Ripe For Expansion?
-
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.
-
Then it would have to be the INFL
-
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
Zombo said:
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
Who cares? Is it closer than Cleveland to Pittsburgh? Maybe Oregon doesn't want to root for Washington any more than I want to root for Pennsylvania
-
Zombo said:
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
Who cares? Is it closer than Cleveland to Pittsburgh? Maybe Oregon doesn't want to root for Washington any more than I want to root for Pennsylvania
Who cares? Is it closer than Cleveland to Pittsburgh? Maybe Oregon doesn't want to root for Washington any more than I want to root for Pennsylvania
The point is market size. There are 20 million people in Florida to support those three teams. There are 12 million people in Ohio, and 13 million in Pennsylvania, to support two teams apiece.
Washington + Oregon + Montana + Alaska + Idaho = less than any of those states, that is why there is only one NFL team in that market.
That's why there is college football ... for Nebraska, Washington, Oregon, Bosie St., etc. ... they can choose one of the 32 existing teams to root for in the NFL. Giving teams to North Dakota, Idaho and Alaska etc. is beyond ludicrous.
Zombo
-
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.
That is why they have D I-AA football. Or FCS or whatever they call it now.
-
Who cares? Is it closer than Cleveland to Pittsburgh? Maybe Oregon doesn't want to root for Washington any more than I want to root for Pennsylvania
The point is market size. There are 20 million people in Florida to support those three teams. There are 12 million people in Ohio, and 13 million in Pennsylvania, to support two teams apiece.
Washington + Oregon + Montana + Alaska + Idaho = less than any of those states, that is why there is only one NFL team in that market.
That's why there is college football ... for Nebraska, Washington, Oregon, Bosie St., etc. ... they can choose one of the 32 existing teams to root for in the NFL. Giving teams to North Dakota, Idaho and Alaska etc. is beyond ludicrous.
Zombo
Zombo said:
The point is market size. There are 20 million people in Florida to support those three teams. There are 12 million people in Ohio, and 13 million in Pennsylvania, to support two teams apiece.
Washington + Oregon + Montana + Alaska + Idaho = less than any of those states, that is why there is only one NFL team in that market.
That's why there is college football ... for Nebraska, Washington, Oregon, Bosie St., etc. ... they can choose one of the 32 existing teams to root for in the NFL. Giving teams to North Dakota, Idaho and Alaska etc. is beyond ludicrous.
Zombo
Well, see my earlier post. Portland is one of the 4-5 markets that I could see as viable along with SA/SLC/Norfolk-Va. Beach.
Portland had some success with the Breakers of the USFL.
-
Los Angeles - had 2 teams and lost them both. They may have population but they don't have the fan support. There are far too many other options/choices of things to do than support pro-sports teams. The NFL has continued to get profitable w/o a single team in the NFL. It's not like the games are not on TV in the market. So the NFL is still getting TV revenue in LA. They'll put a team here again, but it won't stick or it will end up the Chargers moving north.
Orlando - They can barely get people to attend basketball games. It's not a pro-sports market. Frankly all of FLA isn't. See Jacksonville and Miami for how well they support their football teams.
Sacramento - Can barely keep their basketball team.
Portland - Another city that can barely keep their basketball team.
Population alone does not necessarily equal fans in the seats and money in the pockets.
-
Who cares? Is it closer than Cleveland to Pittsburgh? Maybe Oregon doesn't want to root for Washington any more than I want to root for Pennsylvania
The point is market size. There are 20 million people in Florida to support those three teams. There are 12 million people in Ohio, and 13 million in Pennsylvania, to support two teams apiece.
Washington + Oregon + Montana + Alaska + Idaho = less than any of those states, that is why there is only one NFL team in that market.
That's why there is college football ... for Nebraska, Washington, Oregon, Bosie St., etc. ... they can choose one of the 32 existing teams to root for in the NFL. Giving teams to North Dakota, Idaho and Alaska etc. is beyond ludicrous.
Zombo
Zombo said:
The point is market size. There are 20 million people in Florida to support those three teams. There are 12 million people in Ohio, and 13 million in Pennsylvania, to support two teams apiece.
Washington + Oregon + Montana + Alaska + Idaho = less than any of those states, that is why there is only one NFL team in that market.
That's why there is college football ... for Nebraska, Washington, Oregon, Bosie St., etc. ... they can choose one of the 32 existing teams to root for in the NFL. Giving teams to North Dakota, Idaho and Alaska etc. is beyond ludicrous.
Zombo
Yes. Buffalo and jacksonville make more sense. A lot more.
-
Zombo said:
The point is market size. There are 20 million people in Florida to support those three teams. There are 12 million people in Ohio, and 13 million in Pennsylvania, to support two teams apiece.
Washington + Oregon + Montana + Alaska + Idaho = less than any of those states, that is why there is only one NFL team in that market.
That's why there is college football ... for Nebraska, Washington, Oregon, Bosie St., etc. ... they can choose one of the 32 existing teams to root for in the NFL. Giving teams to North Dakota, Idaho and Alaska etc. is beyond ludicrous.
Zombo
Well, see my earlier post. Portland is one of the 4-5 markets that I could see as viable along with SA/SLC/Norfolk-Va. Beach.
Portland had some success with the Breakers of the USFL.
Well, see my earlier post. Portland is one of the 4-5 markets that I could see as viable along with SA/SLC/Norfolk-Va. Beach.
Portland had some success with the Breakers of the USFL.
See my earlier post, Portland is a three hour drive from Seattle and there's really not enough of a market in the Pac NW to support two NFL teams.
It's a great basketball town because it only takes 20,000 to fill the arena and there is no longer a team in Seattle. But I really don't see the merits of the NFL expanding there.
BTW, the Breakers had one season in Portland, they averaged 19,000 per game and went 6-12 ... not sure which part qualifies as "some success"
Zombo
-
Zombo said:
The point is market size. There are 20 million people in Florida to support those three teams. There are 12 million people in Ohio, and 13 million in Pennsylvania, to support two teams apiece.
Washington + Oregon + Montana + Alaska + Idaho = less than any of those states, that is why there is only one NFL team in that market.
That's why there is college football ... for Nebraska, Washington, Oregon, Bosie St., etc. ... they can choose one of the 32 existing teams to root for in the NFL. Giving teams to North Dakota, Idaho and Alaska etc. is beyond ludicrous.
Zombo
Yes. Buffalo and jacksonville make more sense. A lot more.
Yes. Buffalo and jacksonville make more sense. A lot more.
Buffalo metro area population is 1.135M, but it is within 100 of miles of both Rochester NY and Toronto, ON ... which is a huge market.
Jacksonville has 1.3M and many highly populated surrounding areas as well.
You want to put teams in North Dakota, South Dakota, Montana, Vermont, etc ... none of which have a Million people in the entire state let alone the population centers.
It's insane. Those states can't support an enclosed D-1 football stadium let alone the fucking NFL. You are insane.
Zombo
-
Well, see my earlier post. Portland is one of the 4-5 markets that I could see as viable along with SA/SLC/Norfolk-Va. Beach.
Portland had some success with the Breakers of the USFL.
See my earlier post, Portland is a three hour drive from Seattle and there's really not enough of a market in the Pac NW to support two NFL teams.
It's a great basketball town because it only takes 20,000 to fill the arena and there is no longer a team in Seattle. But I really don't see the merits of the NFL expanding there.
BTW, the Breakers had one season in Portland, they averaged 19,000 per game and went 6-12 ... not sure which part qualifies as "some success"
Zombo
Zombo said:
See my earlier post, Portland is a three hour drive from Seattle and there's really not enough of a market in the Pac NW to support two NFL teams.
It's a great basketball town because it only takes 20,000 to fill the arena and there is no longer a team in Seattle. But I really don't see the merits of the NFL expanding there.
BTW, the Breakers had one season in Portland, they averaged 19,000 per game and went 6-12 ... not sure which part qualifies as "some success"
Zombo
They had a team. That is "some" success.
My point about Portland is pretty simple...it is a large enough market on its own. By that I mean it is larger than several current NFL markets. And at 175-200 miles away from Seattle it could be seen as its own viable/separate market. I mean Pittsburgh, Buffalo, Detroit and Cincy are all about the same distance from Cleveland as Portland is from Seattle....so the distance isn't the issue.
Whether or not they WOULD support it is something else. Maybe you are right, maybe they wouldn't. But it is not because they are not big enough per se, or too close to another NFL market per se.
No, the bigger issue IS owner attitude. Paul Allen owns the Seahawks. He also owns the Portland Trailblazers. And at this point Seattle has no NBA team. So, I think that Allen may want to corner those two markets for his teams...and not allow an NFL team into Portland or an NBA team back into Seattle.
-
Zombo said:
See my earlier post, Portland is a three hour drive from Seattle and there's really not enough of a market in the Pac NW to support two NFL teams.
It's a great basketball town because it only takes 20,000 to fill the arena and there is no longer a team in Seattle. But I really don't see the merits of the NFL expanding there.
BTW, the Breakers had one season in Portland, they averaged 19,000 per game and went 6-12 ... not sure which part qualifies as "some success"
Zombo
They had a team. That is "some" success.
My point about Portland is pretty simple...it is a large enough market on its own. By that I mean it is larger than several current NFL markets. And at 175-200 miles away from Seattle it could be seen as its own viable/separate market. I mean Pittsburgh, Buffalo, Detroit and Cincy are all about the same distance from Cleveland as Portland is from Seattle....so the distance isn't the issue.
Whether or not they WOULD support it is something else. Maybe you are right, maybe they wouldn't. But it is not because they are not big enough per se, or too close to another NFL market per se.
No, the bigger issue IS owner attitude. Paul Allen owns the Seahawks. He also owns the Portland Trailblazers. And at this point Seattle has no NBA team. So, I think that Allen may want to corner those two markets for his teams...and not allow an NFL team into Portland or an NBA team back into Seattle.
They had a team. That is "some" success.
My point about Portland is pretty simple...it is a large enough market on its own. By that I mean it is larger than several current NFL markets. And at 175-200 miles away from Seattle it could be seen as its own viable/separate market. I mean Pittsburgh, Buffalo, Detroit and Cincy are all about the same distance from Cleveland as Portland is from Seattle....so the distance isn't the issue.
I see what you are saying, but if you look at a population desity map of the US there are a whole of people in between ciites like Cleveland, Pittsburgh, Buffalo, Detroit, Cincy, etc. Foks from cities like Youngstown, Toledo, Erie, Rochester, Lexington, Grand Rapids, etc ... they will drive a couple hours to support their teams. Outside of Portland and Seattle, the Pacific Northwest is very spread out and very rural. I just think NFL would never decide to have two teams in the Pacific Northwest. There is not enough outlying areas to draw on to support a second team in the region when one has built fan loyalty for 35 years.
Zombo
-
Boy it would suck to live in the pacific northwest then where your only choice is the abominably named colored and logo'd seahawks.
-
They had a team. That is "some" success.
My point about Portland is pretty simple...it is a large enough market on its own. By that I mean it is larger than several current NFL markets. And at 175-200 miles away from Seattle it could be seen as its own viable/separate market. I mean Pittsburgh, Buffalo, Detroit and Cincy are all about the same distance from Cleveland as Portland is from Seattle....so the distance isn't the issue.
I see what you are saying, but if you look at a population desity map of the US there are a whole of people in between ciites like Cleveland, Pittsburgh, Buffalo, Detroit, Cincy, etc. Foks from cities like Youngstown, Toledo, Erie, Rochester, Lexington, Grand Rapids, etc ... they will drive a couple hours to support their teams. Outside of Portland and Seattle, the Pacific Northwest is very spread out and very rural. I just think NFL would never decide to have two teams in the Pacific Northwest. There is not enough outlying areas to draw on to support a second team in the region when one has built fan loyalty for 35 years.
Zombo
Zombo said:
[/color]
I see what you are saying, but if you look at a population desity map of the US there are a whole of people in between ciites like Cleveland, Pittsburgh, Buffalo, Detroit, Cincy, etc. Foks from cities like Youngstown, Toledo, Erie, Rochester, Lexington, Grand Rapids, etc ... they will drive a couple hours to support their teams. Outside of Portland and Seattle, the Pacific Northwest is very spread out and very rural. I just think NFL would never decide to have two teams in the Pacific Northwest. There is not enough outlying areas to draw on to support a second team in the region when one has built fan loyalty for 35 years.
Zombo
What? You got no love for Salem and Eugene? Both are over 150K in population.
-
Besides LA, which has proven it won't support an NFL team, Orlando and Sacramento are only about an hour's drive from Tampa and Oakland respectively.
Putting an NFL team in Jacksonville was a huge mistake in my book. Sooner or later, the team will move.
Columbus is Ohio State, and if you want Pro ball, the drive to Cleveland or Cinci isn't too hateful.
Besides LA, which has proven it won't support an NFL team, Orlando and Sacramento are only about an hour's drive from Tampa and Oakland respectively.
Putting an NFL team in Jacksonville was a huge mistake in my book. Sooner or later, the team will move.
Columbus is Ohio State, and if you want Pro ball, the drive to Cleveland or Cinci isn't too hateful.
Im born and raised in Columbus. My Mom is originally from Cleveland and my Dad is a hillbilly from W.V. They've both been Browns fans as far back as i can remember. I was raised a Browns fan in the 80s and have been hooked since. As a Columbus native i dont want an NFL team here. The only way id get behind that is if, god forbid, something was to happen to the Browns again and i dont see that going down thank god. Columbus is ruled by OSU and i dont think an NFL team could really compete against OSU football here. You can see it with the Blue Jackets, if a person has a choice to either go see a CBJ game or a OSU football game its really a no-brainer unless your a hardcore hockey nut. Honestly i dont see how the CBJ's lasted this long cause C-BUS isn't a hockey town. But IMO, if there was a NBA team that wanted to come to Columbus I would support that and i think they'd fair better than the CBJ's.
Also I dont have any problems whatsoever making the 3 hour drive to see my Browns play. Its actually a journey that ive come to love quite a bit.
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