Credit for the thought! I certainly understand the motivation behind this.

There was a mention in the article that is at the heart of this idea, and I think the mistake in it is where this all goes wrong as a proposal: the notion that regions create rivalries. If you're starting fresh, sure, but who really cares about proximity? If you look at sports history, when reorganizations or expansions have happened before, often rivalries have taken forever to form even with proximity, because it takes history and competition to form that. Fans of AFC North teams aren't rushing to feel a deep rivalry with the Browns, because the Browns have been too mediocre. Meanwhile, the Cowboys and 49ers are far apart and rarely play, but the history there is huge and that has forged a rivalry.

As a Cowboys fan, I dry heave at the idea of the Cowboys being stuck with those teams as division "rivals", and I would long for annual contests with the Giants and Eagles (and Commanders, whenever they get competitive again).

The article also cites the benefit of improving travel distances for teams, but that goal goes out the window (permanently) if and when European teams become a thing.

At this stage, the NFC East should be sacred - it's too good, too fun, too deep with history to discard for what would amount to a minor gain in a different area. No hate at all for the proposal, and the thought that went into it was very nice, but...pass.