New 36 Team Nfl?
-
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.
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?
-
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?
You don't think Seneca Wallace could go somewhere and be a starting NFL QB?
Lol....nope.
-
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.
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 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?
-
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.
-
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 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.
-
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.
Ruining threads since 1897. -
@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?
-
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 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.
-
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 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.
-
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.
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.
-
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.
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).
-
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.
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.
-
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 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.
-
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.
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).
-
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.
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.
If everybody had like minds, we would never learn. -
-
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.
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.
-
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.
???? 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.
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