Ripe For Expansion?
-
I think a lot of things would've been different if St. Louis and Baltimore got the expansion teams like they should have instead of Carolina and Jacksonville.
I think a lot of things would've been different if St. Louis and Baltimore got the expansion teams like they should have instead of Carolina and Jacksonville.
Hmm, maybe. What I think you would have had perhaps is Jax and Charlotte out their trolling to steal a team rather than Balt. or St. Louis.
If either of those has waived the money in front of his nose the way Baltimore did, Art Modell would have jumped at one of those deals.
So, it may have been same fate, just a different destination.
-
Setting aside LA (which is a weird duck), the only market close to a sure thing on that list is San Antonio, because:
1. They have demonstrated that they will support a pro franchise;
2. They have a top notch facility ready to go;
3. They would certainly draw from "nearby" Austin; and
4. Texas is football crazy. A suburban Dallas high school spent $60 million on a 18,000 seat stadium (Progressive Field cost $169 million to build).
Setting aside LA (which is a weird duck), the only market close to a sure thing on that list is San Antonio, because:
1. They have demonstrated that they will support a pro franchise;
2. They have a top notch facility ready to go;
3. They would certainly draw from "nearby" Austin; and
4. Texas is football crazy. A suburban Dallas high school spent $60 million on a 18,000 seat stadium (Progressive Field cost $169 million to build).
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.
-
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.
-
LA has had many football teams and lost them due to poor support from area fans, why should they get another team?
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.
1st Ezekiel Ansah, DE, BYU 3rd Darius Slay, CB, Mississippi State4th Landry Jones, QB, Oklahoma5th Earl Wolff, S, N.C. State6th Lucas Reed, TE, New Mexico -
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.
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?
-
LA has had many football teams and lost them due to poor support from area fans, why should they get another team?
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.
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?
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.
-
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.
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?
-
Setting aside LA (which is a weird duck), the only market close to a sure thing on that list is San Antonio, because:
1. They have demonstrated that they will support a pro franchise;
2. They have a top notch facility ready to go;
3. They would certainly draw from "nearby" Austin; and
4. Texas is football crazy. A suburban Dallas high school spent $60 million on a 18,000 seat stadium (Progressive Field cost $169 million to build).
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.
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.
-
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.
-
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.
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 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.
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
-
I foresee Toronto and London before any other city in the US other than LA.
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).
-
London? London??? Hell no.
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.
-
Then it would have to be the INFL
-
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
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
-
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
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
-
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.
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.
-
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:
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.
-
Los Angeles - had 2 teams and lost them both. They may have population but they don't have the fan support. There are far too many other options/choices of things to do than support pro-sports teams. The NFL has continued to get profitable w/o a single team in the NFL. It's not like the games are not on TV in the market. So the NFL is still getting TV revenue in LA. They'll put a team here again, but it won't stick or it will end up the Chargers moving north.
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.
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