pats, and Bills, same reason why Dallas is in the NFC East. The bad blood with Indy didnt really start until they were out of the division and further from a purely geographic standpoint Baltimore should be in the AFC East, Indy in the north, and Miami in the south but that would take Baltimore out of Clevelands division without putting Indy and Baltimore in the same division, and they dont want to do that.

 

[Fixit]

My theory is that it would keep Manning from playing in at least a few cold, outdoor road games each season. As it happens, the Colts play a bare minimum of 9 games in a dome, plus Jacksonville and Tennessee which, and I'm no weatherman, don't normally get cold or snowy.

But I'm on a conspiracy kick today.

 

[chrisfx811]

Ahh, I overlooked Baltimore. They should be in the East.
I'm all for realignment.
The NFC South needs Dallas, even though it would hurt the NFC East's rivalries.

 

[godef]

Wouldn't it have made more sense for Miami to go? You know, seeing as the other Florida team is in the AFC South, and Florida is, well, way souther of Indiana.

Any theories?

I think the NFL has tried to maintain as many "historic" rivalries as it could. Patriots-Dolphins is a huge rivalry, and the Fins also have strong rivalries with the Bills and Jets. OTOH, Indy was the newest member of the division, joining in the NFL-AFL merger, and I never had the sense that their rivalries with the other east teams were as strong. So in that regard, Indy was the most sensible choice to leave the division.

If you really want to be geographically correct, the Ravens should move to the East, the Colts to the North, and Miami to the South. But playing the Ravens twice a year instead of the Fins just wouldn't be the same.