@hoorta said:

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.

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.

@the-gipper said:

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:

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.

@the-cysko-kid said:

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

@the-gipper said:

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.

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.

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.

@the-cysko-kid said:

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.

@the-cysko-kid said:

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:

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

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.

San Antonio and Oklahoma City would be the other two options I think would hold weight (regardless of market size) because of the fact that they support a large region around them that doesn't already route for a specific team (Dallas/Houston/Denver/Kansas City). And they actually did a very good job of helping out the Saints when the Super Dome was under water.

Anything in New York or New England already routes for one of the two NYC teams or Buffalo, or the Patriots. Florida already has 3 teams, and doesn't need another (one of those existing cities already has trouble supporting a team, what makes you think another city in Florida could? Maybe if Jacksonville went away).

@the-cysko-kid said:

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

Gipper Wrote:

Well, the Rams were originally from Cleveland you know. You mean you have never come to Northeast Ohio to go Ram hunting?

Yeah, I know they where from Cleveland back at the dawn of football. I think Cleveland has a better team name now. Usually after I'm done high-jacking the barges with my eye patch and peg leg on the Allegheny, Mon and Ohio rivers I love to head up to the Cleveland area and hunt some for some RAM-burger.

@the-gipper said:

FYI, roach, I mentioned that my brother in law resides in SA. In fact, his office practically sits in the shadow of the Alamodome.

He says that in fact it is not quite a top notch facility for an NFL team. Its capacity may not be quite to what the NFL requires, plus the amenities are not as complete as they should be. He felt it would need some massive renovations to be acceptable.

He even said that if the NFL were to come there it would require a whole new facility.

I guess I have to take his word for it. Like I said, he stares at it right outside his office window.

i've been to the Alamodome a couple of times, but really didn't pay attention to whether it had suites. So your brother-in-law would know more about that than me. Our company has sales offices in San Antonio and Austin. The guys that i talk to aren't as rabid about the Cowboys as most people would think.

Endymion said:

LA is not the only city vying for an NFL team in this economy. London is as well. The NFL wants into the European market, badly. However, European teams completely screw over US teams due to the time zones.

I defintely agree that it is a dumbass idea to try to go into Europe. Fuck Europe.

Some teams should move. I think Jacksonville, San Diego or Oakland should go to LA, but my guess is oakland is locked into a long term stadium deal. Of those 3, San Diego is a team I hope doesn't move, because they've been a staple team of the league for so long. Jacksonville, never really had a rabid fan base.

The thing I hate the most is when NFL teams switch cities but don't change their team names. Team names should stay associated with the cities they were founded around. The Texans should be the Oilers, and the Ravens should be probably be the Colts (though I like the Ravens concept better). I hate the name Texans btw...it sounds like they asked a Canadian hockey expert what a good name for a football team should be. Additionally, the Rams, Cardinals, and Colts should have different names.

Have you not heard the Texans often referred to here as the DumbAssTexans or the DATs. That primarily comes from the unimaginitive name give to that team.

Even though the Cardinals were originally a Chicago team, I like the idea of St. Louis' team being called the Cardinals. The Colts have been in Indy so long I'm kinda used to that name now (and I like the Ravens better for Baltimore). But the Arizona Cardinals really need a new name, Cardinals just don't fit a desert city. Personally, I think Scorpions would be a great name for Arizona's team. Even still Rams are more indicative of Arizona...maybe they should switch with St. Louis.

Well, the Rams were originally from Cleveland you know. You mean you have never come to Northeast Ohio to go Ram hunting?

@the-gipper said:

But, if things pick up, maybe SA or SLC or Portland might think they should be included in the big boy league. And then what?

LA is not the only city vying for an NFL team in this economy. London is as well. The NFL wants into the European market, badly. However, European teams completely screw over US teams due to the time zones.

Some teams should move. I think Jacksonville, San Diego or Oakland should go to LA, but my guess is oakland is locked into a long term stadium deal. Of those 3, San Diego is a team I hope doesn't move, because they've been a staple team of the league for so long. Jacksonville, never really had a rabid fan base.

The thing I hate the most is when NFL teams switch cities but don't change their team names. Team names should stay associated with the cities they were founded around. The Texans should be the Oilers, and the Ravens should be probably be the Colts (though I like the Ravens concept better). I hate the name Texans btw...it sounds like they asked a Canadian hockey expert what a good name for a football team should be. Additionally, the Rams, Cardinals, and Colts should have different names.

Even though the Cardinals were originally a Chicago team, I like the idea of St. Louis' team being called the Cardinals. The Colts have been in Indy so long I'm kinda used to that name now (and I like the Ravens better for Baltimore). But the Arizona Cardinals really need a new name, Cardinals just don't fit a desert city. Personally, I think Scorpions would be a great name for Arizona's team. Even still Rams are more indicative of Arizona...maybe they should switch with St. Louis.

@clevelandmilidh said:

LA has had many football teams and lost them due to poor support from area fans, why should they get another team?

LA had the Rams/Raiders and....don't forget the LA Dons that were the AAFC team that actually merged with the Rams in 1950.

But why should LA get another chance? Just look at the numbers. It is the second largest market in the USA...which means money. Duh!. And the NFL is not beyond being butthole sniffers for Hollywood stardom either.

I think Alabama should be the first to get a shot at another expansion franchise. You see the support Auburn and Alabama get every saturday, they love their football in Bama. They will show up on Sunday's I'd guarantee it. When I think football states, top 5 I'd say Cali, Texas, Florida, Ohio, Bama. Each of them have atleast 2 NFL teams except Bama. I'd give them a shot before going to LA again.

I think Alabama would be iffy. It is still a small state and Birmingham is "only" the 39th largest market. And that fervor for the college game might actually work against it.

It might be like North Carolina in basketball. The NBA put a team in college BB crazy NC, but the Hornets didn't make it there. And now the Bobcats are doing little better. maybe sometimes it is best to leave a college state to the colleges. (though I seem to recall that the Birmingham USFL team was one of the more popular teams of that league). Who knows.

Endymion said:

Just say no to NFL expansion, 32 teams are plenty. Other combinations upset the nice schedule balance the NFL now employs. A proper expansion requires at least 4 or 8 more teams, and probably 1-2 more NFL game weeks a year to do it right. Further, the current talent pool of players won't support 4-8 more teams.

Under current NFL scheduling, all divisional teams play each other once at home and once away. That's 6 of the 16 games devoted to divisional play. If you increase a division by one team you get 8 of 16 games being divisional play. Frankly, I want to see different opponents and the ratio of 6 divisional, 6 conference and 4 inter-conference is a really good mix. An expansion by 8 teams would lead to 8 divisional, 4 conference and 4 interconference with a major problem. Teams would only be playing 4 or the 5 teams of a particular conference/interconference. There could be 20-30 years between 2 teams playing each other pending the final schedule format. If you want to avoid long periods of teams never playing each other, the NFL mus expand it's season to 18 games so that you would see all 5 teams from a conference or inter-conference division on a regular basis. I'm not too keen on 18 games, personally. To me a 16 game season just feels right.

You can't really shrink the number of divisions without modifying the schedule from it's current format. If you reduce the divisions to 3 per conference you then have 5 teams per division with two divisions having 6 teams. At that point you need to get 4 more NFL teams to properly expand the league to 6 divisions of 6 teams. In a 16 game schedule you now have 10 games devoted to divisional play and 6 devoted to conference/interconference play and 2 extra games (18 game schedule) really does nothing for schedule diversity. There will be stretches where teams won't see each other for 20-30 years or more. In order to correct that problem, the NFL would need to abandon it's requirement that divisional opponents get both home/away games for all divisional opponents. When you change that dynamic, you also affect the formula for determining division champions, as all divisional teams play similarly matched schedules under the current format.

I basically agree with everything you say. Its just that it is fun to speculate on this sort of thing. And the other factor is that you do have these cities that have trolled trying to lure someone else's NFL team to relocate. Expansion solves that problem. It was obviously a big problem in the 90s with Charlotte, Jax, St. Louis, Baltimore, Nashville all wanting teams. The whole fucking musical chairs fiasco could have been avoided if they had just expanded to 32 teams at that time...instead of being essentially forced into it by the Cleveland and Houston situations. If they gave Baltimore and St. Louis teams in addition to Jax and Charlotte some of those issues and hard feelings would have been avoided. (no Browns move, no Rams move and a team would still be in LA, Maybe the Oilers would still be in Houston etc.).

Right now, in this economy no one but the LA area seems to be in a position to vy for a team.

But, if things pick up, maybe SA or SLC or Portland might think they should be included in the big boy league. And then what?