Ripe For Expansion?
-
Expand L.A and OKC Markets for the NFL.
-
The Nation's Top 50 TV markets are as follows. Those I have highlighted do NOT have an NFL team. This would, in my opinion, be the primary factor in awarding an expansion team to any market. How many eyeballs can you put in front of a screen to sell beer and cars etc.
1 New York 7,387,810 6.444
2 Los Angeles 5,569,780 4.858
3 Chicago 3,493,480 3.047
4 Philadelphia 2,993,370 2.611
5 Dallas-Ft. Worth 2,571,310 2.243
6 San Francisco-Oak-San Jose 2,506,510 2.186
7 Boston (Manchester) 2,379,690 2.076
8 Washington, DC (Hagrstwn) 2,360,180 2.059
9 Atlanta 2,292,640 2.000
10 Houston 2,185,260 1.906
11 Detroit 1,842,650 1.607
12 Seattle-Tacoma 1,811,420 1.580
13 Phoenix (Prescott) 1,811,330 1.580
14 Tampa-St. Pete (Sarasota) 1,788,240 1.560
15 Minneapolis-St. Paul 1,721,940 1.502
16 Miami-Ft. Lauderdale 1,583,800 1.381
17 Denver 1,548,570 1.351
18 Cleveland-Akron (Canton) 1,514,170 1.321
19 Orlando-Daytona Bch-Melbrn 1,465,460 1.278
20 Sacramnto-Stkton-Modesto 1,388,570 1.211
21 St. Louis 1,253,920 1.094
22 Portland, OR 1,190,010 1.038
23 Pittsburgh 1,171,490 1.022
24 Raleigh-Durham (Fayetvlle) 1,143,420 0.997
25 Charlotte 1,140,900 0.995
26 Indianapolis 1,109,970 0.968
27 Baltimore 1,097,310 0.957
28 San Diego 1,077,600 0.940
29 Nashville 1,024,560 0.894
30 Hartford & New Haven 1,006,280 0.878
31 Kansas City 939,740 0.820
32 Columbus, OH 932,680 0.814
33 Salt Lake City 927,540 0.809
34 Milwaukee 907,660 0.792
35 Cincinnati 896,090 0.782
36 San Antonio 880,690 0.768
37 Greenvll-Spart-Ashevll-And 860,930 0.751
38 West Palm Beach-Ft. Pierce 788,020 0.687
39 Birmingham (Ann and Tusc) 738,790 0.644
40 Las Vegas 737,300 0.643
41 Harrisburg-Lncstr-Leb-York 729,440 0.636
42 Grand Rapids-Kalmzoo-B.Crk 722,150 0.630
43 Norfolk-Portsmth-Newpt Nws 718,750 0.627
44 Oklahoma City 712,630 0.622
45 Albuquerque-Santa Fe 710,050 0.619
46 Greensboro-H.Point-W.Salem 691,200 0.603
47 Austin 686,830 0.599
48 Louisville 674,050 0.588
49 Memphis 669,940 0.584
50 Jacksonville 669,840 0.584
The Nation's Top 50 TV markets are as follows. Those I have highlighted do NOT have an NFL team. This would, in my opinion, be the primary factor in awarding an expansion team to any market. How many eyeballs can you put in front of a screen to sell beer and cars etc.
1 New York 7,387,810 6.444
2 Los Angeles 5,569,780 4.858
3 Chicago 3,493,480 3.047
4 Philadelphia 2,993,370 2.611
5 Dallas-Ft. Worth 2,571,310 2.243
6 San Francisco-Oak-San Jose 2,506,510 2.186
7 Boston (Manchester) 2,379,690 2.076
8 Washington, DC (Hagrstwn) 2,360,180 2.059
9 Atlanta 2,292,640 2.000
10 Houston 2,185,260 1.906
11 Detroit 1,842,650 1.607
12 Seattle-Tacoma 1,811,420 1.580
13 Phoenix (Prescott) 1,811,330 1.580
14 Tampa-St. Pete (Sarasota) 1,788,240 1.560
15 Minneapolis-St. Paul 1,721,940 1.502
16 Miami-Ft. Lauderdale 1,583,800 1.381
17 Denver 1,548,570 1.351
18 Cleveland-Akron (Canton) 1,514,170 1.321
19 Orlando-Daytona Bch-Melbrn 1,465,460 1.278
20 Sacramnto-Stkton-Modesto 1,388,570 1.211
21 St. Louis 1,253,920 1.094
22 Portland, OR 1,190,010 1.038
23 Pittsburgh 1,171,490 1.022
24 Raleigh-Durham (Fayetvlle) 1,143,420 0.997
25 Charlotte 1,140,900 0.995
26 Indianapolis 1,109,970 0.968
27 Baltimore 1,097,310 0.957
28 San Diego 1,077,600 0.940
29 Nashville 1,024,560 0.894
30 Hartford & New Haven 1,006,280 0.878
31 Kansas City 939,740 0.820
32 Columbus, OH 932,680 0.814
33 Salt Lake City 927,540 0.809
34 Milwaukee 907,660 0.792
35 Cincinnati 896,090 0.782
36 San Antonio 880,690 0.768
37 Greenvll-Spart-Ashevll-And 860,930 0.751
38 West Palm Beach-Ft. Pierce 788,020 0.687
39 Birmingham (Ann and Tusc) 738,790 0.644
40 Las Vegas 737,300 0.643
41 Harrisburg-Lncstr-Leb-York 729,440 0.636
42 Grand Rapids-Kalmzoo-B.Crk 722,150 0.630
43 Norfolk-Portsmth-Newpt Nws 718,750 0.627
44 Oklahoma City 712,630 0.622
45 Albuquerque-Santa Fe 710,050 0.619
46 Greensboro-H.Point-W.Salem 691,200 0.603
47 Austin 686,830 0.599
48 Louisville 674,050 0.588
49 Memphis 669,940 0.584
50 Jacksonville 669,840 0.584
Someone else mentioned proximity to other teams, and I think that is the key here.
Orlando is very close to Tampa, and close enough to Jacksonville and Miami that another team in the middle of Florida would be overkill (/the jaguars and bucs would not allow it.)
Sacramento is not getting a team, they are an hour and a half drive to teams in the Bay area.
Portland is not getting a team because Seattle has that market.
Raleigh-Durham isn't getting a team, the Panthers have the Carolina's market.
The only city ripe for expansion is LA. They will get a team. It may be a franchise already in existence though.
I could see the Chargers moving to LA and the Jaguars moving to London.
Zombo
-
The Chargers will move to LA (last nights debacle at home almost guarentees blackouts for their remaining home games). The Rams will also move to LA putting two teams with ties to SoCal in the LA market.
The Jags will then move to St. Louis once the Rams are gone since the new owner is from Southern Illinois, which is basically St. Louis anyways. He'll get the upgrades done to the dome (whatever they call it now) and the Jags will be there. The only cities screwed in this deal are San Diego, which has had a decade or more to get a stadium deal done and Jacksonville which hasn't supported the Jags and probably shouldn't have gotten the expansion team to begin with.
-
The Chargers will move to LA (last nights debacle at home almost guarentees blackouts for their remaining home games). The Rams will also move to LA putting two teams with ties to SoCal in the LA market.
The Jags will then move to St. Louis once the Rams are gone since the new owner is from Southern Illinois, which is basically St. Louis anyways. He'll get the upgrades done to the dome (whatever they call it now) and the Jags will be there. The only cities screwed in this deal are San Diego, which has had a decade or more to get a stadium deal done and Jacksonville which hasn't supported the Jags and probably shouldn't have gotten the expansion team to begin with.
-
The Nation's Top 50 TV markets are as follows. Those I have highlighted do NOT have an NFL team. This would, in my opinion, be the primary factor in awarding an expansion team to any market. How many eyeballs can you put in front of a screen to sell beer and cars etc.
1 New York 7,387,810 6.444
2 Los Angeles 5,569,780 4.858
3 Chicago 3,493,480 3.047
4 Philadelphia 2,993,370 2.611
5 Dallas-Ft. Worth 2,571,310 2.243
6 San Francisco-Oak-San Jose 2,506,510 2.186
7 Boston (Manchester) 2,379,690 2.076
8 Washington, DC (Hagrstwn) 2,360,180 2.059
9 Atlanta 2,292,640 2.000
10 Houston 2,185,260 1.906
11 Detroit 1,842,650 1.607
12 Seattle-Tacoma 1,811,420 1.580
13 Phoenix (Prescott) 1,811,330 1.580
14 Tampa-St. Pete (Sarasota) 1,788,240 1.560
15 Minneapolis-St. Paul 1,721,940 1.502
16 Miami-Ft. Lauderdale 1,583,800 1.381
17 Denver 1,548,570 1.351
18 Cleveland-Akron (Canton) 1,514,170 1.321
19 Orlando-Daytona Bch-Melbrn 1,465,460 1.278
20 Sacramnto-Stkton-Modesto 1,388,570 1.211
21 St. Louis 1,253,920 1.094
22 Portland, OR 1,190,010 1.038
23 Pittsburgh 1,171,490 1.022
24 Raleigh-Durham (Fayetvlle) 1,143,420 0.997
25 Charlotte 1,140,900 0.995
26 Indianapolis 1,109,970 0.968
27 Baltimore 1,097,310 0.957
28 San Diego 1,077,600 0.940
29 Nashville 1,024,560 0.894
30 Hartford & New Haven 1,006,280 0.878
31 Kansas City 939,740 0.820
32 Columbus, OH 932,680 0.814
33 Salt Lake City 927,540 0.809
34 Milwaukee 907,660 0.792
35 Cincinnati 896,090 0.782
36 San Antonio 880,690 0.768
37 Greenvll-Spart-Ashevll-And 860,930 0.751
38 West Palm Beach-Ft. Pierce 788,020 0.687
39 Birmingham (Ann and Tusc) 738,790 0.644
40 Las Vegas 737,300 0.643
41 Harrisburg-Lncstr-Leb-York 729,440 0.636
42 Grand Rapids-Kalmzoo-B.Crk 722,150 0.630
43 Norfolk-Portsmth-Newpt Nws 718,750 0.627
44 Oklahoma City 712,630 0.622
45 Albuquerque-Santa Fe 710,050 0.619
46 Greensboro-H.Point-W.Salem 691,200 0.603
47 Austin 686,830 0.599
48 Louisville 674,050 0.588
49 Memphis 669,940 0.584
50 Jacksonville 669,840 0.584
Someone else mentioned proximity to other teams, and I think that is the key here.
Orlando is very close to Tampa, and close enough to Jacksonville and Miami that another team in the middle of Florida would be overkill (/the jaguars and bucs would not allow it.)
Sacramento is not getting a team, they are an hour and a half drive to teams in the Bay area.
Portland is not getting a team because Seattle has that market.
Raleigh-Durham isn't getting a team, the Panthers have the Carolina's market.
The only city ripe for expansion is LA. They will get a team. It may be a franchise already in existence though.
I could see the Chargers moving to LA and the Jaguars moving to London.
Zombo
Zombo said:
Someone else mentioned proximity to other teams, and I think that is the key here.
Orlando is very close to Tampa, and close enough to Jacksonville and Miami that another team in the middle of Florida would be overkill (/the jaguars and bucs would not allow it.)
Sacramento is not getting a team, they are an hour and a half drive to teams in the Bay area.
Portland is not getting a team because Seattle has that market.
Raleigh-Durham isn't getting a team, the Panthers have the Carolina's market.
The only city ripe for expansion is LA. They will get a team. It may be a franchise already in existence though.
I could see the Chargers moving to LA and the Jaguars moving to London.
Zombo
Much of what you say is right....
Orlando is teamed with Tampa Bay.
Sacramento with Oakland.
Raleigh and Greensboro are both in Carolina and after all they are the Carolina Panthers, not the Charlotte Panthers. Same for Greenville/Spartanburg.
Milwaukee with Green Bay.
Hartford with NY or NE.
Columbus with Cincy or or Cleveland
Harrisburg with Philly
Grnd Rapids with Detroit
Oklahoma City with Dallas (in my opinion)
Louisville with Cincy or Indy
Memphis with "Tennessee". Like the Carolina city the Titans are, after all The Tennessee Titans, not the Nashville Titans.
To me, besides LA then that leaves the following as the primary candidates:
Portland. I disagree somewhat that it is intricately hooked in with Seattle...though the owners of the Seahawks probably, certainly think of Portland as part of it market territory.
Salt Lake City. It is over 500 miles from the closest NFL team in Denver. It is further from Denver than Cleveland is from NYC. (Right now though I think it does primarily follow the Broncos.
San Antonio/Austin Yes, after LA this to me is the most logical spot. When you combine SA/Austin together it would be the 15th largest market. Bigger even than Cleveland/Miami/Denver. However, my brother in law who lives in SA says it will never happen because Jerry Jones considers Austin/SA his personal territory and would fight tooth and nail to keep a team out of SA.
Norfolk/Va. Beach. I always thought this would be a prime market for a team. It is over 200 miles from the nearest NFL team...but that team...the Redskins, considers the entire state of Virginia, including Richmond/Norfolk/Va. Beach as its territory, so Dan Snyder, like Jerry Jones would balk at a team there.
Lastly, there is Albequerque. Like Salt Lake, it is about 500 miles from the nearest NFL teams in Denver and Phoenix. It is also a smaller market. But then, so was Jax.
Yea, as I see it, it is only those 5....unless the NFL were to expand outside the USA.
-
I think a lot of things would've been different if St. Louis and Baltimore got the expansion teams like they should have instead of Carolina and Jacksonville.
I think a lot of things would've been different if St. Louis and Baltimore got the expansion teams like they should have instead of Carolina and Jacksonville.
Hmm, maybe. What I think you would have had perhaps is Jax and Charlotte out their trolling to steal a team rather than Balt. or St. Louis.
If either of those has waived the money in front of his nose the way Baltimore did, Art Modell would have jumped at one of those deals.
So, it may have been same fate, just a different destination.
-
Setting aside LA (which is a weird duck), the only market close to a sure thing on that list is San Antonio, because:
1. They have demonstrated that they will support a pro franchise;
2. They have a top notch facility ready to go;
3. They would certainly draw from "nearby" Austin; and
4. Texas is football crazy. A suburban Dallas high school spent $60 million on a 18,000 seat stadium (Progressive Field cost $169 million to build).
Setting aside LA (which is a weird duck), the only market close to a sure thing on that list is San Antonio, because:
1. They have demonstrated that they will support a pro franchise;
2. They have a top notch facility ready to go;
3. They would certainly draw from "nearby" Austin; and
4. Texas is football crazy. A suburban Dallas high school spent $60 million on a 18,000 seat stadium (Progressive Field cost $169 million to build).
FYI, roach, I mentioned that my brother in law resides in SA. In fact, his office practically sits in the shadow of the Alamodome.
He says that in fact it is not quite a top notch facility for an NFL team. Its capacity may not be quite to what the NFL requires, plus the amenities are not as complete as they should be. He felt it would need some massive renovations to be acceptable.
He even said that if the NFL were to come there it would require a whole new facility.
I guess I have to take his word for it. Like I said, he stares at it right outside his office window.
-
Just say no to NFL expansion, 32 teams are plenty. Other combinations upset the nice schedule balance the NFL now employs. A proper expansion requires at least 4 or 8 more teams, and probably 1-2 more NFL game weeks a year to do it right. Further, the current talent pool of players won't support 4-8 more teams.
Under current NFL scheduling, all divisional teams play each other once at home and once away. That's 6 of the 16 games devoted to divisional play. If you increase a division by one team you get 8 of 16 games being divisional play. Frankly, I want to see different opponents and the ratio of 6 divisional, 6 conference and 4 inter-conference is a really good mix. An expansion by 8 teams would lead to 8 divisional, 4 conference and 4 interconference with a major problem. Teams would only be playing 4 or the 5 teams of a particular conference/interconference. There could be 20-30 years between 2 teams playing each other pending the final schedule format. If you want to avoid long periods of teams never playing each other, the NFL mus expand it's season to 18 games so that you would see all 5 teams from a conference or inter-conference division on a regular basis. I'm not too keen on 18 games, personally. To me a 16 game season just feels right.
You can't really shrink the number of divisions without modifying the schedule from it's current format. If you reduce the divisions to 3 per conference you then have 5 teams per division with two divisions having 6 teams. At that point you need to get 4 more NFL teams to properly expand the league to 6 divisions of 6 teams. In a 16 game schedule you now have 10 games devoted to divisional play and 6 devoted to conference/interconference play and 2 extra games (18 game schedule) really does nothing for schedule diversity. There will be stretches where teams won't see each other for 20-30 years or more. In order to correct that problem, the NFL would need to abandon it's requirement that divisional opponents get both home/away games for all divisional opponents. When you change that dynamic, you also affect the formula for determining division champions, as all divisional teams play similarly matched schedules under the current format.
-
LA has had many football teams and lost them due to poor support from area fans, why should they get another team?
I think Alabama should be the first to get a shot at another expansion franchise. You see the support Auburn and Alabama get every saturday, they love their football in Bama. They will show up on Sunday's I'd guarantee it. When I think football states, top 5 I'd say Cali, Texas, Florida, Ohio, Bama. Each of them have atleast 2 NFL teams except Bama. I'd give them a shot before going to LA again.
1st Ezekiel Ansah, DE, BYU 3rd Darius Slay, CB, Mississippi State4th Landry Jones, QB, Oklahoma5th Earl Wolff, S, N.C. State6th Lucas Reed, TE, New Mexico -
Just say no to NFL expansion, 32 teams are plenty. Other combinations upset the nice schedule balance the NFL now employs. A proper expansion requires at least 4 or 8 more teams, and probably 1-2 more NFL game weeks a year to do it right. Further, the current talent pool of players won't support 4-8 more teams.
Under current NFL scheduling, all divisional teams play each other once at home and once away. That's 6 of the 16 games devoted to divisional play. If you increase a division by one team you get 8 of 16 games being divisional play. Frankly, I want to see different opponents and the ratio of 6 divisional, 6 conference and 4 inter-conference is a really good mix. An expansion by 8 teams would lead to 8 divisional, 4 conference and 4 interconference with a major problem. Teams would only be playing 4 or the 5 teams of a particular conference/interconference. There could be 20-30 years between 2 teams playing each other pending the final schedule format. If you want to avoid long periods of teams never playing each other, the NFL mus expand it's season to 18 games so that you would see all 5 teams from a conference or inter-conference division on a regular basis. I'm not too keen on 18 games, personally. To me a 16 game season just feels right.
You can't really shrink the number of divisions without modifying the schedule from it's current format. If you reduce the divisions to 3 per conference you then have 5 teams per division with two divisions having 6 teams. At that point you need to get 4 more NFL teams to properly expand the league to 6 divisions of 6 teams. In a 16 game schedule you now have 10 games devoted to divisional play and 6 devoted to conference/interconference play and 2 extra games (18 game schedule) really does nothing for schedule diversity. There will be stretches where teams won't see each other for 20-30 years or more. In order to correct that problem, the NFL would need to abandon it's requirement that divisional opponents get both home/away games for all divisional opponents. When you change that dynamic, you also affect the formula for determining division champions, as all divisional teams play similarly matched schedules under the current format.
Endymion said:
Just say no to NFL expansion, 32 teams are plenty. Other combinations upset the nice schedule balance the NFL now employs. A proper expansion requires at least 4 or 8 more teams, and probably 1-2 more NFL game weeks a year to do it right. Further, the current talent pool of players won't support 4-8 more teams.
Under current NFL scheduling, all divisional teams play each other once at home and once away. That's 6 of the 16 games devoted to divisional play. If you increase a division by one team you get 8 of 16 games being divisional play. Frankly, I want to see different opponents and the ratio of 6 divisional, 6 conference and 4 inter-conference is a really good mix. An expansion by 8 teams would lead to 8 divisional, 4 conference and 4 interconference with a major problem. Teams would only be playing 4 or the 5 teams of a particular conference/interconference. There could be 20-30 years between 2 teams playing each other pending the final schedule format. If you want to avoid long periods of teams never playing each other, the NFL mus expand it's season to 18 games so that you would see all 5 teams from a conference or inter-conference division on a regular basis. I'm not too keen on 18 games, personally. To me a 16 game season just feels right.
You can't really shrink the number of divisions without modifying the schedule from it's current format. If you reduce the divisions to 3 per conference you then have 5 teams per division with two divisions having 6 teams. At that point you need to get 4 more NFL teams to properly expand the league to 6 divisions of 6 teams. In a 16 game schedule you now have 10 games devoted to divisional play and 6 devoted to conference/interconference play and 2 extra games (18 game schedule) really does nothing for schedule diversity. There will be stretches where teams won't see each other for 20-30 years or more. In order to correct that problem, the NFL would need to abandon it's requirement that divisional opponents get both home/away games for all divisional opponents. When you change that dynamic, you also affect the formula for determining division champions, as all divisional teams play similarly matched schedules under the current format.
I basically agree with everything you say. Its just that it is fun to speculate on this sort of thing. And the other factor is that you do have these cities that have trolled trying to lure someone else's NFL team to relocate. Expansion solves that problem. It was obviously a big problem in the 90s with Charlotte, Jax, St. Louis, Baltimore, Nashville all wanting teams. The whole fucking musical chairs fiasco could have been avoided if they had just expanded to 32 teams at that time...instead of being essentially forced into it by the Cleveland and Houston situations. If they gave Baltimore and St. Louis teams in addition to Jax and Charlotte some of those issues and hard feelings would have been avoided. (no Browns move, no Rams move and a team would still be in LA, Maybe the Oilers would still be in Houston etc.).
Right now, in this economy no one but the LA area seems to be in a position to vy for a team.
But, if things pick up, maybe SA or SLC or Portland might think they should be included in the big boy league. And then what?
-
LA has had many football teams and lost them due to poor support from area fans, why should they get another team?
I think Alabama should be the first to get a shot at another expansion franchise. You see the support Auburn and Alabama get every saturday, they love their football in Bama. They will show up on Sunday's I'd guarantee it. When I think football states, top 5 I'd say Cali, Texas, Florida, Ohio, Bama. Each of them have atleast 2 NFL teams except Bama. I'd give them a shot before going to LA again.
LA has had many football teams and lost them due to poor support from area fans, why should they get another team?
LA had the Rams/Raiders and....don't forget the LA Dons that were the AAFC team that actually merged with the Rams in 1950.
But why should LA get another chance? Just look at the numbers. It is the second largest market in the USA...which means money. Duh!. And the NFL is not beyond being butthole sniffers for Hollywood stardom either.
I think Alabama should be the first to get a shot at another expansion franchise. You see the support Auburn and Alabama get every saturday, they love their football in Bama. They will show up on Sunday's I'd guarantee it. When I think football states, top 5 I'd say Cali, Texas, Florida, Ohio, Bama. Each of them have atleast 2 NFL teams except Bama. I'd give them a shot before going to LA again.
I think Alabama would be iffy. It is still a small state and Birmingham is "only" the 39th largest market. And that fervor for the college game might actually work against it.
It might be like North Carolina in basketball. The NBA put a team in college BB crazy NC, but the Hornets didn't make it there. And now the Bobcats are doing little better. maybe sometimes it is best to leave a college state to the colleges. (though I seem to recall that the Birmingham USFL team was one of the more popular teams of that league). Who knows.
-
Endymion said:
Just say no to NFL expansion, 32 teams are plenty. Other combinations upset the nice schedule balance the NFL now employs. A proper expansion requires at least 4 or 8 more teams, and probably 1-2 more NFL game weeks a year to do it right. Further, the current talent pool of players won't support 4-8 more teams.
Under current NFL scheduling, all divisional teams play each other once at home and once away. That's 6 of the 16 games devoted to divisional play. If you increase a division by one team you get 8 of 16 games being divisional play. Frankly, I want to see different opponents and the ratio of 6 divisional, 6 conference and 4 inter-conference is a really good mix. An expansion by 8 teams would lead to 8 divisional, 4 conference and 4 interconference with a major problem. Teams would only be playing 4 or the 5 teams of a particular conference/interconference. There could be 20-30 years between 2 teams playing each other pending the final schedule format. If you want to avoid long periods of teams never playing each other, the NFL mus expand it's season to 18 games so that you would see all 5 teams from a conference or inter-conference division on a regular basis. I'm not too keen on 18 games, personally. To me a 16 game season just feels right.
You can't really shrink the number of divisions without modifying the schedule from it's current format. If you reduce the divisions to 3 per conference you then have 5 teams per division with two divisions having 6 teams. At that point you need to get 4 more NFL teams to properly expand the league to 6 divisions of 6 teams. In a 16 game schedule you now have 10 games devoted to divisional play and 6 devoted to conference/interconference play and 2 extra games (18 game schedule) really does nothing for schedule diversity. There will be stretches where teams won't see each other for 20-30 years or more. In order to correct that problem, the NFL would need to abandon it's requirement that divisional opponents get both home/away games for all divisional opponents. When you change that dynamic, you also affect the formula for determining division champions, as all divisional teams play similarly matched schedules under the current format.
I basically agree with everything you say. Its just that it is fun to speculate on this sort of thing. And the other factor is that you do have these cities that have trolled trying to lure someone else's NFL team to relocate. Expansion solves that problem. It was obviously a big problem in the 90s with Charlotte, Jax, St. Louis, Baltimore, Nashville all wanting teams. The whole fucking musical chairs fiasco could have been avoided if they had just expanded to 32 teams at that time...instead of being essentially forced into it by the Cleveland and Houston situations. If they gave Baltimore and St. Louis teams in addition to Jax and Charlotte some of those issues and hard feelings would have been avoided. (no Browns move, no Rams move and a team would still be in LA, Maybe the Oilers would still be in Houston etc.).
Right now, in this economy no one but the LA area seems to be in a position to vy for a team.
But, if things pick up, maybe SA or SLC or Portland might think they should be included in the big boy league. And then what?
But, if things pick up, maybe SA or SLC or Portland might think they should be included in the big boy league. And then what?
LA is not the only city vying for an NFL team in this economy. London is as well. The NFL wants into the European market, badly. However, European teams completely screw over US teams due to the time zones.
Some teams should move. I think Jacksonville, San Diego or Oakland should go to LA, but my guess is oakland is locked into a long term stadium deal. Of those 3, San Diego is a team I hope doesn't move, because they've been a staple team of the league for so long. Jacksonville, never really had a rabid fan base.
The thing I hate the most is when NFL teams switch cities but don't change their team names. Team names should stay associated with the cities they were founded around. The Texans should be the Oilers, and the Ravens should be probably be the Colts (though I like the Ravens concept better). I hate the name Texans btw...it sounds like they asked a Canadian hockey expert what a good name for a football team should be. Additionally, the Rams, Cardinals, and Colts should have different names.
Even though the Cardinals were originally a Chicago team, I like the idea of St. Louis' team being called the Cardinals. The Colts have been in Indy so long I'm kinda used to that name now (and I like the Ravens better for Baltimore). But the Arizona Cardinals really need a new name, Cardinals just don't fit a desert city. Personally, I think Scorpions would be a great name for Arizona's team. Even still Rams are more indicative of Arizona...maybe they should switch with St. Louis.
-
But, if things pick up, maybe SA or SLC or Portland might think they should be included in the big boy league. And then what?
LA is not the only city vying for an NFL team in this economy. London is as well. The NFL wants into the European market, badly. However, European teams completely screw over US teams due to the time zones.
Some teams should move. I think Jacksonville, San Diego or Oakland should go to LA, but my guess is oakland is locked into a long term stadium deal. Of those 3, San Diego is a team I hope doesn't move, because they've been a staple team of the league for so long. Jacksonville, never really had a rabid fan base.
The thing I hate the most is when NFL teams switch cities but don't change their team names. Team names should stay associated with the cities they were founded around. The Texans should be the Oilers, and the Ravens should be probably be the Colts (though I like the Ravens concept better). I hate the name Texans btw...it sounds like they asked a Canadian hockey expert what a good name for a football team should be. Additionally, the Rams, Cardinals, and Colts should have different names.
Even though the Cardinals were originally a Chicago team, I like the idea of St. Louis' team being called the Cardinals. The Colts have been in Indy so long I'm kinda used to that name now (and I like the Ravens better for Baltimore). But the Arizona Cardinals really need a new name, Cardinals just don't fit a desert city. Personally, I think Scorpions would be a great name for Arizona's team. Even still Rams are more indicative of Arizona...maybe they should switch with St. Louis.
Endymion said:
LA is not the only city vying for an NFL team in this economy. London is as well. The NFL wants into the European market, badly. However, European teams completely screw over US teams due to the time zones.
I defintely agree that it is a dumbass idea to try to go into Europe. Fuck Europe.
Some teams should move. I think Jacksonville, San Diego or Oakland should go to LA, but my guess is oakland is locked into a long term stadium deal. Of those 3, San Diego is a team I hope doesn't move, because they've been a staple team of the league for so long. Jacksonville, never really had a rabid fan base.
The thing I hate the most is when NFL teams switch cities but don't change their team names. Team names should stay associated with the cities they were founded around. The Texans should be the Oilers, and the Ravens should be probably be the Colts (though I like the Ravens concept better). I hate the name Texans btw...it sounds like they asked a Canadian hockey expert what a good name for a football team should be. Additionally, the Rams, Cardinals, and Colts should have different names.
Have you not heard the Texans often referred to here as the DumbAssTexans or the DATs. That primarily comes from the unimaginitive name give to that team.
Even though the Cardinals were originally a Chicago team, I like the idea of St. Louis' team being called the Cardinals. The Colts have been in Indy so long I'm kinda used to that name now (and I like the Ravens better for Baltimore). But the Arizona Cardinals really need a new name, Cardinals just don't fit a desert city. Personally, I think Scorpions would be a great name for Arizona's team. Even still Rams are more indicative of Arizona...maybe they should switch with St. Louis.
Well, the Rams were originally from Cleveland you know. You mean you have never come to Northeast Ohio to go Ram hunting?
-
Setting aside LA (which is a weird duck), the only market close to a sure thing on that list is San Antonio, because:
1. They have demonstrated that they will support a pro franchise;
2. They have a top notch facility ready to go;
3. They would certainly draw from "nearby" Austin; and
4. Texas is football crazy. A suburban Dallas high school spent $60 million on a 18,000 seat stadium (Progressive Field cost $169 million to build).
FYI, roach, I mentioned that my brother in law resides in SA. In fact, his office practically sits in the shadow of the Alamodome.
He says that in fact it is not quite a top notch facility for an NFL team. Its capacity may not be quite to what the NFL requires, plus the amenities are not as complete as they should be. He felt it would need some massive renovations to be acceptable.
He even said that if the NFL were to come there it would require a whole new facility.
I guess I have to take his word for it. Like I said, he stares at it right outside his office window.
FYI, roach, I mentioned that my brother in law resides in SA. In fact, his office practically sits in the shadow of the Alamodome.
He says that in fact it is not quite a top notch facility for an NFL team. Its capacity may not be quite to what the NFL requires, plus the amenities are not as complete as they should be. He felt it would need some massive renovations to be acceptable.
He even said that if the NFL were to come there it would require a whole new facility.
I guess I have to take his word for it. Like I said, he stares at it right outside his office window.
i've been to the Alamodome a couple of times, but really didn't pay attention to whether it had suites. So your brother-in-law would know more about that than me. Our company has sales offices in San Antonio and Austin. The guys that i talk to aren't as rabid about the Cowboys as most people would think.
-
Gipper Wrote:
Well, the Rams were originally from Cleveland you know. You mean you have never come to Northeast Ohio to go Ram hunting?
Yeah, I know they where from Cleveland back at the dawn of football. I think Cleveland has a better team name now. Usually after I'm done high-jacking the barges with my eye patch and peg leg on the Allegheny, Mon and Ohio rivers I love to head up to the Cleveland area and hunt some for some RAM-burger.
-
I'd like to see 50 teams. One per state, no more, no less. Who do the people in Montana, the Dakota's, Idaho etc root for? It doesn't seem fair to me that Florida has three teams, two of which are poorly supported and Oregon has zero.
Early man walked away as modern man took control. Their minds weren't all the same and to conquer was their goal. So He built his great empires and he slaughtered his own kind, and he died a confused man and killed himself in his own mind... -
I'd like to see 50 teams. One per state, no more, no less. Who do the people in Montana, the Dakota's, Idaho etc root for? It doesn't seem fair to me that Florida has three teams, two of which are poorly supported and Oregon has zero.
I'd like to see 50 teams. One per state, no more, no less. Who do the people in Montana, the Dakota's, Idaho etc root for? It doesn't seem fair to me that Florida has three teams, two of which are poorly supported and Oregon has zero.
Florida has five times the population of Oregon and Portland is closer to Seattle than Jax, Tampa and Miami are to each other.
Idaho versus South Dakota ... that'll fill some 80,000 seats.
Zombo
-
I foresee Toronto and London before any other city in the US other than LA.
San Antonio and Oklahoma City would be the other two options I think would hold weight (regardless of market size) because of the fact that they support a large region around them that doesn't already route for a specific team (Dallas/Houston/Denver/Kansas City). And they actually did a very good job of helping out the Saints when the Super Dome was under water.
Anything in New York or New England already routes for one of the two NYC teams or Buffalo, or the Patriots. Florida already has 3 teams, and doesn't need another (one of those existing cities already has trouble supporting a team, what makes you think another city in Florida could? Maybe if Jacksonville went away).
-
London? London??? Hell no.
If the NFL were to venture outside of the USA I think it'd go to Mexico City, they hold the record for highest attendance at a regular season game at 103,000 and pre-season 112,000.
Seems that all the future games are planned for Wembley Stadium in London, guess they're not too fond of Mexico, either way fuck London and fuck Mexico too.
Hello! It looks like you're interested in this conversation, but you don't have an account yet.
Getting fed up of having to scroll through the same posts each visit? When you register for an account, you'll always come back to exactly where you were before, and choose to be notified of new replies (either via email, or push notification). You'll also be able to save bookmarks and upvote posts to show your appreciation to other community members.
With your input, this post could be even better 💗
Register Login