You might not have 32 teams in Canada, so 2 NFL teams help stock a team in Canada and pay some of the cost.

I think you would build a ton of interest, not to mention gives a few of your guys a pretty good place to play.....I like Canadian rules to be honest, but I concede they might need to be equaled out.

@thaak said:

Great Lakes Division

Buffalo Bills

Chicago Bears

Cleveland Browns

Detroit Lions

Green Bay Packers

Toronto ???

River Valley Division

Cincinnati Bengals

Indianapolis Colts

Minnesota Vikings

Pittsburg Steelers

St. Louis Rams

New Orleans Saints

Revolutionary / Northeast / Yankee Division

Baltimore Ravens

New England Patriots

New York Giants

New York Jets

Philadelphia Eagles

Washington Redskins

Southeast / Confederate Division

Atlana Falcons

Carolina Panthers

Jacksonville Jaguars

Miami Dolphins

Tampa Bay Buccaneers

Tennessee Titans

Pacific Division

Los Angeles ???

Los Angeles / Portland / Vancouver ???

Oakland Raiders

San Diego Chargers

San Francisco 49ers

Seattle Seahawks

Southwest / Longhorn / Mountain Division

Arizona Cardinals

Dallas Cowboys

Denver Broncos

Houston Texans

Kansas City Chiefs

San Antonio / Mexico City ???

These aren't bad, except I don't really think that River Valley Division works very well. Also, I still think the NFL has a hands off policy toward Canada and the CFL. I do think the NFL wants to market to the Toronto area, but I think they want them to be Buffalo Bill fans and respect that CFL border (except for one game...if they really wanted the full monty on Toronto, they would probably just go ahead and move the Bills there)

@butler-browns said:

I don't see Portland or Salt Lake City. I've been to Portland. It's not bad, but nothing special as far as I'm concerned. Plus it's less than 200 miles from Seattle (aka, the most overrated city in America.) Salt Lake City I've been to once. It's nice. I have questions about a team being able to compete with the Jazz for fans. As expensive as NFL game tickets are...?

Well, as I mentioned, Portland is the 22d largest metropolitan market in the USA, and has been growing.

Also, in my opinion, no NFL has to "compete" with other major league franchises for fans. I think that whereever the NFL is, it is the Big Dog in town. I think the same would hold true in Salt Lake.

And I don't get why there aren't major professional sports franchises in Las Vegas. I get the gambling, but it's legal in the state. Maybe they're worried the players will be spending all their off-time in the brothels?

It is not just gambling: it is legalized gambling on sports. All these other states that have casinos do NOT have sports books. I believe only Nevada has that. (though I am not sure about Atlantic City). The NFL won't locate in a city where it is legal to bet on their games.

People playing slots, poker, craps, roulette is one thing but betting on football is another.

Speaking of gambling, I'm betting that within five years, the Jaguars will be in Los Angeles if the Raiders don't move back their first.

Could very well be. But without Al Davis running things there now, things may not be as squirrely..

Buffalo Bills

Chicago Bears

Cleveland Browns

Detroit Lions

Green Bay Packers

Toronto ???

River Valley Division

Cincinnati Bengals

Indianapolis Colts

Minnesota Vikings

Pittsburg Steelers

St. Louis Rams

New Orleans Saints

Revolutionary / Northeast / Yankee Division

Baltimore Ravens

New England Patriots

New York Giants

New York Jets

Philadelphia Eagles

Washington Redskins

Southeast / Confederate Division

Atlana Falcons

Carolina Panthers

Jacksonville Jaguars

Miami Dolphins

Tampa Bay Buccaneers

Tennessee Titans

Pacific Division

Los Angeles ???

Los Angeles / Portland / Vancouver ???

Oakland Raiders

San Diego Chargers

San Francisco 49ers

Seattle Seahawks

Southwest / Longhorn / Mountain Division

Arizona Cardinals

Dallas Cowboys

Denver Broncos

Houston Texans

Kansas City Chiefs

San Antonio / Mexico City ???

@the-gipper said:

Well, you made it sound like I hadn't named LA and SA. Those in fact were my first two choices.

I don't see Portland or Salt Lake City. I've been to Portland. It's not bad, but nothing special as far as I'm concerned. Plus it's less than 200 miles from Seattle (aka, the most overrated city in America.) Salt Lake City I've been to once. It's nice. I have questions about a team being able to compete with the Jazz for fans. As expensive as NFL game tickets are...?

And I don't get why there aren't major professional sports franchises in Las Vegas. I get the gambling, but it's legal in the state. Maybe they're worried the players will be spending all their off-time in the brothels?

Speaking of gambling, I'm betting that within five years, the Jaguars will be in Los Angeles if the Raiders don't move back their first.

@butler-browns said:

Yes, I read your post.

I was just giving my opinion.

Well, you made it sound like I hadn't named LA and SA. Those in fact were my first two choices.

@the-gipper said:

???? Did you read my post? LA and SA were included. Hello!!

And here is the dope: Portland and Salt Lake are in fact larger markets than Las Vegas. Portland ranks 22d, SLC 33, while Vegas is only #40. It if it eyeballs on TVs that you want, then those two outrank Vegas.

Plus, there is the gambling factor. The NFL is never going to go where gambling on their games is illegal.

Yes, I read your post. I was just giving my opinion.

I don't think gambling should be a determining factor concerning a potential Las Vegas team.

@ballpeen said:

Thanks....good info. None the less, I have to look at who would support a team. I am not sure Portland would, though I think Memphis or Birmingham would. Not that the south has a lock on supporting football by any means, but it's pretty big, even you can agree to that. I also think either of those towns would fill a geographic void that would help create some great rivalries.

I don't know. The west coast folks seems ambivalent towards supporting their teams.

Yes, point taken. Though, I do think that they would probably take to an NFL team. The likes of Portland and SLC may have gotten into their soccer teams simply because they were not chosen for the NFL. Those areas seem to be fairly supportive of their college teams.

But yes, on the surface, a Birmingham would seem to be a better football town.

Put it this way: Birmingham is a bigger DMA than Jacksonville, Buffalo, and New Orleans at this point.

@cdl15 said:

I miss the Tenn\Houston rival

yes, bring back Houston and kick out Baltimore

@the-gipper said:

I considered Birmingham and Memphis. Two things led me to choose Portland/SA, and SLC: most importantly, size. Those are the biggest markets without a team that were not already basically on top of other NFL markets. In fact here is the order of DMAs that do not have NFL teams:

2 LA

19 Orlando

20 Sacramento

22 Portland

24 Raleigh-durham

30 Hartford

32 Columbus

33 Salt Lake

36 San Antonio

39 Birmingham

40 Las Vegas

43 Norfolk/Va Beach

44 OKC

45 Albequerque

47 Austin

49 Memphis

As mentioned, adding Austin/SA together however makes them like the 14th larges market.

Orlando is only @75-80 miles from Tampa. The same with Sacramento from Oakland. Hartford is about 100 miles from NY and Boston...and I guess technically, since Connecticut is in "New England", the already have their team.

The Panthers bill themselves as Carolina's team so I discounted Raleigh Durham.

So, Portland and SLC were the largest and most remote markets left.

Though, I think Birmingham would viable as another "southern" team and probably comes in right after the ones I chose.

The other southern option would be the "Tidewater" team in Virg.

Thanks....good info. None the less, I have to look at who would support a team. I am not sure Portland would, though I think Memphis or Birmingham would. Not that the south has a lock on supporting football by any means, but it's pretty big, even you can agree to that. I also think either of those towns would fill a geographic void that would help create some great rivalries.

I don't know. The west coast folks seems ambivalent towards supporting their teams.

@taco918 said:

OKC getting a team would be terrible for me personally. I'd more then likely have to switch my allegiance. Taking my personal feelings out of it, OKC could definitely support a NFL team. They've show they can support a basketball franchise, first the Hornets and now our beloved Thunder. If you take into account that Oklahoma is without a doubt a football state first then it would definitely work. It's still crazy to me that people outside of Oklahoma think its capable of supporting professional franchises. I guess my little state is growing up.

The one thing that OKC may have going for it over my choices Portland and SLC is just what you mentioned: Oklahoma is a FOOTBALL state, whereas those other 2 areas seem to be going for futbol. The same may be true for why Birmingham might be a better choice. (If Portland and SLC want to be fagarola's who is to stop them?)

However, aren't the Sooners already Oklahoma's pro team? (yuk it up fuzzball).

@ballpeen said:

I do think a lot.

It can go any number of ways.

I could see a Great Lakes division......Chicago, Detroit, Cleveland, Buffalo, Pitts, Indy.

I also think about cities that could support a NFL team.

You are adding 4.

LA, no brainer, San Antonio,good option.

You say Salt Lake.....I say Oklahoma City.

I also think the deep south could support another team in Alabama...Birmingham might be a good location..Memphis is another location that has the population and they have tried in the past. There are a lot of people living in Memphis, north Mississippi, and east Arkansas that would support a team. That also hits a geographic void in the center of the country, as does OKC.....you could place them in several division that make sense.

OKC getting a team would be terrible for me personally. I'd more then likely have to switch my allegiance. Taking my personal feelings out of it, OKC could definitely support a NFL team. They've show they can support a basketball franchise, first the Hornets and now our beloved Thunder. If you take into account that Oklahoma is without a doubt a football state first then it would definitely work. It's still crazy to me that people outside of Oklahoma think its capable of supporting professional franchises. I guess my little state is growing up.

@the-gipper said:

I agree. If 4 teams were added and rosters stayed at 53 then that would add only 212 players to the NFL rolls. If they were expanded to 60 that would ad only 240 players.

I think there is sufficient talent out there to handle that.

Look at the Browns current, training camp roster. How many are on there? 90? That means 37 of them will not be with the team. Of that 37 that will be cut I suggest that probably 20 of them would be considered NFL capable players. Multiply that 20 by the current 32 teams, and you have over 600 players that are certainly capable of playing in the NFL that won't be playing in the NFL.

I think my math was a little fuzzy above...so sue me.

Right now with 32 teams and a 53 man roster (not counting practice squads) there are 1696 NFL player spots. 36 teams with 60 man rosters would be 2160 player spots. So, yes, 464 player spots would be open. That is a lot....and the economics would have to be right to do it. All of those guys would get at least the minimum player salary if not more. In the next 3 years the minimum NFL salary is going to average around $400,000.00. 464 times equals $185,600,000.00 per year....minimum of additional salary.

Perhaps the players union would be happy. Not sure about the owners.

But, figure...if they charge $750,000,000 in expansion fees for each new franchise, the extra 185-200 million in salary would be chump change compared the to 3 billion they would pocket.

@the-gipper said:

I considered International expansion....I just don't really see how it could work. North America, sure, like Toronto or Mex City (they better have a dome) but not all the way to London and Berlin.

If there were teams added in Europe I think we would have to see the NFL building living and training facilities both over in America and in Europe to house teams. Teams playing in Europe would fly over the the week before after their game on Sunday and stay in the Europe facility for the week while Europe teams playing in America would do the same at one or two American facilities (East and West coast would have separate places most likely).

@the-cysko-kid said:

I like your great lakes division. Drop indy and pitt and add green bay and I like it more.

If you do all that you have to figure out where all the other teams can fit in properly. So, you will have to rearrange the whole league.

@ballpeen said:

I do think a lot.

It can go any number of ways.

I could see a Great Lakes division......Chicago, Detroit, Cleveland, Buffalo, Pitts, Indy.

I also think about cities that could support a NFL team.

You are adding 4.

LA, no brainer, San Antonio,good option.

You say Salt Lake.....I say Oklahoma City.

I also think the deep south could support another team in Alabama...Birmingham might be a good location..Memphis is another location that has the population and they have tried in the past. There are a lot of people living in Memphis, north Mississippi, and east Arkansas that would support a team. That also hits a geographic void in the center of the country, as does OKC.....you could place them in several division that make sense.

I like your great lakes division. Drop indy and pitt and add green bay and I like it more.

@harry-buffalo said:

I don't think it overly dilutes the product. It anything it just makes it so those mid round draft picks become more important and those 6th and 7th round draft picks become more of a gamble. What you would see are less UDFA who are big name guys because of the extra teams drafting and you would also see less guys having to retire because there are no teams interested in them. It's not like walmart greeters are going to be lined up at MLB.

I agree. If 4 teams were added and rosters stayed at 53 then that would add only 212 players to the NFL rolls. If they were expanded to 60 that would ad only 240 players.

I think there is sufficient talent out there to handle that.

Look at the Browns current, training camp roster. How many are on there? 90? That means 37 of them will not be with the team. Of that 37 that will be cut I suggest that probably 20 of them would be considered NFL capable players. Multiply that 20 by the current 32 teams, and you have over 600 players that are certainly capable of playing in the NFL that won't be playing in the NFL.

@king-ghoolie-lives said:

I like it just fine the way it is.

Just a thought, why not try a fantasy about women? It's a lot more fun and it will give you some ideas you can try in real life. Unlike this football expansion mental masturbation that has grabbed a hold of you.

Ghoolie....why would I need to try fantasy about women? What makes you think that my reality in that regard isn't of overflowing abundance?

@the-cysko-kid said:

Seneca could be a starting QB. Colt was a starting QB and seneca is no worse than him, for god's sake. I like how people are against team expansion by fearing it will become diluted. So you're saying that with 32 teams out there we've tapped out the countries entire supply of football players? All of them? Every single guy that could play football on the pro level is already signed to an NFL team. Wow.

Seneca is worse than Colt, he proved that when he took over down the stretch. I thought the last game of the season vs. Pittsburgh proved that- he couldn't make any throws outside the numbers.

I could be wrong, but I do think it would dilute the product.

Black and hot pink!!! Wooo! Instead of a Dawg Pound they have The Brothel.

We'll have another team in Anchorage called the Asshats.

@baybrownsfan said:

I'd rather have Gilbert own the Indians, where he can make a difference with money via free agency.

You know they are in first place right?