@junkyard-dawg said:

I was looking at the pure geography. Certainly the Cardinals have done almost nothing to attract a regional following in the West outside Arizona. Though, if the Broncos and Cowboys had not had a long run of success how big would their following be there? Those folks there jumped on those bandwagons, why not the 49ers? If the Cards were to lay out a couple of Super Bowl wins the way the Cowboys/49ers/Broncos have, I suspect there would be some wagon jumping to rival the Mountain Meadow Massacre.

@howiedawg said:

Certainly friends here in the UK are always surprised to learn that the NFL only has 32 teams for a land mass the size of the US. So perhaps could the NFL consider expanding the league for a second tier division with promotion and relegation consequences.

At the end of the season, say the bottom two teams in the "premier" NFL division are relegated to the second tier division and the top two teams from the second tier division get promoted to the NFL elite. I can assure you of one thing, the relegation battle games are as fierce as anything you'll ever see. Problem with this idea is that it would have meant Cleveland getting demoted in recent years!

It would however preserve the current set up but introduce a must win philosophy for all teams.

One thing I agree with Ballpeen on is dump NFL Europe - it will never gain critical mass over here and hence always be a distraction and pale imitation of the real thing.

Its a money thing Howie. The NFL has a monopoly and they want to control all the billions in revenue that come with "major league football". They do NOT want to divvy up the pot of gold into any more shares than they have to.

While there are numerous what we call semi-pro leagues in this country, they have no affiliation with the NFL. There is no true "AAA" league in football (that is a reference to the highest baseball minor league level. AAA, AA, A leagues do in fact have affiliations with Major League Baseball teams, but the NFL has no such system. Also, there is no "tiering system" in any North American major sports league as they have in Europe. If you have a bad team, then they are just a bad team. If the Detroit Lions are to go 0-16, then so be it. They don't get relegated). The UFL at this point may be attempting to become a legitimate "minor league" with NFL affiliation.

I do kind of like that concept of tiering: Under that system, the Rams and the Lions who had the worst two records in the league would have been "relegated" and replaced by the Las Vegas Locomotives or the California Redwoods or some such.

I wonder how others would like such a system?.

Certainly friends here in the UK are always surprised to learn that the NFL only has 32 teams for a land mass the size of the US. So perhaps could the NFL consider expanding the league for a second tier division with promotion and relegation consequences.

At the end of the season, say the bottom two teams in the "premier" NFL division are relegated to the second tier division and the top two teams from the second tier division get promoted to the NFL elite. I can assure you of one thing, the relegation battle games are as fierce as anything you'll ever see. Problem with this idea is that it would have meant Cleveland getting demoted in recent years!

It would however preserve the current set up but introduce a must win philosophy for all teams.

One thing I agree with Ballpeen on is dump NFL Europe - it will never gain critical mass over here and hence always be a distraction and pale imitation of the real thing.

@ballpeen said:

I agree, there are several cities/metro areas that could/would support a NFL team.

How about this as an idea....the league has talked about extending the regular season to 18 games. How about doing so but rather than have the teams play one of those games on their field, take it to a fairly neutral but friendly site??

Take the Browns as an example...remember, we are just tossing around ideas here...

Let's say in the new 18 game season we picked up Chiefs as an away game and the Jags as a home game.

For the home game against the the Jags we played the game in Columbus.

For the away game against the Chiefs we played in say Oklahoma City or Norman?

Both sites would provide at least some semblance of a home field yet it would spread the NFL experience to places which normally don't get the experience.

Maybe even do this as a precursor to expansion for a few years in order to see who supports a team and who doesn't....who wants it the most so to speak.

Again, just thinking out loud.

I like the idea, but I think it would be better if you could put teams on a neutral field that is either equidistant from both cities or that is in an area that is kind of in a tug of war with allegiances to both cities.

The obvious example would be to put a Browns/Bengals game in Columbus.

But assuming that each team does not want to give up a home game against a division opponent, you could arrange these as interconference games.

Best example I can think of would be playing a Dallas Cowboys/Houston Texans game in San Antonio.

A Jags/Bucs game in Orlando?

Seahawks/Raiders in Portland?

Chargers/49ers in Vegas?

Titans/Rams in Memphis?

Broncos/Cardinals in Salt Lake?

Any others you can think of?

I agree, there are several cities/metro areas that could/would support a NFL team.

How about this as an idea....the league has talked about extending the regular season to 18 games. How about doing so but rather than have the teams play one of those games on their field, take it to a fairly neutral but friendly site??

Take the Browns as an example...remember, we are just tossing around ideas here...

Let's say in the new 18 game season we picked up Chiefs as an away game and the Jags as a home game.

For the home game against the the Jags we played the game in Columbus.

For the away game against the Chiefs we played in say Oklahoma City or Norman?

Both sites would provide at least some semblance of a home field yet it would spread the NFL experience to places which normally don't get the experience.

Maybe even do this as a precursor to expansion for a few years in order to see who supports a team and who doesn't....who wants it the most so to speak.

Again, just thinking out loud.

@erie-dawg said:

I don't ever forsee a merger especialy when guys like this are just waiting for a green light for a franchise to move to L.A.

Majestic has targeted seven NFL teams that it plans to approach after the Super Bowl in February about moving to the Los Angeles area: the Buffalo Bills, Jacksonville Jaguars, Minnesota Vikings, St. Louis Rams, San Diego Chargers, Oakland Raiders and San Francisco 49ers.

The firm has said the teams are in stadiums that are either too small or can't be updated with luxury box seats or other revenue sources an NFL club needs to thrive.

Roski said he's prepared to break ground as soon as a team is locked in and that he's confident that he can raise the $800 million needed for the stadium despite tight credit markets.

"We don't feel at this time that it's going to be a challenge," he said

http://www.nfl.com/news/story?id=09000d5d8...mp;confirm=true

You are presuming that a merger could never occur unless the UFL would put a team in LA?

I am not saying that. I am saying it would be a big bonus for any UFL plans to attempt a merger in the future to have a team in LA, but it is not essential. (And, in reality the LA area is plenty big enough to support two major league football franchise, with 17 million people there).

I am saying the UFL is positioning itself in all the largest markets except LA.

If one of those teams you list were to move to LA, I think you would have not only the UFL wanting to immediately jump into the abandoned market, but you would have the other 6 teams threatenting to move into the abandoned market to in attempts to extort stadium improvements out of their current cities. Just like we had 15 years ago with the Irsay and Modell and Frontiere and Bidwill moves.

I don't think the NFL would want the same kind of instability. Look at the black eye they suffered from the Browns situation.

If Minnesota moved to LA, you would have 2-3 other teams threaten to move from their town to the Twin Cities, etc.

The only possible exception is Jacksonville. It is such a small market that it would be unlikely that other teams would likely move there.

I don't ever forsee a merger especialy when guys like this are just waiting for a green light for a franchise to move to L.A.

Majestic has targeted seven NFL teams that it plans to approach after the Super Bowl in February about moving to the Los Angeles area: the Buffalo Bills, Jacksonville Jaguars, Minnesota Vikings, St. Louis Rams, San Diego Chargers, Oakland Raiders and San Francisco 49ers.

The firm has said the teams are in stadiums that are either too small or can't be updated with luxury box seats or other revenue sources an NFL club needs to thrive.

Roski said he's prepared to break ground as soon as a team is locked in and that he's confident that he can raise the $800 million needed for the stadium despite tight credit markets.

"We don't feel at this time that it's going to be a challenge," he said

http://www.nfl.com/news/story?id=09000d5d8...mp;confirm=true

@tampadawgs said:

Would you rather we blather on incessantly about the Browns QB situation?

@ballpeen said:

Your numbers don't mean anything other than populations shift and we have more people in the country. So what?

Should baseball make every team in the minor league system big league clubs?? They draw fans. Many of them large numbers of fans.

Here is the only thing that will drive a merger. If these teams can manage to sign a Suh or Berry, and continue in that way for a number of years, then it might happen. Other than that, the best I see is possibly 1-2 of them rise as the cream and possibly become absorbed in to the NFL.

Right now the best players on those rosters are probably as good as the bottom 5 guys on a NFL roster. Hank Poteat is a star in that league.

As I said earlier, I could see it more as a minor league system of sorts. It isn't so much to compete with the NFL. It is to augment the growing public's appetite to watch some football.

The fight they face is most people will still follow their college team more closely. Fledgling leagues in football and basketball have that fight where local teams in other sports seem to do pretty well.....minor league baseball or all the various hockey leagues. Football also has the problem with the number of games that can be played. It's hard to play enough games to draw enough fans to be able to pay players any kind of money.

To me they are like a semi-pro team filled with guys who drive a beer truck during the day and get together on Wednesday nights to play some ball. Just pass the can for donations and toss each player ten or twenty bucks. Maybe a couple get a little more.

I am sure they are hoping to compete with the NFL, so in that respect, you are correct, the UFL does want to jockey for position. Though they have a tough fight.

Let's see where it goes 5-10 years from now.

I don't think we are necessarily disagreeing with each other, unless you are professing that Las Vegas, Portland, San Antonio, Salt Lake, etc. are not capable of supporting an NFL franchise. I think they are. I think the U.S. is capable of supporting a 36 team major football league. Whether we should is another matter. I think the 32 team setup works quite nicely actually. All I am saying is that the UFL seems to be following a pattern laid down 50 years ago by the AFL, going into the larger non-NFL cities, even abandoning NFL cities for other smaller, perhaps more receptive markets.

I think a lot of people thought that the AFL was a beer truck driver league back in 1960, but they changed there mind by 1966-1968, didn't they. I only bring up the possibility that by 2018, you might have a similar situation.

Your numbers don't mean anything other than populations shift and we have more people in the country. So what?

Should baseball make every team in the minor league system big league clubs?? They draw fans. Many of them large numbers of fans.

Here is the only thing that will drive a merger. If these teams can manage to sign a Suh or Berry, and continue in that way for a number of years, then it might happen. Other than that, the best I see is possibly 1-2 of them rise as the cream and possibly become absorbed in to the NFL.

Right now the best players on those rosters are probably as good as the bottom 5 guys on a NFL roster. Hank Poteat is a star in that league.

As I said earlier, I could see it more as a minor league system of sorts. It isn't so much to compete with the NFL. It is to augment the growing public's appetite to watch some football.

The fight they face is most people will still follow their college team more closely. Fledgling leagues in football and basketball have that fight where local teams in other sports seem to do pretty well.....minor league baseball or all the various hockey leagues. Football also has the problem with the number of games that can be played. It's hard to play enough games to draw enough fans to be able to pay players any kind of money.

To me they are like a semi-pro team filled with guys who drive a beer truck during the day and get together on Wednesday nights to play some ball. Just pass the can for donations and toss each player ten or twenty bucks. Maybe a couple get a little more.

I am sure they are hoping to compete with the NFL, so in that respect, you are correct, the UFL does want to jockey for position. Though they have a tough fight.

Let's see where it goes 5-10 years from now.

@thaak said:

1) They originally had teams in a couple NFL markets (Tampa (st. Petersburg) I think and NY City) and moved those teams. The NY team went to Hartford, and the Tampa team (which played half its games in Orlando anyways) moved to Orlando.

2) It only makes sense that if they aren’t going to choose NFL markets, that they would choose the next juiciest targets.

3) Right now, the UFL lost $30million the first year, they are expecting to lose about $25million in 2010. Until they actually start operating at a profit, don’t expect the NFL to take them seriously.

Well, locating in the largest non-NFL markets is exactly what I said was the model they are following from the AFL. The AFL ended up moving out of NFL markets as well. The Dallas Texans decided not to compete with the Dallas Cowboys thus they moved to KC and became the chiefs. The Chargers decided to move from Los Angeles to San Diego. Moving from larger to smaller markets with no competition helped those teams. It could help the Orlando and Hartford teams as well.

Also, the NFL wouldn't take the UFL seriously even if they did make a profit. If the UFL had moved into LA to try to scarf up that market that could have been a smoke signal that the UFL may want to try to compete. Right now, the UFL wants to send out all friendly smoke signals, that they are just a minor league, that they don't want to infringe in NFL territory, etc. Like I said, if in 2-3 years they start going after honest to goodness NFL players, then there may be some competition.

@brownindian said:

Why? My name is not Roxanne, and I doubt that you intend to make an honest woman of me!

1) They originally had teams in a couple NFL markets (Tampa (st. Petersburg) I think and NY City) and moved those teams. The NY team went to Hartford, and the Tampa team (which played half its games in Orlando anyways) moved to Orlando.

2) It only makes sense that if they aren’t going to choose NFL markets, that they would choose the next juiciest targets.

3) Right now, the UFL lost $30million the first year, they are expecting to lose about $25million in 2010. Until they actually start operating at a profit, don’t expect the NFL to take them seriously.

@the-gipper said:

I don't know what the roster sizes were then, I believe they were about 35 or 38 players. Lets say they were 38. That would be 21 teams at 38 players per team or 798 NFL players, or one NFL/AFL player per every 224,310 Americans.

So, maybe there is a little dilution when you look at those raw numbers.

But as I said, we are getting some players from overseas. And, I disagree about your point that because Americans are fatter and lazier that means there are fewer elite athletes in the country. I think that both extremes are true. There are more elite athletes, as well as more fat lazy people.

Bottom line on this is that I believe that a fan base of about 3 million people can support an NFL team such that their owners and players would be wealthy beyond the dreams of avarice. The Raiders just gave a kicker a 16 million dollar contract.

The average US household income is something like $50,000 per year. The average NFL salary is about 1.5 million. Is it really too difficult to ask these guys to survive on only 30 or so times the money the average American makes?

I wager that if the league were to expand by those 4 teams, the Las Vegas Locomotives, the San Antonio Tonys, the California Redwoods, the Salt Lake Salt Lickers or whatever, they could do just fine monetarily.

After all, aren't we trying to create jobs in this country? Put an NFL team in 4 more cities and I bet we could produce about 500 very well paying jobs in this country, with players, coaches, trainers, front office people, etc.

TURN OFF THAT RED LIGHT !

@ballpeen said:

It's not like comparing 1 doctor for every X thousand people.

Plus, the population is far fatter and lazier then they were in 1960, so it might be fair to say there are fewer people as a percentage who are fit enough to play the game at a high level.

The population is germane because you stated that the NFL is currently diluted in talent. Yea, if the population today were still 179 million and there were 32 teams compared to 21 teams for a 179 million population base, sure, that would be dilution. But 32 teams is not dilution. I know that today there are 32 teams with 53 man rosters. That represents 1696 NFL players for a 310 million population or one NFL player per every 182,783 Americans.

I don't know what the roster sizes were then, I believe they were about 35 or 38 players. Lets say they were 38. That would be 21 teams at 38 players per team or 798 NFL players, or one NFL/AFL player per every 224,310 Americans.

So, maybe there is a little dilution when you look at those raw numbers.

But as I said, we are getting some players from overseas. And, I disagree about your point that because Americans are fatter and lazier that means there are fewer elite athletes in the country. I think that both extremes are true. There are more elite athletes, as well as more fat lazy people.

Bottom line on this is that I believe that a fan base of about 3 million people can support an NFL team such that their owners and players would be wealthy beyond the dreams of avarice. The Raiders just gave a kicker a 16 million dollar contract.

The average US household income is something like $50,000 per year. The average NFL salary is about 1.5 million. Is it really too difficult to ask these guys to survive on only 30 or so times the money the average American makes?

I wager that if the league were to expand by those 4 teams, the Las Vegas Locomotives, the San Antonio Tonys, the California Redwoods, the Salt Lake Salt Lickers or whatever, they could do just fine monetarily.

After all, aren't we trying to create jobs in this country? Put an NFL team in 4 more cities and I bet we could produce about 500 very well paying jobs in this country, with players, coaches, trainers, front office people, etc.

@the-gipper said:

Fair to say? How's my math?

I don't know how the math is but I don't understand how the total population is germane to the discussion?

It's not like comparing 1 doctor for every X thousand people.

Plus, the population is far fatter and lazier then they were in 1960, so it might be fair to say there are fewer people as a percentage who are fit enough to play the game at a high level.

A few of these players have already landed contracts with the NFL. Honestly I liked what I saw and if the ticket prices are reasonable and concessions reasonable....... I would make a drive to Columbus.

This league has potential if the investors are in it for the long haul...... I could definately see them as a competitor in a few years. I think there is more than enough talent to fill their league.... I mean Canadien football/ Arena league and all of these UDFA's along with practice squad guys abound from literally hundreds of 4 year players at universities.

@dencyguy said:

Dennis

Or actually, more probabe, it would no longer be called the Super Bowl, and you Neanderthal's would have to start history all over again. First, you have to bring back the Dinosaurs, then kill them off with a giant asteroid. Then, you would have to reinvent the NFL and have the Pittsburgh Steelers go 40 years in a row without making a playoff appearance.

Only after that, can you again start to count "real" titles.

@dencyguy said:

Dennis

Yes, especially if the Las Vegas Locomotives come into the league off 4 UFL championships, and in their first year in the league win the Super Bowl, and appear in 6 straight Super Bowls. I suppose if the leagues merge or they join the NFL, that would be appropriate. If they don't, then it won't.

A title is a title is a title.

In 1960 there were 21 teams, NFL and AFL, in existance for a US population of 179,000,000 people, or 1 team for every 8.52 million people

In 2010 there are 32 teams in existance for a US population of about 310,000,000, or 1 team for every 9.68 million people.

In essence then, the US has grown 73% since 1960, but the NFL has only grown by 52%.

For the NFL to have expanded at a rate to match the US population growth, the NFL would be a 36 team league.

Add this to the fact that the NFL is now getting a number of players from foreign countries, and I surmise that the talent pool for the NFL today is actually far deeper than the talent pool was in 1960, and based simply on talent pool ratios, the NFL could/should? expand by 4 teams.

Fair to say? How's my math?

@ballpeen said:

I would compare it more to the AAFC.

Oh great...does that mean that 20 years from now we'll be beset by yahoos demanding that the Las Vegas Locomotives should be credited with the equivalent of a Super Bowl win?

Dennis