New 36 Team Nfl?

[baybrownsfan]

@sheepdog said:

You're right. I must have gotten my wires crossed somewhere. In some ways I wouldn't mind Gilbert owning the Browns, seems like Lerner cares more about his soccer team.

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

[jnuh]

I don't know how much I would like to see division totally realigned even if they make sense geographically. I just don't know if it would be the best thing to break up some of those great rivalries that have around for 20 or 30 or 40 or even 50 years.

Like Cowboys vs all 3 other NFC East teams. Those rivals are strong because of there history on the field and battles for the division since the 70s. Why try and force a Cowboys rival with a terrible new expansion team with no history and will mostly likely be a terrible team like expansion teams have been in recent memory. Even if there is a "natural" geographic rival it doesn't really mean anything if the teams are playing meaningful games against each other. And even if they play meaningful games ... it takes a few years of meaningful game for the rival to really start getting strong. Of if not meaningful games atleast some sort of unique history that makes the franchise dislike each other (I.E. Ravens/Browns Old vs new)

You are also breaking up Jets/Phins which is a big rival along with the other good rivals in the AFC East. Just seems like you are almost startiing from stratch.

Also if you add 4 more teams and 2 more games ... the talent is going to become very saturated. The NFL would certainly expand the roster. Lets say they expand from a 53 man to a 60 man (which might even be conservative) and from 32 to 36 teams. You are going to have 464 more players in the NFL that shouldn't be. You are going to have a lot less talented football players on the field. All that expansion is going to ultimately lead to putting a crappy product on the field (maybe not crappy but not as good)

[ballpeen]

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.

[Bob806]

I think their may not be enough talent at the QB position to warrant a 36 team league.

Look at it now, 32 teams & many teams hurting at QB. I don't want the best sports league in the USA to get diluted, like the NBA.

I DO agree about getting the Ratbirds out of our division though.

[The Gipper]

@harry-buffalo said:

Could just as easily see 4 expansion teams in international area's as well. London wants to get in on the NFL action, Berlin has been growing a bigger and bigger american football fan base every year. Toronto wants a team now and Mexico City has hosted several games. I don't think it would be out of the question to see Canada get a team here within the next 5-10 years along with London. The only problem with putting teams in Europe is figuring out how to work divisions and travel time every single week.

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.

[The Gipper]

@butler-browns said:

Portland and Salt Lake City with NFL teams? No. Los Angeles and San Antonio should be next if they expand. If the Raiders move back to L.A., I'd like to see the NFL put a team in Las Vegas.

???? 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.

[The Gipper]

@jnuh said:

I don't know how much I would like to see division totally realigned even if they make sense geographically. I just don't know if it would be the best thing to break up some of those great rivalries that have around for 20 or 30 or 40 or even 50 years.

Like Cowboys vs all 3 other NFC East teams. Those rivals are strong because of there history on the field and battles for the division since the 70s. Why try and force a Cowboys rival with a terrible new expansion team with no history and will mostly likely be a terrible team like expansion teams have been in recent memory. Even if there is a "natural" geographic rival it doesn't really mean anything if the teams are playing meaningful games against each other. And even if they play meaningful games ... it takes a few years of meaningful game for the rival to really start getting strong. Of if not meaningful games atleast some sort of unique history that makes the franchise dislike each other (I.E. Ravens/Browns Old vs new)

You are also breaking up Jets/Phins which is a big rival along with the other good rivals in the AFC East. Just seems like you are almost startiing from stratch.

Also if you add 4 more teams and 2 more games ... the talent is going to become very saturated. The NFL would certainly expand the roster. Lets say they expand from a 53 man to a 60 man (which might even be conservative) and from 32 to 36 teams. You are going to have 464 more players in the NFL that shouldn't be. You are going to have a lot less talented football players on the field. All that expansion is going to ultimately lead to putting a crappy product on the field (maybe not crappy but not as good)

Yes, I am sacrificing some current rivalries like the Jets/Dolphins...but I think I am creating many more better more natural rivalries. Like Jets/Giants Dolphins/Bucs to use those two teams. And Raiders/49ers. Old rivalries have been discarded over the years. Quite frankly, the Browns biggest rivals at one time were the Lions and Giants, but those went by the wayside.

As for the expanded rosters, I think the NFL can handle it. There is decent talent out there right now that doesn't play.

The USA is a nation of over 300 million people. 36 teams of 60 man rosters means there would be 2160 players in the NFL. I think this population base...plus what we get from other countries can come up with 2160 decent football players.

[The Gipper]

@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 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.

[The Gipper]

@bob806 said:

I think their may not be enough talent at the QB position to warrant a 36 team league.

Look at it now, 32 teams & many teams hurting at QB. I don't want the best sports league in the USA to get diluted, like the NBA.

I DO agree about getting the Ratbirds out of our division though.

You don't think Seneca Wallace could go somewhere and be a starting NFL QB?

[Bob806]

@the-gipper said:

You don't think Seneca Wallace could go somewhere and be a starting NFL QB?

Lol....nope.

[Mark O]

Could he be a starting QB? sure he could...just not a very good one.

[The Cysko Kid]

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.

[Kosar_For_President]

@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?

[VaporTrail]

SAN ANTONIO SEX CATS

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

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

[Bob806]

@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.

[Harry Buffalo]

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.

[The Gipper]

@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 Gipper]

@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.

[The Cysko Kid]

@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.

[The Gipper]

@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.