How would you value the AFC compared to the NFC?

[hokiejetfan92]

I was talking with a work friend about how in the NBA, the west has been the superior conference to the east for the past 15 years or so.

We started getting on the topic of comparing the NFC to the AFC, and mentioned how CBS has the AFC games while FOX has the NFC games. What is interesting is FOX and CBS end up agreeing to pay for coverage for a certain conference, its regions, and its players. Not the NFL as a whole. I get they have inter conference games on one of the networks.

If the two networks paid the same amount for their rights then I don't think they ended up getting a fair deal.

In terms of franchises with historical NFL significance.

Fox gets to cover the NY Giants, Dallas Cowboys, Washington Redskins, Green Bay Packers, Chicago Bears, Detroit Lions and San Fran 49ers

CBS covers only the NE Pats (more recent success), Miami Dolphins, Oakland Raiders, KC Chiefs, Pittsburgh Steelers, and Denver Broncos

In the more recent past the AFC has had Brady, Peyton Manning and Big Ben to match whatever the NFC had to offer, but as Brady joins Peyton in retirement, and Big Ben's years are getting lower, what elite QB's will carry the AFC in the coming years? Derek Carr? The Colts might just ruin Luck...

The NFC has Russell Wilson, Dak, Wentz, AAron Rodgers, Eli, Kirk Cousins, Stafford, Matt Ryan, Drew Brees, and Jameis Winston. QB's drive storylines and success which directly lead to money.

Do you disagree that the AFC is not in the same level as NFC in terms of QB play at the moment.

If you were CBS would you care that FOX has the better deal?

 

[nyjunc]

The NFC has the better markets so FOX makes out.  

 

The AFC dominated the 70s through early 80s, the NFC dominated from around '84-'97, the AFC dominated in the 00s and it has been pretty close this decade.

[rex-n-effect]

The NFC has a lot of the bigger markets but it's the less interesting conference right now. The NFC has for many years had one or two good teams, a couple okay teams and the rest is junk. The AFC has been more competitive every year. We have several great teams and a lot of good teams. The wildcard is usually more of a contest with several teams narrowly missing. The NFC seems like the wildcards go to whichever teams were lucky enough to lose the least. Who's even serious competition for the Cowboys? Maybe MIN.

[RutgersJetFan]

NFC is the more competitive conference but the AFC has been more top heavy the past 15 years or so. This century, it has been the same 3 QBs in every Super Bowl from the AFC with only 2 exceptions, Gannon and the Ravens twice. Peyton, Brady, and Big Ben have like 14-15 Super Bowls combined. 

[Hael]

There used to be a ton of highend powerhouses in the NFC, and a lot of mediocre teams in the AFC other than the Pats/Steelers/Ravens and Indy/Denver (wherever Peyton was).  However when push came to shove, the 1 good AFC team would often win.

Recently the NFC has lost a lot of its great teams, and seems decidedly more pedestrian, and i'd say there is general parity in the league. 

[nyjunc]

9 minutes ago, Hael said:

There used to be a ton of highend powerhouses in the NFC, and a lot of mediocre teams in the AFC other than the Pats/Steelers/Ravens and Indy/Denver (wherever Peyton was).  However when push came to shove, the 1 good AFC team would often win.

Recently the NFC has lost a lot of its great teams, and seems decidedly more pedestrian, and i'd say there is general parity in the league. 

I disagree with that.  In this Century the AFC has been far and away better than the NFC(not as great a difference as when the NFC was better than the AFC mid 80s-late 90s).  If we played 2000-2010 in the NFC we would have made multiple SBs.