Here's what my National Football League would look like in 10 years (2026-27 season) - but I feel a new competitor league: the World Football League (2020-26) merges with the NFL. The expansion includes Toronto (Canada) and Mexico (City), although Hawaii and London (UK) are good choices, but I chose the two more feasible team sites.:
AFC EAST:
Baltimore, Buffalo, New England, NY Jets, Pittsburgh.
AFC SOUTH:
Birmingham, Houston, Jacksonville, Miami, Tennessee.
AFC NORTH:
Cincinnati, Cleveland, Indianapolis, Kansas City, Oklahoma (City).
AFC WEST:
Denver, Las Vegas, LA Chargers, new Oakland team, new San Diego team.
NFC EAST:
Dallas, NY Giants, Philadelphia, Toronto, Washington.
NFC SOUTH:
Atlanta, Carolina, New Orleans, San Antonio, Tampa Bay.
NFC NORTH:
Chicago, Detroit, Green Bay, Minnesota, new St. Louis team.
NFC WEST:
Arizona, LA Rams, Mexico (City), San Francisco, Seattle.
That's quite ambitious! And of course, the one thing stopping London from ever getting a team is the logistics issue.
If there was ever to be an international NFL team, I think it would be in Mexico City. London is just too far to play NFL games besides once a year.
I edited out London and replaced it with Mexico, the visitors going to Europe and back will have jet lag, despite the NFL's typical weekly game schedule.
For the new NFL members, either they need new league-standard systems or renovate older ones they play in.
The new teams' nicknames are:
Birmingham Bulldogs, Hawaii Sharks, Mexico Aztecos, Oakland Vandals, Oklahoma Coyotes, St. Louis Wolfpack, San Antonio Toros (or Outlaws), San Diego Bombers and Toronto North stars.
I don't think an NFL team in Toronto will ever happen either since Canada already has the CFL.
Quote from: US 41 on February 15, 2017, 01:10:58 PM
I don't think an NFL team in Toronto will ever happen either since Canada already has the CFL.
Sacramento had a CFL team for a year or two!
Quote from: Henry on February 15, 2017, 10:07:37 AMthe one thing stopping London from ever getting a team is the logistics issue.
The NFL has tested various London scenarios - including playing the next week back in the states, rather than bye-week. All seem to have worked well enough.
The easiest way to have an NFL team in London is that every team playing them away gets the bye-week afterwards and London plays all 8 of its home games back-to-back weeks in weeks 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11 and 12, with 4 games in the US before, and a bye-week followed by 4 games in the US after.
The difficulty comes in the play-offs as no bye-weeks are available for winning sides in London games. I'd suggest timing it so Wild Card and Divisional Round games in London are always on Saturdays, with the winner playing the following Sunday to give 8 days difference, rather than a possible 6.
The logistics really isn't an issue - nor is, arguably, filling the stadium for 8 games. Ticket prices are high and sell out very quickly. The issue is the support for a team. There's plenty of support for watching NFL games (whatever the teams) live in Europe - the problem lies with changing the atmosphere from being a Superbowl-esque event where the fans support all 32 teams and there's not much of a home field vibe for the home team (even 'our Jaguars') to one where there's a specific team the fans are meant to cheer on.
The problem is not logistics - the problem is the team getting support rather than the sport, and the transition from special promotional event to regular game: for both the teams and the fans.
Quote from: english si on February 15, 2017, 03:37:43 PM
Quote from: Henry on February 15, 2017, 10:07:37 AMthe one thing stopping London from ever getting a team is the logistics issue.
The NFL has tested various London scenarios - including playing the next week back in the states, rather than bye-week. All seem to have worked well enough.
The easiest way to have an NFL team in London is that every team playing them away gets the bye-week afterwards and London plays all 8 of its home games back-to-back weeks in weeks 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11 and 12, with 4 games in the US before, and a bye-week followed by 4 games in the US after.
To me, that's a huge logistical issue. Having to be on the road 4 weeks to start the season...and 4 weeks to end the season? Very difficult. Where does the team stay and practice in the meantime? Do the players have to live in a hotel...or several hotels, for a month? Do they have a home-away-from-home location?
Quote
The difficulty comes in the play-offs as no bye-weeks are available for winning sides in London games. I'd suggest timing it so Wild Card and Divisional Round games in London are always on Saturdays, with the winner playing the following Sunday to give 8 days difference, rather than a possible 6.
What if the winning team in the Wild Card, playing in the US on a Sunday, then has to travel to London to play the Divisional game on Saturday? They still only have 6 days to prepare.
Quote from: US 41 on February 15, 2017, 01:10:58 PM
I don't think an NFL team in Toronto will ever happen either since Canada already has the CFL.
Canada used to forbid it but Toronto is one of the CFL's worst draws anyway.
Divvy up the pie 32 ways and then to ask to add more owners eating that revenue pie will make expansion difficult, so my way out of it is to have NFL Spring League. 16 teams, each co-owned by a pair of AFC/NFC teams, stocked with players and coaches from both organizations. That way the share for each owner stays at 1/32 but the value of that portion increases, which in turn gives the owners the desire to expand in this particular fashion.
Now which 16 cities get the NFL Spring League teams? That is the real interesting part to mull over!
Rick
Quote from: jeffandnicole on February 15, 2017, 03:49:30 PMTo me, that's a huge logistical issue. Having to be on the road 4 weeks to start the season...and 4 weeks to end the season? Very difficult. Where does the team stay and practice in the meantime? Do the players have to live in a hotel...or several hotels, for a month? Do they have a home-away-from-home location?
Yes, it's not easy, but it's far more easily overcomeable than the other issues I highlighted.
A home-away-from-home training ground seems sensible and easy enough to implement. It is what soccer players do for international tournaments. I think Cricketers tend to flit about when on tour, rather than have a base city and return to that between matches. Those teams touring England (where distances are far smaller) might set up base somewhere.
QuoteWhat if the winning team in the Wild Card, playing in the US on a Sunday, then has to travel to London to play the Divisional game on Saturday? They still only have 6 days to prepare.
You'd surely set it up to be that if London is involved, teams potentially playing them play Saturday. But the problem has been found to be more the other direction.
I don't want a team in London - having the variety of teams coming over for just one game every few years (save the Jags) is better for everyone. My point is that the logistics issues are overcomeable, whereas the support for a team issue is not. It wouldn't be September and December away touring the US that is the killer issue for the players, it's that the London team's home games would be lucky if the home team fans are twice as big as the biggest of the other 31 teams' supporters watching the game in the stadium!
London could probably support 8 games (though having two games/season somewhere else nearish to London - Dublin, Amsterdam, Cologne, Glasgow, Paris would be better for reach if you are having 8 games/season in Europe) but it will not be able to support a team. The status quo, give or take a few tweaks, is the right solution.
Quote from: Desert Man on February 14, 2017, 08:51:29 PM
AFC EAST:
Baltimore, Buffalo, New England, NY Jets, Pittsburgh.
AFC SOUTH:
Birmingham, Houston, Jacksonville, Miami, Tennessee.
AFC NORTH:
Cincinnati, Cleveland, Indianapolis, Kansas City, Oklahoma (City).
AFC WEST:
Denver, Las Vegas, LA Chargers, new Oakland team, new San Diego team.
NFC EAST:
Dallas, NY Giants, Philadelphia, Toronto, Washington.
NFC SOUTH:
Atlanta, Carolina, New Orleans, San Antonio, Tampa Bay.
NFC NORTH:
Chicago, Detroit, Green Bay, Minnesota, new St. Louis team.
NFC WEST:
Arizona, LA Rams, Mexico (City), San Francisco, Seattle.
Couple of thoughts:
-First of all, adding eight teams in ten years is totally unrealistic. Two teams, perhaps, four teams, unlikely.
-I don't see Birmingham as a viable market - it's already among the smallest markets (Buffalo, Jacksonville, New Orleans, (proposed) Oklahoma City) - but Jacksonville/New Orleans/Oklahoma City all have five-year growth rates over 6%, while Birmingham is at 1.5%. Also, I don't know the region, but what would be the corporate support for luxury boxes and PSLs?
-Even switching London for Mexico City - you put them in the West, so they're still going to rack up a lot of flight miles. Why wouldn't they be in the South?
-It seems that Raiders fans are Raiders fans first and Oakland fans second, meaning a new team in Oakland isn't going to gain a lot of support unless they bring over the Raiders name/history/etc. like Cleveland did (meaning Las Vegas gets an all-new identity), and you'd have to pry that out of Mark Davis' cold, dead hands.
Other markets to consider:
Sacramento, Portland, Salt Lake City, Columbus, Raleigh, Orlando - while a couple of these are perhaps too close to existing NFL markets, they all are in the top 35 TV markets AND all have five-year growth rates over 5%.
(I didn't put Austin as I don't think both they and San Antonio would get teams, and San Antonio seems like a better fit)
So how about this, and let's say 2042 (25 years out, although eight new teams is still unlikely):
AFC EAST:
Baltimore, Buffalo, New England, NY Jets, Pittsburgh
AFC SOUTH:
Mexico City, Houston, Jacksonville, Miami,
Raleigh or OrlandoAFC NORTH:
Cincinnati, Cleveland, Indianapolis, Tennessee, Oklahoma City
AFC WEST:
Denver, Las Vegas, LA Chargers, Kansas City, San Diego
NFC EAST:
Dallas, NY Giants, Philadelphia, Toronto, Washington
NFC SOUTH:
Atlanta, Carolina, New Orleans, San Antonio, Tampa Bay
NFC NORTH:
Chicago, Detroit, Green Bay, Minnesota, St. Louis
NFC WEST:
Arizona, LA Rams,
Salt Lake City or Portland, San Francisco, Seattle
Portland OR blew their chance back in 1965 when voters turned down the Delta Dome project. Today the one major stadium (and I'm being generous) is a former baseball park that is now used by the MLS Timbers team. It only seats about 20k. Given how a new stadium costs $2 billion these days, we're more likely to get a thoroughly modernized I-5 and CRC bridge than we are a real nice retractable roof stadium seating 65K or so.
Rick
Quote from: nexus73 on February 15, 2017, 04:04:22 PM
Divvy up the pie 32 ways and then to ask to add more owners eating that revenue pie will make expansion difficult, so my way out of it is to have NFL Spring League. 16 teams, each co-owned by a pair of AFC/NFC teams, stocked with players and coaches from both organizations. That way the share for each owner stays at 1/32 but the value of that portion increases, which in turn gives the owners the desire to expand in this particular fashion.
Now which 16 cities get the NFL Spring League teams? That is the real interesting part to mull over!
Rick
and one from each conference so there is not a huge level of competition
e.g. San Francisco/Oakland. San Diego/LA. Houston/Dallas. Denver/Arizona etc
Quote from: texaskdog on February 15, 2017, 07:22:01 PM
Quote from: nexus73 on February 15, 2017, 04:04:22 PM
Divvy up the pie 32 ways and then to ask to add more owners eating that revenue pie will make expansion difficult, so my way out of it is to have NFL Spring League. 16 teams, each co-owned by a pair of AFC/NFC teams, stocked with players and coaches from both organizations. That way the share for each owner stays at 1/32 but the value of that portion increases, which in turn gives the owners the desire to expand in this particular fashion.
Now which 16 cities get the NFL Spring League teams? That is the real interesting part to mull over!
Rick
and one from each conference so there is not a huge level of competition
e.g. San Francisco/Oakland. San Diego/LA. Houston/Dallas. Denver/Arizona etc
That is what I said.
Rick
I don't see Oakland, St. Louis or San Diego getting new teams again because of the way their previous teams left.
(Well, I know that the Raiders haven't officially left, but their flirtation with Vegas and Oakland's refusal to publicly finance a new stadium give me reason to believe that they're already gone.)
The one thing that could perhaps make the London logistics less of an issue is any of the supersonic business jet proposals come to fruition in the next few years. Most of the proposals involve aircraft that could seat 35 to 50 people. Of course that means you'd need two of them for an NFL team to make the trip, but speaking from experience, flying transatlantic in under three and a half hours makes a massive difference (not to mention the "arrive before you leave" aspect on the westbound flight if the plane is fast enough).
Regarding Toronto, wasn't there proposed legislation in Parliament to protect the Argonauts that was never enacted but was enough of a great to cause the WFL team to relocate to Memphis prior to playing any games? I wonder of that sort of thing would happen again. Obviously they had no issue with the Bills playing one game a year (usually after the Grey Cup was over, IIRC), and obviously they didn't object to the Montreal Machine (but again, the WLAF season didn't overlap the CFL season, and at the time Montreal had no CFL team anyway), but both of those did have distinguishing facts.
Quote from: Henry on February 17, 2017, 09:59:19 AM
I don't see Oakland, St. Louis or San Diego getting new teams again because of the way their previous teams left.
(Well, I know that the Raiders haven't officially left, but their flirtation with Vegas and Oakland's refusal to publicly finance a new stadium give me reason to believe that they're already gone.)
I could see St Louis by 2025. Kroneke left just becasue he wanted to go to LA and they didn't really need a new stadium becasue the one they had was just barely 20 years old. When the Rams were good St Louis did support them. But I do agree the NFL is done for good in San Diego. I am not too sure LA will still have 2 teams by then either. I could see at least one gone by then. I think St Louis fits much better in the NFC north with Chicago, Detroit, Green Bay and Minnesota then when they had the Rams in the west. If not St Louis I think the NFL should take a good look at Milwaukee. I really would be just fine with a team in London so that way one or two teams aren't robbed of a home game each year.
The NFL will never expand to Milwaukee and have no need to do so. The Packers are unquestionably 110% Milwaukee's team.
Quote from: TheHighwayMan394 on March 10, 2017, 10:53:43 PM
The NFL will never expand to Milwaukee and have no need to do so. The Packers are unquestionably 110% Milwaukee's team.
Yep. An NFL team would fail miserably in Milwaukee. Most of Milwaukee roots for the Packers and Chicago and Green Bay. And where in Milwaukee would this team play?
Quote from: tribar on March 10, 2017, 11:02:36 PM
Quote from: TheHighwayMan394 on March 10, 2017, 10:53:43 PM
The NFL will never expand to Milwaukee and have no need to do so. The Packers are unquestionably 110% Milwaukee's team.
Yep. An NFL team would fail miserably in Milwaukee. Most of Milwaukee roots for the Packers and Chicago and Green Bay. And where in Milwaukee would this team play?
We would have to build a new stadium but that's the case with any NFL expansion team. If the Packers are Milwaukee's team then why does San Diego need a team when LA is about the same distance from SD as is GB from Milwaukee? I don't get it. I think the NFL could work in Milwaukee while many football fans may cheer for the Packers it's not like they can always go to the games like we can with the Brewers. And think about how exciting a Milwaukee Green Bay rival would be. As a Colts fan living in SE Wisconsin and no interest to support either Chicago or Green Bay I would proudly support a Milwaukee based NFL team.
Quote from: dvferyance on March 11, 2017, 05:41:06 PM
Quote from: tribar on March 10, 2017, 11:02:36 PM
Quote from: TheHighwayMan394 on March 10, 2017, 10:53:43 PM
The NFL will never expand to Milwaukee and have no need to do so. The Packers are unquestionably 110% Milwaukee's team.
Yep. An NFL team would fail miserably in Milwaukee. Most of Milwaukee roots for the Packers and Chicago and Green Bay. And where in Milwaukee would this team play?
We would have to build a new stadium but that's the case with any NFL expansion team. If the Packers are Milwaukee's team then why does San Diego need a team when LA is about the same distance from SD as is GB from Milwaukee? I don't get it. I think the NFL could work in Milwaukee while many football fans may cheer for the Packers it's not like they can always go to the games like we can with the Brewers. And think about how exciting a Milwaukee Green Bay rival would be. As a Colts fan living in SE Wisconsin and no interest to support either Chicago or Green Bay I would proudly support a Milwaukee based NFL team.
I don't understand how you can live in Milwaukee and not understand that the Packers are just as much Milwaukee's team as they are Green Bay's, and that the fans there would not want another team. There are a lot of historical ties between the Packers and Milwaukee, between playing regular season games there for 60 years and their Milwaukee-based radio flagship station. Milwaukee is also a Packers primary TV market; they are the only team to have two primary TV markets. Milwaukee Packer fans have priority on tickets for two games at Lambeau every season, so the team certainly has not forgotten about the city either since they discontinued playing games in Milwaukee in the mid-90s.
Milwaukee is a Packers-rabid city, today and for the rest of eternity.
Really, anything north of the Cheddar Curtain is Packer Country. A new NFL team in Milwaukee would never happen nor be necessary, and on the off chance that one did, they'd never have a fan base outside of Bears fans when they face the Packers.
Quote from: ajlynch91 on March 11, 2017, 08:20:47 PMCheddar Curtain
And this is why American cheese has a bad rep. It's a Gorge (https://www.google.co.uk/maps/@51.2824138,-2.7651298,3a,60y,250.4h,69.15t/data=!3m7!1e1!3m5!1sk9vrnZRDmcQAAAQZLBDs2Q!2e0!3e2!7i13312!8i6656), not a Curtain.
Quote from: english si on March 12, 2017, 09:21:50 AM
Quote from: ajlynch91 on March 11, 2017, 08:20:47 PMCheddar Curtain
And this is why American cheese has a bad rep. It's a Gorge (https://www.google.co.uk/maps/@51.2824138,-2.7651298,3a,60y,250.4h,69.15t/data=!3m7!1e1!3m5!1sk9vrnZRDmcQAAAQZLBDs2Q!2e0!3e2!7i13312!8i6656), not a Curtain.
Sorry, Cheddar became an American citizen in 1866.
Quote from: TheHighwayMan394 on March 11, 2017, 06:06:47 PM
Quote from: dvferyance on March 11, 2017, 05:41:06 PM
Quote from: tribar on March 10, 2017, 11:02:36 PM
Quote from: TheHighwayMan394 on March 10, 2017, 10:53:43 PM
The NFL will never expand to Milwaukee and have no need to do so. The Packers are unquestionably 110% Milwaukee's team.
Yep. An NFL team would fail miserably in Milwaukee. Most of Milwaukee roots for the Packers and Chicago and Green Bay. And where in Milwaukee would this team play?
We would have to build a new stadium but that's the case with any NFL expansion team. If the Packers are Milwaukee's team then why does San Diego need a team when LA is about the same distance from SD as is GB from Milwaukee? I don't get it. I think the NFL could work in Milwaukee while many football fans may cheer for the Packers it's not like they can always go to the games like we can with the Brewers. And think about how exciting a Milwaukee Green Bay rival would be. As a Colts fan living in SE Wisconsin and no interest to support either Chicago or Green Bay I would proudly support a Milwaukee based NFL team.
I don't understand how you can live in Milwaukee and not understand that the Packers are just as much Milwaukee's team as they are Green Bay's, and that the fans there would not want another team. There are a lot of historical ties between the Packers and Milwaukee, between playing regular season games there for 60 years and their Milwaukee-based radio flagship station. Milwaukee is also a Packers primary TV market; they are the only team to have two primary TV markets. Milwaukee Packer fans have priority on tickets for two games at Lambeau every season, so the team certainly has not forgotten about the city either since they discontinued playing games in Milwaukee in the mid-90s.
Milwaukee is a Packers-rabid city, today and for the rest of eternity.
Simple answer they are the Green Bay Packers not the Milwaukee Packers. I am a Milwaukeean not a Green Bayan. A team that plays over 100 miles away and takes a 2 hour drive to get there is not a local team. They aren't part the local community I can't even go to watch them play. The Bears are even closer to us than the Packers. Just becasue there is a Packers radio and TV affiliate here doesn't mean anything. Then why is San Diego so upset the Chargers moved to LA? It's still in the same state but it's not in their city anymore. When you have no team it's pick and chose and I chose the Colts becasue I liked Manning and just stuck with them after that. When the Packers played at County Stadium they sold out so there is still a big draw for football in Milwaukee. But I never understood why anyone here would support this team since they stopped doing that. Because usually when that happens the city hates the team not supports it. St Louis hates the Rams San Diego hates the Chargers. I think if the NFL wanted to expand yeah I am sure they would look at St Louis first but if they wanted to look at a new market I think it's worth looking into Milwaukee. I would also like to mention I think Mexico City would be a worse option for expanding than London. A team in Mexico City would do nearly all their operations in Spanish discouraging most NFL players from ever wanting to go there. It's why the NHL failed in Quebec City they did their operations mostly in French which discouraged players from ever wanting to go there.
Quote from: dvferyance on March 12, 2017, 09:04:46 PM
Quote from: TheHighwayMan394 on March 11, 2017, 06:06:47 PM
Quote from: dvferyance on March 11, 2017, 05:41:06 PM
Quote from: tribar on March 10, 2017, 11:02:36 PM
Quote from: TheHighwayMan394 on March 10, 2017, 10:53:43 PM
The NFL will never expand to Milwaukee and have no need to do so. The Packers are unquestionably 110% Milwaukee's team.
Yep. An NFL team would fail miserably in Milwaukee. Most of Milwaukee roots for the Packers and Chicago and Green Bay. And where in Milwaukee would this team play?
We would have to build a new stadium but that's the case with any NFL expansion team. If the Packers are Milwaukee's team then why does San Diego need a team when LA is about the same distance from SD as is GB from Milwaukee? I don't get it. I think the NFL could work in Milwaukee while many football fans may cheer for the Packers it's not like they can always go to the games like we can with the Brewers. And think about how exciting a Milwaukee Green Bay rival would be. As a Colts fan living in SE Wisconsin and no interest to support either Chicago or Green Bay I would proudly support a Milwaukee based NFL team.
I don't understand how you can live in Milwaukee and not understand that the Packers are just as much Milwaukee's team as they are Green Bay's, and that the fans there would not want another team. There are a lot of historical ties between the Packers and Milwaukee, between playing regular season games there for 60 years and their Milwaukee-based radio flagship station. Milwaukee is also a Packers primary TV market; they are the only team to have two primary TV markets. Milwaukee Packer fans have priority on tickets for two games at Lambeau every season, so the team certainly has not forgotten about the city either since they discontinued playing games in Milwaukee in the mid-90s.
Milwaukee is a Packers-rabid city, today and for the rest of eternity.
Simple answer they are the Green Bay Packers not the Milwaukee Packers. I am a Milwaukeean not a Green Bayan. A team that plays over 100 miles away is not a local team. They aren't part the local community I can't even go to watch them play. The Bears are even closer to us than the Packers. Just becasue there is a Packers radio and TV affiliate here doesn't mean anything. Then why is San Diego so upset the Chargers moved to LA? It's still in the same state but it's not in their city anymore. When you have no team it's pick and chose and I chose the Colts becasue I liked Manning and just stuck with them after that. When the Packers played at County Stadium they sold out so there is still a big draw for football in Milwaukee. But I never understood why anyone here would support this team since they stopped doing that. Because usually when that happens the city hates the team no supports it. St Louis hates the Rams San Diego hates the Chargers. I think if the NFL wanted to expand yeah I am sure they would look at St Louis first but if they wanted to look at a new market I think it's worth looking into Milwaukee. I would also like to mention I think Mexico City would be a worse option for expanding than London. A team in Mexico City would do nearly all their operations in Spanish discouraging most NFL players from ever wanting to go their. It's why the NHL failed in Quebec City they did their operations mostly in French which discouraged players from ever wanting to go there.
Then why are the Canadiens doing so well?
Quote from: dvferyance on March 12, 2017, 09:04:46 PM
Quote from: TheHighwayMan394 on March 11, 2017, 06:06:47 PM
Quote from: dvferyance on March 11, 2017, 05:41:06 PM
Quote from: tribar on March 10, 2017, 11:02:36 PM
Quote from: TheHighwayMan394 on March 10, 2017, 10:53:43 PM
The NFL will never expand to Milwaukee and have no need to do so. The Packers are unquestionably 110% Milwaukee's team.
Yep. An NFL team would fail miserably in Milwaukee. Most of Milwaukee roots for the Packers and Chicago and Green Bay. And where in Milwaukee would this team play?
We would have to build a new stadium but that's the case with any NFL expansion team. If the Packers are Milwaukee's team then why does San Diego need a team when LA is about the same distance from SD as is GB from Milwaukee? I don't get it. I think the NFL could work in Milwaukee while many football fans may cheer for the Packers it's not like they can always go to the games like we can with the Brewers. And think about how exciting a Milwaukee Green Bay rival would be. As a Colts fan living in SE Wisconsin and no interest to support either Chicago or Green Bay I would proudly support a Milwaukee based NFL team.
I don't understand how you can live in Milwaukee and not understand that the Packers are just as much Milwaukee's team as they are Green Bay's, and that the fans there would not want another team. There are a lot of historical ties between the Packers and Milwaukee, between playing regular season games there for 60 years and their Milwaukee-based radio flagship station. Milwaukee is also a Packers primary TV market; they are the only team to have two primary TV markets. Milwaukee Packer fans have priority on tickets for two games at Lambeau every season, so the team certainly has not forgotten about the city either since they discontinued playing games in Milwaukee in the mid-90s.
Milwaukee is a Packers-rabid city, today and for the rest of eternity.
Simple answer they are the Green Bay Packers not the Milwaukee Packers. I am a Milwaukeean not a Green Bayan. A team that plays over 100 miles away is not a local team. They aren't part the local community I can't even go to watch them play. The Bears are even closer to us than the Packers. Just becasue there is a Packers radio and TV affiliate here doesn't mean anything. Then why is San Diego so upset the Chargers moved to LA? It's still in the same state but it's not in their city anymore. When you have no team it's pick and chose and I chose the Colts becasue I liked Manning and just stuck with them after that. When the Packers played at County Stadium they sold out so there is still a big draw for football in Milwaukee. But I never understood why anyone here would support this team since they stopped doing that. Because usually when that happens the city hates the team no supports it. St Louis hates the Rams San Diego hates the Chargers. I think if the NFL wanted to expand yeah I am sure they would look at St Louis first but if they wanted to look at a new market I think it's worth looking into Milwaukee. I would also like to mention I think Mexico City would be a worse option for expanding than London. A team in Mexico City would do nearly all their operations in Spanish discouraging most NFL players from ever wanting to go their. It's why the NHL failed in Quebec City they did their operations mostly in French which discouraged players from ever wanting to go there.
Obviously since you aren't a Packers fan you don't understand. The Packers are more than just a Green Bay team, or even a Milwaukee team, they are a Wisconsin team. There is no way the team survives in little old Green Bay without the statewide support they receive. They really play in a market of 5.5 million, not 300,000. Stop even thinking about an NFL team in Milwaukee, unless the Packers for some reason when Lambeau finally needs replacing, the team moves to Milwaukee.
I just can't get past the fact that your entire argument against pulling for Green Bay is because they're not physically located in Milwaukee, but you choose to root for a team further away from you than four others. I don't care who your team is, but your arguments make absolutely no sense in the least. I despise the Packers and I feel like drinking bleach for having to defend anything related to that franchise, but good god.
If any of y'all want to talk about the Toronto factor in all of this, I can explain it more deeply if you want to.
The Toronto Argonauts may be the oldest pro sports team in North America that is still active, when it comes to the box office, they are the least attended games out of the Leafs, Raptors, Blue Jays, and TFC. Naysayers forever claimed that the cavernous SkyDome was the reason for the Argonauts lousy attendance, but even after moving outside (or shall I say invading) to BMO Field, people thought that would boost the team like it did for the Montreal Alouettes, but it did nothing. Sure it was better than the previous year, but it didn't revitalize the team whatsoever. One such regular season game last year only had 12,000 people attending.
Like it or lump it, Toronto being surrounded by all the other big leagues, the fans of sports mostly see the CFL as a minor league, like the AHL (even though technically that's not the case, we all know the CFL plays by a totally different ruleset)
But here's the part I don't understand, despite no one going to the games, the Toronto Argonauts do quite well on television, in fact I believe they get much better ratings than the Raptors or TFC. Yet, I don't know a single person who's a fan of the Argonauts. Around here, especially among the younger crowd, you'll see them wearing mostly Blue Jays or Raptors gear, followed by Leafs, then TFC, and you will almost never see anyone wearing Argos gear.
Having said that, the main problem with NFL in Toronto, is where will they play and who will own them? Someone like Ted Rogers was eager to have the NFL play in Toronto, but after he started to make progress he unfortunately passed away. Governments around here aren't eager to throw away money to build stadiums, there is still resentment around these parts for the high costs of the SkyDome funded by taxpayers.
Quote from: Rothman on March 12, 2017, 01:37:13 PMSorry, Cheddar became an American citizen in 1866.
And then turned curtain-like: soft, pliable, made quickly and served in thin sheets rather than the gorge-like: hard, a little crumbly, a bit sharp, taking a long time to age, etc. ;)
(I know Wisconsin can make decent cheese - it's the demand from the rest of the country for plastic and/or liquid cheese that gives US cheese a bad rap. And Kraft, who can't even do that well, but dominate the market).
Plenty of cheese made in America that isn't American cheese (a/k/a Singles).
Quote from: dvferyance on March 11, 2017, 05:41:06 PM
Quote from: tribar on March 10, 2017, 11:02:36 PM
Quote from: TheHighwayMan394 on March 10, 2017, 10:53:43 PM
The NFL will never expand to Milwaukee and have no need to do so. The Packers are unquestionably 110% Milwaukee's team.
Yep. An NFL team would fail miserably in Milwaukee. Most of Milwaukee roots for the Packers and Chicago and Green Bay. And where in Milwaukee would this team play?
We would have to build a new stadium but that's the case with any NFL expansion team. If the Packers are Milwaukee's team then why does San Diego need a team when LA is about the same distance from SD as is GB from Milwaukee? I don't get it.
Totally different markets. On one end of the spectrum you have two New York teams that play *in the same stadium* because the market can bear two teams. San Diego has a significant resident base in its local market to root for a team separate from a Los Angeles team. There was a little concern when Baltimore picked up a football team because of its proximity to DC, but there is enough separation (and hatred) between the two cities that there's no conflict.
Can Milwaukee support its own team separate from Green Bay? Probably not. It's simply a different market, and the entire state has a love affair with what is really a small-market team that consistently pumps out big-market team numbers.
I'm perfectly fine with the Packers representing all of WI! While Green Bay is not as large as Milwaukee or even Madison, the fact that the entire state supports them makes them a true American sports success story. And this is coming from a rabid Bears fan who hates them with a passion!
Quote from: Henry on March 13, 2017, 10:20:32 AM
I'm perfectly fine with the Packers representing all of WI! While Green Bay is not as large as Milwaukee or even Madison, the fact that the entire state supports them makes them a true American sports success story. And this is coming from a rabid Bears fan who hates them with a passion!
At least you are not a Seahawks fan
An NFL team in the United Kingdom would be a logistical nightmare. I know that there's a considerable and growing number of British NFL fans, but I just can't see a UK-based NFL team working when every other team is in the United States. I mean, again, I know there's a number of Brits who are into American football, but if an NFL team were to be based there, they would be separated by several hours and by the Atlantic Ocean.
Quote from: epzik8 on March 13, 2017, 03:16:02 PMAn NFL team in the United Kingdom would be a logistical nightmare. I know that there's a considerable and growing number of British NFL fans, but I just can't see a UK-based NFL team working when every other team is in the United States. I mean, again, I know there's a number of Brits who are into American football, but if an NFL team were to be based there, they would be separated by several hours and by the Atlantic Ocean.
As I pointed out upthread, logistics isn't the big problem. The big problem is that the UK fan base have their own teams already and while there's enough support for the NFL, it will take some years to get support for a specific team (think the LA issue writ large) rather than the International Series' Superbowl vibe where all the teams are supported and people cheer on their favourite of the two teams there.
Add in that, typically, both teams playing at Wembley (or Twickers) would do some of the promotional activities put on for each game, that burden would fall on the London franchise.
A London franchise is a marketing nightmare first and foremost and a logistics nightmare second.
Quote from: texaskdog on March 13, 2017, 11:02:20 AM
Quote from: Henry on March 13, 2017, 10:20:32 AM
I'm perfectly fine with the Packers representing all of WI! While Green Bay is not as large as Milwaukee or even Madison, the fact that the entire state supports them makes them a true American sports success story. And this is coming from a rabid Bears fan who hates them with a passion!
At least you are not a Seahawks fan
Right you are ;)
Quote from: TheHighwayMan394 on March 13, 2017, 08:09:27 AM
I just can't get past the fact that your entire argument against pulling for Green Bay is because they're not physically located in Milwaukee, but you choose to root for a team further away from you than four others. I don't care who your team is, but your arguments make absolutely no sense in the least. I despise the Packers and I feel like drinking bleach for having to defend anything related to that franchise, but good god.
Then why should San Diego get another team? They are about the same distance from LA as Green Bay is from Milwaukee. If the Packers can be Milwaukee's team then the Chargers can still be San Diego's team despite the fact they now play in LA. The football fans in Milwaukee can cheer for the Packers if they so chose to that's their choice but you can't claim the Packers as belonging to Milwaukee becasue they don't. You have to drive 2 hours to get to the game that's not what I would consider to be local. The Green Bay Packers are Green Bay's team. That's who they belong to. Have you ever done the drive between Milwaukee and Green Bay? It's longer then it looks. We can agree to disagree I just don't see a team that plays 2 hours away from one city still belongs to that city. If Green Bay was only like a 45 minute drive away I could get it.
Quote from: epzik8 on March 13, 2017, 03:16:02 PM
An NFL team in the United Kingdom would be a logistical nightmare. I know that there's a considerable and growing number of British NFL fans, but I just can't see a UK-based NFL team working when every other team is in the United States. I mean, again, I know there's a number of Brits who are into American football, but if an NFL team were to be based there, they would be separated by several hours and by the Atlantic Ocean.
True but I think if a team were in Mexico there would be bigger problems. They would do their operations all in Spanish they would have a hard time getting anyone to play there. It's why the NHL failed in Quebec City they did their operations in French only. At least if London had a team we would not have 2 teams robbed a home game every year. That's what has always bothered about 2 games in London each year. The London team would likely have to be in the AFC east the only division in football were all teams are in Eastern Time Zone. The closest time zone in the country to London's.
Quote from: dvferyance on March 14, 2017, 10:54:40 AM
Quote from: TheHighwayMan394 on March 13, 2017, 08:09:27 AM
I just can't get past the fact that your entire argument against pulling for Green Bay is because they're not physically located in Milwaukee, but you choose to root for a team further away from you than four others. I don't care who your team is, but your arguments make absolutely no sense in the least. I despise the Packers and I feel like drinking bleach for having to defend anything related to that franchise, but good god.
Then why should San Diego get another team? They are about the same distance from LA as Green Bay is from Milwaukee. If the Packers can be Milwaukee's team then the Chargers can still be San Diego's team despite the fact they now play in LA. The football fans in Milwaukee can cheer for the Packers if they so chose to that's their choice but you can't claim the Packers as belonging to Milwaukee becasue they don't. You have to drive 2 hours to get to the game that's not what I would consider to be local. The Green Bay Packers are Green Bay's team. That's who they belong to. Have you ever done the drive between Milwaukee and Green Bay? It's longer then it looks.
It's really not that bad of a drive.
Quote from: epzik8 on March 13, 2017, 03:16:02 PM
An NFL team in the United Kingdom would be a logistical nightmare. I know that there's a considerable and growing number of British NFL fans, but I just can't see a UK-based NFL team working when every other team is in the United States. I mean, again, I know there's a number of Brits who are into American football, but if an NFL team were to be based there, they would be separated by several hours and by the Atlantic Ocean.
Probably not any more of a logistics nightmare than putting a team in Honolulu. Hawaii's been begging for an NFL franchise for decades.
Quote from: dvferyance on March 14, 2017, 11:13:33 AMThat's what has always bothered about 2 games in London each year.
There's 4 currently, and given that not only have the Jags fought to have one of them as one of their home games every year, but nearly half the teams have already agreed to give up a home game for London, I don't think the teams mind the trip every several years (or every year for the Jags).
Quote from: dvferyance on March 14, 2017, 10:54:40 AM
Quote from: TheHighwayMan394 on March 13, 2017, 08:09:27 AM
I just can't get past the fact that your entire argument against pulling for Green Bay is because they're not physically located in Milwaukee, but you choose to root for a team further away from you than four others. I don't care who your team is, but your arguments make absolutely no sense in the least. I despise the Packers and I feel like drinking bleach for having to defend anything related to that franchise, but good god.
Then why should San Diego get another team? They are about the same distance from LA as Green Bay is from Milwaukee. If the Packers can be Milwaukee's team then the Chargers can still be San Diego's team despite the fact they now play in LA. The football fans in Milwaukee can cheer for the Packers if they so chose to that's their choice but you can't claim the Packers as belonging to Milwaukee becasue they don't. You have to drive 2 hours to get to the game that's not what I would consider to be local. The Green Bay Packers are Green Bay's team. That's who they belong to. Have you ever done the drive between Milwaukee and Green Bay? It's longer then it looks.
Market size.
The San Diego metro area has more than
ten times the population of the Green Bay metro area (3,299,000 people compared to 312,000).
The Los Angeles metro area has more than
eight times the population of the Milwaukee metro area (13,340,000 people compared to 1,576,000).
Even if Milwaukee were to be considered for its own team, it would be one of the smallest markets in the the NFL - only New Orleans, Jacksonville, Buffalo and Green Bay would be smaller, and New Orleans and Jacksonville both have five-year growth rates over 6%, while Milwaukee's growth rate is just over 1%. Buffalo is stagnant, but has the rest of upstate New York to pull from.
Quote from: dvferyance on March 14, 2017, 10:54:40 AM
The football fans in Milwaukee can cheer for the Packers if they so chose to that's their choice but you can't claim the Packers as belonging to Milwaukee becasue they don't. You have to drive 2 hours to get to the game that's not what I would consider to be local. The Green Bay Packers are Green Bay's team. That's who they belong to. Have you ever done the drive between Milwaukee and Green Bay? It's longer then it looks.
"You can't claim the Packers belong to Milwaukee." I think most people in Milwaukee beg to differ on this one, because that's exactly what they do.
Quote from: Henry on March 14, 2017, 10:21:21 AM
Quote from: texaskdog on March 13, 2017, 11:02:20 AM
Quote from: Henry on March 13, 2017, 10:20:32 AM
I'm perfectly fine with the Packers representing all of WI! While Green Bay is not as large as Milwaukee or even Madison, the fact that the entire state supports them makes them a true American sports success story. And this is coming from a rabid Bears fan who hates them with a passion!
At least you are not a Seahawks fan
Right you are ;)
I am a Bears fan. My wife is a Seabags fan. We don't always agree but when we do....it's that we both hate the Packers!
Quote from: slorydn1 on March 19, 2017, 04:27:48 AM
I am a Bears fan. My wife is a Seabags fan. We don't always agree but when we do....it's that we both hate the Patriots!
FTFY.
Quote from: Alps on March 19, 2017, 05:39:29 PM
Quote from: slorydn1 on March 19, 2017, 04:27:48 AM
I am a Bears fan. My wife is a Seabags fan. We don't always agree but when we do....it's that we both hate the Patriots!
FTFY.
Yeah, them too. Still, I have always said that I have 2 favorite teams....the Bears, and whoever the Packers opponent happens to be that week. So, I have actually found myself pinching my nose and rooting for the Pats, about once every 4 years.
OK -- here goes! Expansion to 36 teams; W/C/E divisions of 6 each. Eliminate one pre-season; expand schedule to 17 games (no 8-8 unless 8-8-1). For practical purposes I'm assuming (a) no CA city will pony up the $$ for an expansion team (b) with the Rams, Chargers, and Raiders moving the NFL has had enough relocations for a while, so we'll consider 4 expansion teams (2 NFC, 2 AFC) in cities/metro areas likely to support football. To this end, I'd put teams in the following cities: Albuquerque/NFC, San Antonio/AFC, St. Louis/NFC, and Virginia/Hampton Roads/AFC. The following is the new alignment; (*) indicates expansion team:
AFC WEST AFC CENTRAL AFC EAST
Los Angeles Chargers Pittsburgh Steelers New England Patriots
Las Vegas Raiders Indianapolis Colts New York Jets
Denver Broncos Tennessee Titans Baltimore Ravens
San Antonio Range Riders* Cincinnati Bengals Virginia Admirals*
Houston Texans Cleveland Browns Jacksonville Jaguars
Kansas City Chiefs Buffalo Bills Miami Dolphins
NFC WEST NFC CENTRAL NFC EAST
Los Angeles Rams Minnesota Vikings New York Giants
San Francisco 49ers Green Bay Packers Philadelphia Eagles
Seattle Seahawks Chicago Bears Washington Redskins (if they don't change the name)
Arizona Cardinals Detroit Lions Carolina Panthers
Albuquerque Pumas* St. Louis Pioneers* Atlanta Falcons
New Orleans Saints Dallas Cowboys Tampa Bay Buccaneers
New team names speculative; I almost called St. Louis the "Blues", and Albuquerque the "Heisenbergs". :sombrero: And, yes, I moved Dallas out of NFC East!!! Let them build up new rivalries. Comment away!
I see you brought back the classic 1970-2001 division alignment, but I don't think we'll ever see a team in either the Norfolk or Albuquerque area. St. Louis and San Antonio I can see, although the former is now a longshot after the messy split from the Rams.
Sparker, how about a second Canadian Football League? In the 1990s, the CFL had a failed expansion in the US. Imagine the 7 existed plus 5 folded teams equals 12 teams of what I call the Snowbird Football League (SFL), focused solely on the US American sports market.
Arizona (Phoenix area?) Outlaws, Austin Tejanos, Baltimore Stallions, Birmingham Americans, Florida Manatees (Miami area?), Las Vegas Posse, Memphis Mad Dogs, Mississippi Southmen (Jackson), Sacramento Gold Miners, San Antonio Gunslingers, Shreveport Pirates, and West Florida Barracudas (Mobile AL-Pensacola FL?). I might add the St. Louis Bandits and San Diego Sharks, former NFL cities to this list...just because.
In my fantasy NFL for the 2026-27 season, I mentioned the Hawaii Sharks...I should include Omaha NE which had the United Football League KnightHawks in the early 2010s.
Why would San Antonio be a viable NFL market? After all if everyone is so sure the NFL would flop in Milwaukee why would San Antonio be any different? About everyone in San Antonio cheers for Dallas and I am sure the Cowboys have affiliates there like the Packers do with Milwaukee. So what's the difference if Milwaukee doesn't work then there is no reason San Antonio would be any different since the Cowboys are the team of all of Texas and not just Dallas.
Quote from: Desert Man on March 20, 2017, 12:52:29 PM
Sparker, how about a second Canadian Football League? In the 1990s, the CFL had a failed expansion in the US. Imagine the 7 existed plus 5 folded teams equals 12 teams of what I call the Snowbird Football League (SFL), focused solely on the US American sports market.
Arizona (Phoenix area?) Outlaws, Austin Texans, Baltimore Stallions, Birmingham Americans, Florida Manatees (Miami area?), Las Vegas Posse, Memphis Mad Dogs, Mississippi Southmen (Jackson), Sacramento Gold Miners, San Antonio Gunslingers, Shreveport Pirates, and West Florida Barracudas (Mobile AL-Pensacola FL?). I might add the St. Louis Bandits and San Diego Sharks, former NFL cities to this list...just because.
In my fantasy NFL for the 2026-27 season, I mentioned the Hawaii Sharks...I should include Omaha NE which had the United Football League KnightHawks in the early 2010s.
Quote from: dvferyance on March 22, 2017, 06:22:59 PM
Why would San Antonio be a viable NFL market? After all if everyone is so sure the NFL would flop in Milwaukee why would San Antonio be any different? About everyone in San Antonio cheers for Dallas and I am sure the Cowboys have affiliates there like the Packers do with Milwaukee. So what's the difference if Milwaukee doesn't work then there is no reason San Antonio would be any different since the Cowboys are the team of Texas and not just Dallas.
When it first looked like the Vegas stadium deal was going to go south a couple of months ago, Mark Davis (Raiders' owner) floated San Antonio as an alternative destination -- but that was short-lived, as now it looks like a reworked LV deal will be finalized (with grudging NFL agreement). As there is now a more or less continuous San Antonio-San Marcos-Austin population center from which to draw paying fans, I would think San Antonio would be a more than viable market. After the Oilers left Houston, no one thought that a replacement NFL team there could survive -- primarily due to the perpetual Cowboy PR machine -- but the Texans have proved that notion terribly wrong. TX is large enough to divvy up a few loyalties -- and there's never been too much love lost between Austin and Dallas in any case.
I have my doubts whether a new major pro football league would be able to secure sufficient funds from secondary cities like Birmingham, Shreveport (yeah, let's make sure the stadium is along the I-69 alignment!), or Mobile. If any additional team is to get a foothold in FL, it would almost have to be sited in the Orlando area. And in AZ, Tucson (about 700K population) would be a likely site for a new-league team. As per my NFL expansion post, a 12-team roster would consist of the following cities/areas:
(1) San Diego (2) Tucson (3) Salt Lake City & environs [Provo, Ogden] (4) Oklahoma City (5) El Paso (6) Orlando (7) San Antonio [if and only if the NFL doesn't go there] (8) Honolulu (9) Columbus, OH (10) Memphis (11) Norfolk/Chesapeake/Virginia Beach [I'm sticking to my idea here -- the only major E. Coast metro area w/o a team, and with a shitload of government workers -- again, only if NFL doesn't expand there] , and (12) Sacramento [trust me, they'll latch on to any pro team anywhere anyhow!]. Alternates if NFL does SA and Virginia: Kentucky (Louisville or Lexington; try to draw fan base from both) and/or Omaha (get all the recently frustrated UN fans!). My view is that an upstart league is starting off "in the hole" in any case; trying to siphon off fans from longstanding NFL teams (even those with shitty or uneven recent records) might be a bridge too far; start off with a relatively fresh slate.
Quote from: sparker on March 22, 2017, 07:24:25 PM
Quote from: Desert Man on March 20, 2017, 12:52:29 PM
Sparker, how about a second Canadian Football League? In the 1990s, the CFL had a failed expansion in the US. Imagine the 7 existed plus 5 folded teams equals 12 teams of what I call the Snowbird Football League (SFL), focused solely on the US American sports market.
Arizona (Phoenix area?) Outlaws, Austin Texans, Baltimore Stallions, Birmingham Americans, Florida Manatees (Miami area?), Las Vegas Posse, Memphis Mad Dogs, Mississippi Southmen (Jackson), Sacramento Gold Miners, San Antonio Gunslingers, Shreveport Pirates, and West Florida Barracudas (Mobile AL-Pensacola FL?). I might add the St. Louis Bandits and San Diego Sharks, former NFL cities to this list...just because.
In my fantasy NFL for the 2026-27 season, I mentioned the Hawaii Sharks...I should include Omaha NE which had the United Football League KnightHawks in the early 2010s.
Quote from: dvferyance on March 22, 2017, 06:22:59 PM
Why would San Antonio be a viable NFL market? After all if everyone is so sure the NFL would flop in Milwaukee why would San Antonio be any different? About everyone in San Antonio cheers for Dallas and I am sure the Cowboys have affiliates there like the Packers do with Milwaukee. So what's the difference if Milwaukee doesn't work then there is no reason San Antonio would be any different since the Cowboys are the team of Texas and not just Dallas.
When it first looked like the Vegas stadium deal was going to go south a couple of months ago, Mark Davis (Raiders' owner) floated San Antonio as an alternative destination -- but that was short-lived, as now it looks like a reworked LV deal will be finalized (with grudging NFL agreement). As there is now a more or less continuous San Antonio-San Marcos-Austin population center from which to draw paying fans, I would think San Antonio would be a more than viable market. After the Oilers left Houston, no one thought that a replacement NFL team there could survive -- primarily due to the perpetual Cowboy PR machine -- but the Texans have proved that notion terribly wrong. TX is large enough to divvy up a few loyalties -- and there's never been too much love lost between Austin and Dallas in any case.
I have my doubts whether a new major pro football league would be able to secure sufficient funds from secondary cities like Birmingham, Shreveport (yeah, let's make sure the stadium is along the I-69 alignment!), or Mobile. If any additional team is to get a foothold in FL, it would almost have to be sited in the Orlando area. And in AZ, Tucson (about 700K population) would be a likely site for a new-league team. As per my NFL expansion post, a 12-team roster would consist of the following cities/areas:
(1) San Diego (2) Tucson (3) Salt Lake City & environs [Provo, Ogden] (4) Oklahoma City (5) El Paso (6) Orlando (7) San Antonio [if and only if the NFL doesn't go there] (8) Honolulu (9) Columbus, OH (10) Memphis (11) Norfolk/Chesapeake/Virginia Beach [I'm sticking to my idea here -- the only major E. Coast metro area w/o a team, and with a shitload of government workers -- again, only if NFL doesn't expand there] , and (12) Sacramento [trust me, they'll latch on to any pro team anywhere anyhow!]. Alternates if NFL does SA and Virginia: Kentucky (Louisville or Lexington; try to draw fan base from both) and/or Omaha (get all the recently frustrated UN fans!). My view is that an upstart league is starting off "in the hole" in any case; trying to siphon off fans from longstanding NFL teams (even those with shitty or uneven recent records) might be a bridge too far; start off with a relatively fresh slate.
I doubt that any of those cities will get NFL teams. San Diego blew it they had their chance and said no. San Diego is not much of a sports town anyways. Tucson way too small and too close to Phoenix. Salt Lake City again too small they can barely support an NBA team. Oklahoma City Jerry Jones would never allow it. El Paso too small and Texas has 2 teams already. Orlando too close to Tampa and Florida already has 3 teams. San Antonio ditto for OKC. Honolulu too small and too far the prop bowl isn't even played there anymore. Columbus Ohio already has 2 teams and Columbus is a college football town. Memphis is the likeliest out of this bunch but from what I understand the Grizzles can barley draw a crowd there. Norfolk would be more suitable for the NBA/NHL. Sacramento too small too close to San Francisco not to mention California will have at least 3 teams. Omaha is too small and Louisville would be more suitable for the NBA. With Indianapolis and Cincinnati nearby 3 teams all within 100 miles or less is just too much.
Quote from: dvferyance on March 24, 2017, 03:09:59 PM
Quote from: sparker on March 22, 2017, 07:24:25 PM
Quote from: Desert Man on March 20, 2017, 12:52:29 PM
Sparker, how about a second Canadian Football League? In the 1990s, the CFL had a failed expansion in the US. Imagine the 7 existed plus 5 folded teams equals 12 teams of what I call the Snowbird Football League (SFL), focused solely on the US American sports market.
Arizona (Phoenix area?) Outlaws, Austin Texans, Baltimore Stallions, Birmingham Americans, Florida Manatees (Miami area?), Las Vegas Posse, Memphis Mad Dogs, Mississippi Southmen (Jackson), Sacramento Gold Miners, San Antonio Gunslingers, Shreveport Pirates, and West Florida Barracudas (Mobile AL-Pensacola FL?). I might add the St. Louis Bandits and San Diego Sharks, former NFL cities to this list...just because.
In my fantasy NFL for the 2026-27 season, I mentioned the Hawaii Sharks...I should include Omaha NE which had the United Football League KnightHawks in the early 2010s.
Quote from: dvferyance on March 22, 2017, 06:22:59 PM
Why would San Antonio be a viable NFL market? After all if everyone is so sure the NFL would flop in Milwaukee why would San Antonio be any different? About everyone in San Antonio cheers for Dallas and I am sure the Cowboys have affiliates there like the Packers do with Milwaukee. So what's the difference if Milwaukee doesn't work then there is no reason San Antonio would be any different since the Cowboys are the team of Texas and not just Dallas.
When it first looked like the Vegas stadium deal was going to go south a couple of months ago, Mark Davis (Raiders' owner) floated San Antonio as an alternative destination -- but that was short-lived, as now it looks like a reworked LV deal will be finalized (with grudging NFL agreement). As there is now a more or less continuous San Antonio-San Marcos-Austin population center from which to draw paying fans, I would think San Antonio would be a more than viable market. After the Oilers left Houston, no one thought that a replacement NFL team there could survive -- primarily due to the perpetual Cowboy PR machine -- but the Texans have proved that notion terribly wrong. TX is large enough to divvy up a few loyalties -- and there's never been too much love lost between Austin and Dallas in any case.
I have my doubts whether a new major pro football league would be able to secure sufficient funds from secondary cities like Birmingham, Shreveport (yeah, let's make sure the stadium is along the I-69 alignment!), or Mobile. If any additional team is to get a foothold in FL, it would almost have to be sited in the Orlando area. And in AZ, Tucson (about 700K population) would be a likely site for a new-league team. As per my NFL expansion post, a 12-team roster would consist of the following cities/areas:
(1) San Diego (2) Tucson (3) Salt Lake City & environs [Provo, Ogden] (4) Oklahoma City (5) El Paso (6) Orlando (7) San Antonio [if and only if the NFL doesn't go there] (8) Honolulu (9) Columbus, OH (10) Memphis (11) Norfolk/Chesapeake/Virginia Beach [I'm sticking to my idea here -- the only major E. Coast metro area w/o a team, and with a shitload of government workers -- again, only if NFL doesn't expand there] , and (12) Sacramento [trust me, they'll latch on to any pro team anywhere anyhow!]. Alternates if NFL does SA and Virginia: Kentucky (Louisville or Lexington; try to draw fan base from both) and/or Omaha (get all the recently frustrated UN fans!). My view is that an upstart league is starting off "in the hole" in any case; trying to siphon off fans from longstanding NFL teams (even those with shitty or uneven recent records) might be a bridge too far; start off with a relatively fresh slate.
I doubt that any of those cities will get NFL teams. San Diego blew it they had their chance and said no. San Diego is not much of a sports town anyways. Tucson way too small and too close to Phoenix. Salt Lake City again too small they can barely support an NBA team. Oklahoma City Jerry Jones would never allow it. El Paso too small and Texas has 2 teams already. Orlando too close to Tampa and Florida already has 3 teams. San Antonio ditto for OKC. Honolulu too small and too far the prop bowl isn't even played there anymore. Columbus Ohio already has 2 teams and Columbus is a college football town. Memphis is the likeliest out of this bunch but from what I understand the Grizzles can barley draw a crowd there. Norfolk would be more suitable for the NBA/NHL. Sacramento too small too close to San Francisco not to mention California will have at least 3 teams. Omaha is too small and Louisville would be more suitable for the NBA. With Indianapolis and Cincinnati nearby 3 teams all within 100 miles or less is just too much.
The Titans can't even fill their own stadium in Nashville and they have the entire state. There's no way Tennessee can support two NFL teams.
Quote from: tribar on March 24, 2017, 03:24:34 PM
Quote from: dvferyance on March 24, 2017, 03:09:59 PM
Quote from: sparker on March 22, 2017, 07:24:25 PM
Quote from: Desert Man on March 20, 2017, 12:52:29 PM
Sparker, how about a second Canadian Football League? In the 1990s, the CFL had a failed expansion in the US. Imagine the 7 existed plus 5 folded teams equals 12 teams of what I call the Snowbird Football League (SFL), focused solely on the US American sports market.
Arizona (Phoenix area?) Outlaws, Austin Texans, Baltimore Stallions, Birmingham Americans, Florida Manatees (Miami area?), Las Vegas Posse, Memphis Mad Dogs, Mississippi Southmen (Jackson), Sacramento Gold Miners, San Antonio Gunslingers, Shreveport Pirates, and West Florida Barracudas (Mobile AL-Pensacola FL?). I might add the St. Louis Bandits and San Diego Sharks, former NFL cities to this list...just because.
In my fantasy NFL for the 2026-27 season, I mentioned the Hawaii Sharks...I should include Omaha NE which had the United Football League KnightHawks in the early 2010s.
Quote from: dvferyance on March 22, 2017, 06:22:59 PM
Why would San Antonio be a viable NFL market? After all if everyone is so sure the NFL would flop in Milwaukee why would San Antonio be any different? About everyone in San Antonio cheers for Dallas and I am sure the Cowboys have affiliates there like the Packers do with Milwaukee. So what's the difference if Milwaukee doesn't work then there is no reason San Antonio would be any different since the Cowboys are the team of Texas and not just Dallas.
When it first looked like the Vegas stadium deal was going to go south a couple of months ago, Mark Davis (Raiders' owner) floated San Antonio as an alternative destination -- but that was short-lived, as now it looks like a reworked LV deal will be finalized (with grudging NFL agreement). As there is now a more or less continuous San Antonio-San Marcos-Austin population center from which to draw paying fans, I would think San Antonio would be a more than viable market. After the Oilers left Houston, no one thought that a replacement NFL team there could survive -- primarily due to the perpetual Cowboy PR machine -- but the Texans have proved that notion terribly wrong. TX is large enough to divvy up a few loyalties -- and there's never been too much love lost between Austin and Dallas in any case.
I have my doubts whether a new major pro football league would be able to secure sufficient funds from secondary cities like Birmingham, Shreveport (yeah, let's make sure the stadium is along the I-69 alignment!), or Mobile. If any additional team is to get a foothold in FL, it would almost have to be sited in the Orlando area. And in AZ, Tucson (about 700K population) would be a likely site for a new-league team. As per my NFL expansion post, a 12-team roster would consist of the following cities/areas:
(1) San Diego (2) Tucson (3) Salt Lake City & environs [Provo, Ogden] (4) Oklahoma City (5) El Paso (6) Orlando (7) San Antonio [if and only if the NFL doesn't go there] (8) Honolulu (9) Columbus, OH (10) Memphis (11) Norfolk/Chesapeake/Virginia Beach [I'm sticking to my idea here -- the only major E. Coast metro area w/o a team, and with a shitload of government workers -- again, only if NFL doesn't expand there] , and (12) Sacramento [trust me, they'll latch on to any pro team anywhere anyhow!]. Alternates if NFL does SA and Virginia: Kentucky (Louisville or Lexington; try to draw fan base from both) and/or Omaha (get all the recently frustrated UN fans!). My view is that an upstart league is starting off "in the hole" in any case; trying to siphon off fans from longstanding NFL teams (even those with shitty or uneven recent records) might be a bridge too far; start off with a relatively fresh slate.
I doubt that any of those cities will get NFL teams. San Diego blew it they had their chance and said no. San Diego is not much of a sports town anyways. Tucson way too small and too close to Phoenix. Salt Lake City again too small they can barely support an NBA team. Oklahoma City Jerry Jones would never allow it. El Paso too small and Texas has 2 teams already. Orlando too close to Tampa and Florida already has 3 teams. San Antonio ditto for OKC. Honolulu too small and too far the prop bowl isn't even played there anymore. Columbus Ohio already has 2 teams and Columbus is a college football town. Memphis is the likeliest out of this bunch but from what I understand the Grizzles can barley draw a crowd there. Norfolk would be more suitable for the NBA/NHL. Sacramento too small too close to San Francisco not to mention California will have at least 3 teams. Omaha is too small and Louisville would be more suitable for the NBA. With Indianapolis and Cincinnati nearby 3 teams all within 100 miles or less is just too much.
The Titans can't even fill their own stadium in Nashville and they have the entire state. There's no way Tennessee can support two NFL teams.
(With all the back-quotes, these posts are getting ridiculously long in the physical sense!)
The 12-team concept with admittedly secondary cities was not specifically referring to NFL additions, but rather a new league
a la the old USFL -- or even the original 1960-vintage AFL. No speculation as to where the $$ for developing these teams or their venues will come from -- most likely local businesspeople with big/grandiose ideas or habitual sports investors. The latter would likely approach the venture with the idea that the NFL would eventually absorb at least the more successful teams of the newer league somewhere down the road. Could work; most likely this is all speculation and nothing else!
A proposed alternative professional American football league limited in California to debut in 2018- the Pacific Pro (Football) League. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PAC_Pro_League Based in Los Angeles, they look to have 4 to 8 teams, most likely 2 in Los Angeles area, 1 in Orange County, 1 in San Diego (formerly had the Chargers), 1 in San Francisco, 1 in Oakland (the Raiders are leaving in 2 years), 1 in Stanford-Palo Alto and 1 in Sacramento. The L.A. Memorial (Olympics) Coliseum and Rose Bowl in Pasadena are suitable places to field future teams.
Quote from: Desert Man on April 02, 2017, 10:43:09 PM
A proposed alternative professional American football league limited in California to debut in 2018- the Pacific Pro (Football) League. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PAC_Pro_League Based in Los Angeles, they look to have 4 to 8 teams, most likely 2 in Los Angeles area, 1 in Orange County, 1 in San Diego (formerly had the Chargers), 1 in San Francisco, 1 in Oakland (the Raiders are leaving in 2 years), 1 in Stanford-Palo Alto and 1 in Sacramento. The L.A. Memorial (Olympics) Coliseum and Rose Bowl in Pasadena are suitable places to field future teams.
Yeah, that won't work.
Quote from: tribar on April 02, 2017, 10:44:55 PM
Quote from: Desert Man on April 02, 2017, 10:43:09 PM
A proposed alternative professional American football league limited in California to debut in 2018- the Pacific Pro (Football) League. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PAC_Pro_League Based in Los Angeles, they look to have 4 to 8 teams, most likely 2 in Los Angeles area, 1 in Orange County, 1 in San Diego (formerly had the Chargers), 1 in San Francisco, 1 in Oakland (the Raiders are leaving in 2 years), 1 in Stanford-Palo Alto and 1 in Sacramento. The L.A. Memorial (Olympics) Coliseum and Rose Bowl in Pasadena are suitable places to field future teams.
Yeah, that won't work.
CA-based college players -- even from the lesser-known but larger CSU campuses (Fresno, San Diego, San Jose, Long Beach, et. al.) seem to have no problem attracting the attention of NFL teams either within the draft or even as free agents. A specifically-sited CA league would likely have problems recruiting out-of-state players of even marginal NFL skills, and only the second-tier CA-based players would likely even come out for such a league. If the concept here is a "minor league" feeder to the NFL -- it's already been done (it's called the NCAA -- although they'll disavow that to the ends of the earth!). Stacking CA metro areas with secondary teams isn't a viable concept.
Quote from: Desert Man on April 02, 2017, 10:43:09 PM
A proposed alternative professional American football league limited in California to debut in 2018- the Pacific Pro (Football) League. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PAC_Pro_League Based in Los Angeles, they look to have 4 to 8 teams, most likely 2 in Los Angeles area, 1 in Orange County, 1 in San Diego (formerly had the Chargers), 1 in San Francisco, 1 in Oakland (the Raiders are leaving in 2 years), 1 in Stanford-Palo Alto and 1 in Sacramento. The L.A. Memorial (Olympics) Coliseum and Rose Bowl in Pasadena are suitable places to field future teams.
Will the LA Coliseum still be around then? It's like over 80 years old as is and I thought it was torn down a long time ago. Was surprised to hear it's still there.
Quote from: dvferyance on April 04, 2017, 05:09:17 PM
Quote from: Desert Man on April 02, 2017, 10:43:09 PM
A proposed alternative professional American football league limited in California to debut in 2018- the Pacific Pro (Football) League. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PAC_Pro_League Based in Los Angeles, they look to have 4 to 8 teams, most likely 2 in Los Angeles area, 1 in Orange County, 1 in San Diego (formerly had the Chargers), 1 in San Francisco, 1 in Oakland (the Raiders are leaving in 2 years), 1 in Stanford-Palo Alto and 1 in Sacramento. The L.A. Memorial (Olympics) Coliseum and Rose Bowl in Pasadena are suitable places to field future teams.
Will the LA Coliseum still be around then? It's like over 80 years old as is and I thought it was ton down a long time ago. Was surprised to hear it's still there.
USC plays their home games there (it's right next to the campus); AFAIK, the Rams are also using the venue until their new Inglewood stadium is completed.
Quote from: sparker on April 04, 2017, 09:15:24 PM
Quote from: dvferyance on April 04, 2017, 05:09:17 PM
Quote from: Desert Man on April 02, 2017, 10:43:09 PM
A proposed alternative professional American football league limited in California to debut in 2018- the Pacific Pro (Football) League. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PAC_Pro_League Based in Los Angeles, they look to have 4 to 8 teams, most likely 2 in Los Angeles area, 1 in Orange County, 1 in San Diego (formerly had the Chargers), 1 in San Francisco, 1 in Oakland (the Raiders are leaving in 2 years), 1 in Stanford-Palo Alto and 1 in Sacramento. The L.A. Memorial (Olympics) Coliseum and Rose Bowl in Pasadena are suitable places to field future teams.
Will the LA Coliseum still be around then? It's like over 80 years old as is and I thought it was ton down a long time ago. Was surprised to hear it's still there.
USC plays their home games there (it's right next to the campus); AFAIK, the Rams are also using the venue until their new Inglewood stadium is completed.
I don't know whether a California-based second-tier professional football league would work or not. The Arena League seems to do OK with an effort at a national audience.
Sacramento (CASR-99), Fresno (CASR-99), Inland Empire (I-10), Las Vegas (I-15), Tuscon (I-10), Anaheim (I-5 extends CASR-99), San Diego (I-15), and something Northwest of LA (Ventura, Santa Barbara, San Jose -- All US-101) are all LARGE markets with their own local TV and radio stations and a College or MLB stadium. The worst drive in that whole bunch is Sacramento or San Jose or Santa Barbara to Tuscon.
Would it work? I don't know. No one has tried.
Quote from: english si on March 13, 2017, 08:37:59 AM
Quote from: Rothman on March 12, 2017, 01:37:13 PMSorry, Cheddar became an American citizen in 1866.
And then turned curtain-like: soft, pliable, made quickly and served in thin sheets rather than the gorge-like: hard, a little crumbly, a bit sharp, taking a long time to age, etc. ;)
(I know Wisconsin can make decent cheese - it's the demand from the rest of the country for plastic and/or liquid cheese that gives US cheese a bad rap. And Kraft, who can't even do that well, but dominate the market).
Bump because I was Googling for the issue as to whether the Pack is Milwaukee's team and came across this thread...
As for cheese...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nX6DWqyXOxo&t=398s (scroll to 6:57)
(sorry, couldn't resist)
ixnay
I created a thread on the are-the-Packers-Milwaukee's-team debate on 506sports.com .
http://506sports.com/forum/index.php?topic=20648.0
ixnay
Quote from: ixnay on September 23, 2017, 08:31:20 AM
I created a thread on the are-the-Packers-Milwaukee's-team debate on 506sports.com .
http://506sports.com/forum/index.php?topic=20648.0
ixnay
Without even watching the video you posted or visiting the link, the answer is yes.
The Milwaukeeans tend to be even more rabid Packer fans than us here in northeastern Wisconsin.
Mike
Quote from: mgk920 on September 24, 2017, 12:28:49 PM
The Milwaukeeans tend to be even more rabid Packer fans than us here in northeastern Wisconsin.
Mike
The Milwaukeans tend to outnumber you up in northeastern Wisconsin ;)
The NFL shouldn't grow beyond 32 teams unless some sort of promotion-relegation system goes into place. There's a perfect number of divisions and teams per division. It's balanced.
I'm not so sure that NFL football in San Diego is dead, because due to the suckage in attendance for LA Chargers games, there's already talk of the NFL owners forcing Alex Spanos to relocate back to SD. LA couldn't handle the Rams back in the 1980's; how would you think they would handle both the Chargers AND the Rams?
The logistics of having a London franchise would probably be too much for a fall season. The best bet for London would be a revival of a spring developmental European league like the WLAF (or NFL Europe) combined with the current schedule of regular NFL games.
If I had my druthers, this would be my fantasy NFL setup (assuming no new teams added):
AFC East:
Patriots, Bills, Jets, Ravens
AFC South:
Dolphins, Jaguars, Texans, Titans
AFC North:
Steelers, Browns, Bengals, Colts
AFC West:
Broncos, Chiefs, Chargers, Raiders
Mostly, I make it more geographically compact by moving Baltimore to the East, Indy to the North, and Miami to the South.
NFC East:
Giants, Redskins, Eagles, Panthers
NFC South:
Cowboys, Saints, Falcons, Bucs
NFC North:
Bears, Lions, Packers, Vikings
NFC West:
Seahawks, Rams, 49ers, Cardinals
Sorry, Jerrah and Cowboys fans, but you belong in the SOUTH; screw tradition. I move Carolina to the NFC East to compensate.
I do agree that 32 is a good number for the NFL but I could see it going to 34 teams someday with a team in St Louis and a team in London. But why would the Chargers move back to San Diego? I really believe Spanos wanted to stay there and really tried hard to get a stadium deal there but after the referendum failed the writing was on the wall. The Chargers will fail in LA but I see them moving to another city in the future like Portland or San Antonio. What really should have happened is the Rams stay in St Louis the Raiders move to LA and the Chargers move to Vegas but that is all too late now.
Quote from: dvferyance on October 02, 2017, 03:02:08 PM
I really believe Spanos wanted to stay there
Not in the least. He would only stay if the taxpayers paid for his stadium. He filed for relocation more than a year before the stadium referendum came to a vote. He knew sentiment was against public funding, and he could use that as an "excuse" to get out of San Diego. He knew he would get more money going to Los Angeles, even if it meant playing in a toy stadium for a few years, then being second fiddle in the new Inglewood stadium. Money wins.
Going back to the London issue, my mum travelled on two trains heading out of London to Wembley on Sunday morning (over 3 hours before kick-off and a while before the pubs would be open). Lots of people (busy standing levels), including lots of Germans (I guessed that it might have been a flight to City Airport from Germany that flooded her Jubilee line train from Canary Wharf) was what she noticed. However, I doubt it will be as attractive with twice the number of games, and without the special atmosphere of being a promotional series.
There's still not support for a team rather than the whole NFL. Perhaps another decade of the Jags happily giving up home games (they've won their last three London games, and only won four games in Jacksonville in that time period) will help fix that as the fans who began in the 80s and 90s (so Dolphins, Cowboys, 49ers are popular as they were the big teams then - and Raiders because they are the 49ers rivals) begin to be less of the crowd, as fans who began in the 10s and 20s grow in number. Certainly the Jags have increased their share in the shirts you see in London significantly by playing here each year.
Quote from: DTComposer on October 02, 2017, 04:01:05 PM
Quote from: dvferyance on October 02, 2017, 03:02:08 PM
I really believe Spanos wanted to stay there
Not in the least. He would only stay if the taxpayers paid for his stadium. He filed for relocation more than a year before the stadium referendum came to a vote. He knew sentiment was against public funding, and he could use that as an "excuse" to get out of San Diego. He knew he would get more money going to Los Angeles, even if it meant playing in a toy stadium for a few years, then being second fiddle in the new Inglewood stadium. Money wins.
What I should have said is he tried to stay there unlike Kroenke who was going to move regardless. Is it even possible to move back? I thought they were tearing down Qualcomm this year and the Padres stadium is only compatible to baseball. It's clear LA can't support 2 teams but I see no reason why the Chargers should move back to San Diego after the voters rejected the referendum. They had their chance to keep the team and blew it. The Chargers should look into relocating to a new city. San Antonio makes sense it has a stadium all ready and was used a a temporary home for the Saints during Katrina.
Quote from: tchafe1978 on September 24, 2017, 04:25:24 AM
Quote from: ixnay on September 23, 2017, 08:31:20 AM
I created a thread on the are-the-Packers-Milwaukee's-team debate on 506sports.com .
http://506sports.com/forum/index.php?topic=20648.0
ixnay
Without even watching the video you posted or visiting the link, the answer is yes.
Milwaukee can support the Packers if they so chose but you can't count them as a Milwaukee based team becasue they play 2 hours north in Green Bay. When the Packers win the super bowl the trophy goes to Green Bay and Green Bay is considered the championship city not Milwaukee. Just like Memphis can support the Titans but they are a Nashville based team. I don't know why San Deigo can't still support the Chargers becasue they didn't move far and are still in the same state.
Quote from: dvferyance on October 04, 2017, 12:26:50 PM
Quote from: tchafe1978 on September 24, 2017, 04:25:24 AM
Quote from: ixnay on September 23, 2017, 08:31:20 AM
I created a thread on the are-the-Packers-Milwaukee's-team debate on 506sports.com .
http://506sports.com/forum/index.php?topic=20648.0
ixnay
Without even watching the video you posted or visiting the link, the answer is yes.
Milwaukee can support the Packers if they so chose but you can't count them as a Milwaukee based team becasue they play 2 hours north in Green Bay. Just like Memphis can support the Titans but they are a Nashville based team. I don't know why San Deigo can't still support the Chargers becasue they didn't move far and are still in the same state.
Because the Chargers had a full history in San Diego and Spanos abandoned them. The Packers have always been based in Green Bay, and played in Milwaukee to expand their fan base throughout the state, so there was no bad blood when the Packers moved all their home games to Lambeau. And it was well understood that Memphis was just a temporary home for the Titans on their trek to Nashville, so there was never any bad blood there either. LA and San Diego are two totally different markets; MLB certainly thought so when they allowed the Padres to join the NL in 1969. Hypothetically, if a franchise in a sport were to move from Philadelphia to Pittsburgh, would the fan base still follow? No, because the two cities, while in the same state, are two distinctly different markets, as are LA and San Diego.
Quote from: dvferyance on October 04, 2017, 12:24:13 PM
What I should have said is he tried to stay there
Again, no. Trying would mean using a portion of his own $2-billion-plus net worth (or any of his connections other other billionaire individuals or corporations) to help fund a new stadium.
Quote from: dvferyance on October 04, 2017, 12:24:13 PM
but I see no reason why the Chargers should move back to San Diego after the voters rejected the referendum.
So to be clear: in your opinion, a city/metro area does not deserve a team unless the citizens of that city/metro area pay for the stadium out of their own pockets?
Quote from: dvferyance on October 04, 2017, 12:24:13 PM
San Antonio makes sense it has a stadium all ready and was used a a temporary home for the Saints during Katrina.
So was Tiger Stadium at LSU, and that was an utter disaster. It also made sense because a lot of Saints fans were displaced to Texas by Katrina. That doesn't mean that it would work now. Central Texas is Cowboys country. How many of those fans would switch loyalty to a San Antonio-based team?
You can try making an argument that an SA team would succeed if it were in the AFC competing against the Texans. I'd like to hear that argument, because my gut sense says it won't work.
Quote from: jbnv on October 08, 2017, 10:47:27 AM
Quote from: dvferyance on October 04, 2017, 12:24:13 PM
San Antonio makes sense it has a stadium all ready and was used a a temporary home for the Saints during Katrina.
So was Tiger Stadium at LSU, and that was an utter disaster. It also made sense because a lot of Saints fans were displaced to Texas by Katrina. That doesn't mean that it would work now. Central Texas is Cowboys country. How many of those fans would switch loyalty to a San Antonio-based team?
You can try making an argument that an SA team would succeed if it were in the AFC competing against the Texans. I'd like to hear that argument, because my gut sense says it won't work.
So what is your point that Baton Rouge could be a viable option for the Chargers? I don't think so too small and way to close to New Orleans and the stadium there is only built for college. The Alamo dome was built to bring in an NFL team. You can at least make the case the Chargers couldn't do any worse there then what they are doing in LA. I think Porltand could be a possibility but there you would have to build a stadium. San Antonio is way bigger than Baton Rouge and has a stadium that is compatible for the NFL. The LSU stadium is only made for college football.
Quote from: DTComposer on October 04, 2017, 05:35:18 PM
Quote from: dvferyance on October 04, 2017, 12:24:13 PM
What I should have said is he tried to stay there
Again, no. Trying would mean using a portion of his own $2-billion-plus net worth (or any of his connections other other billionaire individuals or corporations) to help fund a new stadium.
Quote from: dvferyance on October 04, 2017, 12:24:13 PM
but I see no reason why the Chargers should move back to San Diego after the voters rejected the referendum.
So to be clear: in your opinion, a city/metro area does not deserve a team unless the citizens of that city/metro area pay for the stadium out of their own pockets?
Can they even move back? I though Qualcomm was salted to be demolished this year. And the Padres stadium was only built for baseball. I also can't see the people of San Diego welcoming Spanos back.
^^ SDSU still plays at Qualcomm, but are actively looking at a new place to play.
Quote from: dvferyance on October 09, 2017, 04:04:37 PMSo what is your point that Baton Rouge could be a viable option for the Chargers?
Wow, that drove way off into the weeds.
I don't see the NFL expanding at all for quite a while. There is already a large talent discrepancy between the best and worst starters at certain position groups is high (especially quarterback) and with all the heightened awareness of concussions and the decline in participation in football at the youth through high school levels, the discrepancy isn't going to decrease.
Some teams may eventually move, but we're going to have 32 teams for a while.
The one change I would like to see is the elimination of conferences. Just have 8 four-team divisions. Best four division winners get byes and seeded 1-4. Other four division winners get seeded 5-8 and host the four wild cards.
Especially if the rebooted XFL takes off.
32 works, because it's a number divisible by 2, 4, and 8. You can only really expand 4 at a time to keep an equal number in a division. If the NFL went to 34, you'd have two 5-team divisions and six 4-team divisions. At least with 36, you could have six 6 team divisions.
If we eliminated conferences, the 2017 playoffs would have had the same 4 teams with byes. Tiebreakers would have NE 1st, PHI 2nd, PIT 3rd, and MIN 4th. Wildcard matchups (based on applicable tiebreakers) would be NO vs. BUF, LAR vs. TEN, JAX vs. ATL, and KC vs CAR. The only issue is that you would have a 7-way tiebreaker for the last 2 wildcards.
If you want to take it to the next level and realign geographically, it would look like this:
NORTHEAST
NE 13-3
BUF 9-7
NYJ 5-11
NYG 3-13
ATLANTIC
PHI 13-3
CAR 11-5
BAL 9-7
WAS 7-9
SOUTHEAST
ATL 10-6
JAX 10-6
MIA 6-10
TB 5-11
GULF COAST
NO 11-5
TEN 9-7
DAL 9-7
HOU 4-12
GREAT LAKES
PIT 13-3
CIN 7-9
IND 4-12
CLE 0-16
NORTH
MIN 13-3
DET 9-7
GB 7-9
CHI 5-11
NORTHWEST
KC 10-6
SEA 9-7
SF 6-10
DEN 5-11
SOUTHWEST
LAR 11-5
LAC 9-7
ARZ 8-8
OAK 6-10
Byes: 1. NE 2. PHI 3. PIT 4. MIN
Wildcard Round: LAR vs. BUF, NO vs. TEN, KC vs. JAX , ATL vs. CAR
Notes:
1. Used league standings for all 3+ team tiebreakers. Used actual tiebreakers for 2 team tiebreakers, but eliminated division and conference records in the determination. Did break division ties within proposed divisions before overall seeding ties.
2. NE and PHI get top 2 seeds based on league standings. PIT gets 3 over MIN based on head to head victory.
3. ATL wins Southeast over JAX based on strength of victory tiebreaker. KC gets 7 seed over ATL based on same.
4. LAR get 5 seed based on head to head victory over NO
5. TEN and BUF emerge as last two wildcards in a 7-way tiebreaker. TEN gets 3rd wildcard over BUF based on record vs. common opponents (came down to TEN beating CIN with BUF losing to them)
6. I put OAK in the Southwest based on their impending move to Vega$.
Quote from: dvferyance on March 22, 2017, 06:22:59 PM
Why would San Antonio be a viable NFL market? After all if everyone is so sure the NFL would flop in Milwaukee why would San Antonio be any different? About everyone in San Antonio cheers for Dallas and I am sure the Cowboys have affiliates there like the Packers do with Milwaukee. So what's the difference if Milwaukee doesn't work then there is no reason San Antonio would be any different since the Cowboys are the team of Texas and not just Dallas.
Milwaukee has marginally the population for NFL. San Antonio is one of the largest cities in the country.
Quote from: jp the roadgeek on January 30, 2018, 05:00:46 PM
32 works, because it's a number divisible by 2, 4, and 8. You can only really expand 4 at a time to keep an equal number in a division. If the NFL went to 34, you'd have two 5-team divisions and six 4-team divisions. At least with 36, you could have six 6 team divisions.
If we eliminated conferences, the 2017 playoffs would have had the same 4 teams with byes. Tiebreakers would have NE 1st, PHI 2nd, PIT 3rd, and MIN 4th. Wildcard matchups (based on applicable tiebreakers) would be NO vs. BUF, LAR vs. TEN, JAX vs. ATL, and KC vs CAR. The only issue is that you would have a 7-way tiebreaker for the last 2 wildcards.
If you want to take it to the next level and realign geographically, it would look like this:
NORTHEAST
NE 13-3
BUF 9-7
NYJ 5-11
NYG 3-13
ATLANTIC
PHI 13-3
CAR 11-5
BAL 9-7
WAS 7-9
SOUTHEAST
ATL 10-6
JAX 10-6
MIA 6-10
TB 5-11
GULF COAST
NO 11-5
TEN 9-7
DAL 9-7
HOU 4-12
GREAT LAKES
PIT 13-3
CIN 7-9
IND 4-12
CLE 0-16
NORTH
MIN 13-3
DET 9-7
GB 7-9
CHI 5-11
NORTHWEST
KC 10-6
SEA 9-7
SF 6-10
DEN 5-11
SOUTHWEST
LAR 11-5
LAC 9-7
ARZ 8-8
OAK 6-10
So why not Sea/SF/LAR/LAC in a division?
Also flipflop Indy & Detroit
Quote from: 1995hoo on February 18, 2017, 09:24:13 AM
The one thing that could perhaps make the London logistics less of an issue is any of the supersonic business jet proposals come to fruition in the next few years. Most of the proposals involve aircraft that could seat 35 to 50 people. Of course that means you'd need two of them for an NFL team to make the trip, but speaking from experience, flying transatlantic in under three and a half hours makes a massive difference (not to mention the "arrive before you leave" aspect on the westbound flight if the plane is fast enough).
The issue isn't the amount of time it takes to travel (it takes about as much time to travel from, say, Boston to London as it does to travel from Boston to the West Coast), it's jet lag. That's also the reason why Hawaii will never get an NFL team.
Quote from: abefroman329 on February 07, 2018, 03:46:33 PM
Quote from: 1995hoo on February 18, 2017, 09:24:13 AM
The one thing that could perhaps make the London logistics less of an issue is any of the supersonic business jet proposals come to fruition in the next few years. Most of the proposals involve aircraft that could seat 35 to 50 people. Of course that means you'd need two of them for an NFL team to make the trip, but speaking from experience, flying transatlantic in under three and a half hours makes a massive difference (not to mention the "arrive before you leave" aspect on the westbound flight if the plane is fast enough).
The issue isn't the amount of time it takes to travel (it takes about as much time to travel from, say, Boston to London as it does to travel from Boston to the West Coast), it's jet lag. That's also the reason why Hawaii will never get an NFL team.
Actually, Boston to London would be shorter because you're flying with the prevailing winds. However, coming back across the pond, it would be about as long as Boston to the West Coast. The toughest trip would be for West Coast teams to go to London; it's an 8 hour difference, and a bye week is almost guaranteed the week after any trip. Eastern Time Zone teams (except maybe the Colts, Bengals, Browns, and Lions) can get away without a bye the week after going to London, but all should be guaranteed a home game the following week. Those teams in the middle of the country could either have a bye or have a game scheduled on the East Coast the following week and train nearby the stadium.
Quote from: jbnv on September 24, 2017, 01:18:31 PM
The NFL shouldn't grow beyond 32 teams unless some sort of promotion-relegation system goes into place. There's a perfect number of divisions and teams per division. It's balanced.
6 of 6 is more balanced
New USFL type league in the fall
Honolulu Warriors
Sacramento Invaders
Utah Canyons
Portland Breakers
Albuquerque Blazers
San Diego Blitz
Orlando Renegades
San Antonio Gunslingers
Austin Wranglers
Birmingham Stallions
Memphis Showboats
Saint Louis Stars
Quote from: texaskdog on February 08, 2018, 10:25:52 AM
Quote from: jbnv on September 24, 2017, 01:18:31 PM
The NFL shouldn't grow beyond 32 teams unless some sort of promotion-relegation system goes into place. There's a perfect number of divisions and teams per division. It's balanced.
6 of 6 is more balanced
If it's a power of 2 (like 32), single elimination works better.
Quote from: texaskdog on February 08, 2018, 10:25:52 AM
Quote from: jbnv on September 24, 2017, 01:18:31 PM
The NFL shouldn't grow beyond 32 teams unless some sort of promotion-relegation system goes into place. There's a perfect number of divisions and teams per division. It's balanced.
6 of 6 is more balanced
So the NFL would have to expand from 32 to 36 in one swoop to maintain the balance. Can it really support four more teams, especially now that it is mired in controversy and losing fans?
Quote from: texaskdog on February 08, 2018, 10:25:52 AM
Quote from: jbnv on September 24, 2017, 01:18:31 PM
The NFL shouldn't grow beyond 32 teams unless some sort of promotion-relegation system goes into place. There's a perfect number of divisions and teams per division. It's balanced.
6 of 6 is more balanced
It sounds more balanced, but it's not really more balanced.
If you have 2 leagues, you'll still need a single wild card team in each league. There'll be no bye teams. But worst of all, you'll have 14 teams from each league not making the playoffs. Teams that don't have much shot at making the playoffs don't draw fans, and don't sell merchandise.
36 teams might work if you had a two-tiered league with promotion and relegation:
- Current two conferences, 2 tiers, 3 divisions, 3 teams per division per tier.
- Tier 1 membership determined by number of Super Bowl wins, then number of conference/league wins, then overall record.
- Schedule: Home-and-home with each team in your division (4 games). Home-and-home with each team in the corresponding team in the other tier (4 games). Home-and-home with each team in the corresponding division in the other conference in your tier (4 games). Four more games by random choice. 16 games total.
- Playoffs: First round: One playoff per division per tier. Top teams of each division plus the remaining team with the best record.
- The Super Bowl is the AFC and NFC tier-1 champions. The tier-2 AFC and NFC champions play the Saturday before the Super Bowl for the tier-2 championship.
- Promotion and relegation: The AFC-2 and NFC-2 champions swap places with the last-place teams of their corresponding AFC-1 and NFC-1 divisions.
- Every four years, realign the divisions to account for geography.
(P.S. I'd love to see promotion and relegation in American football, both professional and collegiate. I think it would make the game more interesting by allowing good teams to bubble up rather than be locked in mediocre conferences forever. But I think it will never happen because it will interfere with tradition.)
The upcoming XFL will have future competition. https://www.si.com/nfl/2018/03/20/alliance-american-football-xfl-competitor-league-launch
Quote from: Stephane Dumas on March 20, 2018, 08:19:54 PM
The upcoming XFL will have future competition. https://www.si.com/nfl/2018/03/20/alliance-american-football-xfl-competitor-league-launch
Already made a new topic for it.
Quote from: jbnv on September 24, 2017, 01:18:31 PM
The NFL shouldn't grow beyond 32 teams unless some sort of promotion-relegation system goes into place. There's a perfect number of divisions and teams per division. It's balanced.
They'd almost have to split back into two leagues with the winners meeting in the super bowl. Two leagues of 18 that don't cross over during regular season. Three divisions of 6 would mean 10 divisional games and the other 6 games could be alternated by year. They try really hard to get everyone to play everyone and it's hard when you only have 16 games.
Quote from: dvferyance on October 02, 2017, 03:02:08 PM
I do agree that 32 is a good number for the NFL but I could see it going to 34 teams someday with a team in St Louis and a team in London. But why would the Chargers move back to San Diego? I really believe Spanos wanted to stay there and really tried hard to get a stadium deal there but after the referendum failed the writing was on the wall. The Chargers will fail in LA but I see them moving to another city in the future like Portland or San Antonio. What really should have happened is the Rams stay in St Louis the Raiders move to LA and the Chargers move to Vegas but that is all too late now.
If the court agreed with the city of San Diego, it's possible, and the LA market would get an expansion team, esp the Stubhub Center in Carson. They will play in the LA stadium in Hollywood Park when it opens in 2020. I guess by 2024, the court decision may bring back the Chargers to San Diego.
NFL alignment 2026-2030: considering the Oakland fan base make them get the Raiders' team records back, similar to how the 2nd Cleveland Browns carries the 1st Browns' team record. I say the NFL acquired a failed league who would been a competitor.
AMERICAN
EAST: Baltimore, Buffalo, New England, NY Jets, Pittsburgh.
NORTH: Cincinnati, Cleveland, Indianapolis, Kansas City, Toronto Wolfpack.
SOUTH: Houston Oilers 2.0, Jacksonville, Miami, San Antonio Texans, Tennessee.
WEST: Denver, LA Express, Las Vegas Cobras, Oakland Raiders 2.0, San Diego Chargers.
NATIONAL
EAST: Atlanta, Carolina, NY Giants, Philadelphia, Washington.
SOUTH: Birmingham Bombers, Dallas, New Orleans, Oklahoma Outlaws, Tampa Bay.
NORTH: Chicago, Detroit, Green Bay, Minnesota, St. Louis Bulldogs.
WEST: Arizona, Hawaii Sharks, LA Rams, San Francisco, Seattle.
Quote from: ixnay on September 22, 2017, 08:39:53 PM
Quote from: english si on March 13, 2017, 08:37:59 AM
Quote from: Rothman on March 12, 2017, 01:37:13 PMSorry, Cheddar became an American citizen in 1866.
And then turned curtain-like: soft, pliable, made quickly and served in thin sheets rather than the gorge-like: hard, a little crumbly, a bit sharp, taking a long time to age, etc. ;)
(I know Wisconsin can make decent cheese - it's the demand from the rest of the country for plastic and/or liquid cheese that gives US cheese a bad rap. And Kraft, who can't even do that well, but dominate the market).
Bump because I was Googling for the issue as to whether the Pack is Milwaukee's team and came across this thread...
As for cheese...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nX6DWqyXOxo&t=398s (scroll to 6:57)
(sorry, couldn't resist)
ixnay
I enjoyed Totally Spies when it was on TV (thank god for youtube to find cartoons of any era). They should made an episode Alex (the brown-skinned one out of the 3) as the first female major league player, a pitcher (for the Angels). Sam (the red-haired one is a catcher in the Dodgers) and Clover (the blonde one, a Padres infielder). They're on a mission for WOOHP (the spy org) to save baseball, the American pasttime, from LAMOS (their nemesis). Imagine it happened in an all-star-game (fictionally in Yankee stadium).
Back on topic, nearby suburbs in San Diego area would be better or suitable places for a future NFL stadium: Oceanside and Escondido in the north half of San Diego county, but I disagree with Temecula in Riverside county and Ontario in San Bernardino county. The cities of Industry and Carson attempted to bring the Chargers or Rams back to LA before. And finally, Orange County with Tustin or Irvine, which makes sense and a quick buck - they decided not to bring a second NFL team (no Chargers, Rams or even Raiders back).
I was thinking the other day could Birmingham work for the NFL? Alabama is one of the largest states without any pro sports and like Vegas they did have an XFL team for a year. I highly doubt there is any strong fan base there for a team that any nearby team like the Titans or Falcons would complain about.
^^ College sports are king in that area. An NFL team in Alabama would play second/third fiddle to the Tide and Auburn for fan support.
Quote from: jbnv on September 24, 2017, 01:18:31 PM
The NFL shouldn't grow beyond 32 teams unless some sort of promotion-relegation system goes into place. There's a perfect number of divisions and teams per division. It's balanced.
6 divisions of 6!
I don't see Roger Goodell adding any new teams, so 32 is the perfect number for the league. Same goes for the NHL once that Seattle team gets up and running.
You need two things in order to expand a league, fan support and competitive talent. The NFL may very well have the fan support to add 4 more teams, but not the talent.
The soccer style promotion/relegation system would never work in the US. The TV networks count on the big markets always being there when negotiating deals. They aren't going to pay nearly as much if the teams in NY and Chicago could be out of the top tier at any point in time.
Quote from: texaskdog on January 21, 2020, 10:39:18 PM
Quote from: jbnv on September 24, 2017, 01:18:31 PM
The NFL shouldn't grow beyond 32 teams unless some sort of promotion-relegation system goes into place. There's a perfect number of divisions and teams per division. It's balanced.
6 divisions of 6!
More or less what I proposed back in 2017 (reply #48). Had a few alternate ideas as of late, some of which deal with the ups and downs of the various teams and division parity. Still like the 6-division concept and 17-game regular season -- but the idea of placing a team in Albuquerque seems a bit of a stretch, considering the overall metro area isn't that much larger than the central city itself -- and including Santa Fe and Taos in the fan base is a bit far-fetched! After talking with my cousin Glen in OKC, I'm more and more convinced that an Oklahoma-based NFC team, drawing fans from both OKC and Tulsa as well as the more outlying environs, would be quite viable. The proximity of UofO and OSU and their combined fanbase had provided doubt before -- but the dilution of the old Big Eight into the Big-Pick-Any-High-Even-Number has made quite a few local folks look for new horizons. So the potential Albuquerque franchise just moves east on I-40 to its new home. Don't know what to call it; possibly the Wagoneers after the vehicle of choice for the original "Sooner" settlers. I'll ask my cousin; he or his brothers might have a better idea! In any case, I still stand by my other three expansion choices -- St. Louis; still has a potential fanbase in MO and southern IL; San Antonio -- TX can certainly support 3 teams, particularly since the new one would draw fans/customers from both SA and Austin, not to mention the entire I-35 corridor in between. And Virginia/Hampton Roads could be based either in the latter area or even Richmond (or simply put the stadium along I-64 in between!) -- could be something our intrepid I-87 warriors (you know who you are!) might just agree on!
But by 2026 the recent L.A. situation -- going from zero to 2 teams in one fell swoop -- might cease to be viable (particularly if Philip Rivers works out a trade or simply retires); the Spanos ownership might look elsewhere if ticket sales slump (those particular owners seem to value the bottom line above all else) -- and since they threw San Diego under the bus, it's possible the franchise could move north to the Sacramento area, close to Spanos' corporate central in Stockton (a stadium in Elk Grove, anyone?). Aside from Vegas, Sacramento seems to be the most "greedy/needy" metro area when it comes to snagging pro teams.
Portland almost always comes up during discussions of this sort -- but potential owners/investors in teams want to see an influx of public money for stadiums or promotional efforts -- and the longstanding political climate there is just not favorable to public money spent on private sports enterprises. Plus, finding a location for a stadium with adequate access would draw the ire of PDX Metro; if by odd chance the area ever got a NFL franchise, the stadium would as likely as not be located across the river in WA as per Meadowlands and NYC! Just don't see it happening!
Quote from: DTComposer on March 14, 2017, 07:04:03 PM
Buffalo is stagnant, but has the rest of upstate New York to pull from.
Indeed. I believe I have argued on this forum that Rochester to Buffalo, for Bills home games, is a bigger fan migration than Milwaukee to Green Bay. Anything in NY west of I-81 is major Bills territory.
Quote from: sparker on January 22, 2020, 07:02:26 PM
Quote from: texaskdog on January 21, 2020, 10:39:18 PM
Quote from: jbnv on September 24, 2017, 01:18:31 PM
The NFL shouldn't grow beyond 32 teams unless some sort of promotion-relegation system goes into place. There's a perfect number of divisions and teams per division. It's balanced.
6 divisions of 6!
More or less what I proposed back in 2017 (reply #48). Had a few alternate ideas as of late, some of which deal with the ups and downs of the various teams and division parity. Still like the 6-division concept and 17-game regular season -- but the idea of placing a team in Albuquerque seems a bit of a stretch, considering the overall metro area isn't that much larger than the central city itself -- and including Santa Fe and Taos in the fan base is a bit far-fetched! After talking with my cousin Glen in OKC, I'm more and more convinced that an Oklahoma-based NFC team, drawing fans from both OKC and Tulsa as well as the more outlying environs, would be quite viable. The proximity of UofO and OSU and their combined fanbase had provided doubt before -- but the dilution of the old Big Eight into the Big-Pick-Any-High-Even-Number has made quite a few local folks look for new horizons. So the potential Albuquerque franchise just moves east on I-40 to its new home. Don't know what to call it; possibly the Wagoneers after the vehicle of choice for the original "Sooner" settlers. I'll ask my cousin; he or his brothers might have a better idea! In any case, I still stand by my other three expansion choices -- St. Louis; still has a potential fanbase in MO and southern IL; San Antonio -- TX can certainly support 3 teams, particularly since the new one would draw fans/customers from both SA and Austin, not to mention the entire I-35 corridor in between. And Virginia/Hampton Roads could be based either in the latter area or even Richmond (or simply put the stadium along I-64 in between!) -- could be something our intrepid I-87 warriors (you know who you are!) might just agree on!
But by 2026 the recent L.A. situation -- going from zero to 2 teams in one fell swoop -- might cease to be viable (particularly if Philip Rivers works out a trade or simply retires); the Spanos ownership might look elsewhere if ticket sales slump (those particular owners seem to value the bottom line above all else) -- and since they threw San Diego under the bus, it's possible the franchise could move north to the Sacramento area, close to Spanos' corporate central in Stockton (a stadium in Elk Grove, anyone?). Aside from Vegas, Sacramento seems to be the most "greedy/needy" metro area when it comes to snagging pro teams.
Portland almost always comes up during discussions of this sort -- but potential owners/investors in teams want to see an influx of public money for stadiums or promotional efforts -- and the longstanding political climate there is just not favorable to public money spent on private sports enterprises. Plus, finding a location for a stadium with adequate access would draw the ire of PDX Metro; if by odd chance the area ever got a NFL franchise, the stadium would as likely as not be located across the river in WA as per Meadowlands and NYC! Just don't see it happening!
What killed pro football in PDX: Voters turning down the Delta Dome proposal back in 1965. I believe you to be right about any football stadium being built in PDX turning into an untenable situation. The old greyhound racetrack struck me as a property that would be fine. What do you think about that location?
A suburban location on the highway to Estacada looks doable. The SE PDX metro area is not as congested as the SW area. Would this be okay?
Rick
Quote from: nexus73 on January 23, 2020, 12:33:23 PM
What killed pro football in PDX: Voters turning down the Delta Dome proposal back in 1965. I believe you to be right about any football stadium being built in PDX turning into an untenable situation. The old greyhound racetrack struck me as a property that would be fine. What do you think about that location?
A suburban location on the highway to Estacada looks doable. The SE PDX metro area is not as congested as the SW area. Would this be okay?
Rick
While the good folks at Portland Metro would probably piss & moan about anything in their jurisdiction that would become a major traffic attractant/generator -- probably to the point that nothing would ever get finalized -- the plain truth is that their jurisdiction ends in the middle of the Columbia -- hence the increased potential that any stadium would be constructed on the WA side of the river (Camas, anyone?). Property developers discovered this concept decades ago -- which is why Battle Ground and Woodland are fast becoming developmental sites, for better or worse, as a way to circumvent the controlled growth aspects endemic to PDX.
Quote from: cabiness42 on January 22, 2020, 01:16:21 PM
You need two things in order to expand a league, fan support and competitive talent. The NFL may very well have the fan support to add 4 more teams, but not the talent.
The soccer style promotion/relegation system would never work in the US. The TV networks count on the big markets always being there when negotiating deals. They aren't going to pay nearly as much if the teams in NY and Chicago could be out of the top tier at any point in time.
And yet, some of the highest TV ratings for the NFL over the past 2-3 decades have been for games involving the Packers.
:spin:
Mike
Quote from: mgk920 on February 07, 2020, 11:53:32 PM
Quote from: cabiness42 on January 22, 2020, 01:16:21 PM
You need two things in order to expand a league, fan support and competitive talent. The NFL may very well have the fan support to add 4 more teams, but not the talent.
The soccer style promotion/relegation system would never work in the US. The TV networks count on the big markets always being there when negotiating deals. They aren't going to pay nearly as much if the teams in NY and Chicago could be out of the top tier at any point in time.
And yet, some of the highest TV ratings for the NFL over the past 2-3 decades have been for games involving the Packers.
:spin:
Mike
Smaller market teams will draw big ratings when they are good. If someone else had been smart enough to draft Aaron Rodgers ahead of them, the Packers would be consistently playing Sunday noon games announced by Fox's D team.
Bigger market teams draw ratings even when they're bad.
Quote from: cabiness42 on February 08, 2020, 11:26:28 AM
Quote from: mgk920 on February 07, 2020, 11:53:32 PM
Quote from: cabiness42 on January 22, 2020, 01:16:21 PM
You need two things in order to expand a league, fan support and competitive talent. The NFL may very well have the fan support to add 4 more teams, but not the talent.
The soccer style promotion/relegation system would never work in the US. The TV networks count on the big markets always being there when negotiating deals. They aren't going to pay nearly as much if the teams in NY and Chicago could be out of the top tier at any point in time.
And yet, some of the highest TV ratings for the NFL over the past 2-3 decades have been for games involving the Packers.
:spin:
Mike
Smaller market teams will draw big ratings when they are good. If someone else had been smart enough to draft Aaron Rodgers ahead of them, the Packers would be consistently playing Sunday noon games announced by Fox's D team.
Bigger market teams draw ratings even when they're bad.
Green Bay is a big market team, just a small town where the stadium is.
All this talk of Joe Montana makes me wonder if Montana could have an NFL team. However, it seems like there are too few people.
MT, ID, ND, SD, WY, northern UT, eastern WA, and northwestern NE (nobody lives in this corner of the state) is nowhere near enough. However, the region is growing rapidly (this is the 2026 thread, after all), and if we could get the Salt Lake City area to support the Montana team, maybe it could work.
Quote from: Alps on February 08, 2020, 12:54:02 PM
Quote from: cabiness42 on February 08, 2020, 11:26:28 AM
Quote from: mgk920 on February 07, 2020, 11:53:32 PM
Quote from: cabiness42 on January 22, 2020, 01:16:21 PM
You need two things in order to expand a league, fan support and competitive talent. The NFL may very well have the fan support to add 4 more teams, but not the talent.
The soccer style promotion/relegation system would never work in the US. The TV networks count on the big markets always being there when negotiating deals. They aren't going to pay nearly as much if the teams in NY and Chicago could be out of the top tier at any point in time.
And yet, some of the highest TV ratings for the NFL over the past 2-3 decades have been for games involving the Packers.
:spin:
Mike
Smaller market teams will draw big ratings when they are good. If someone else had been smart enough to draft Aaron Rodgers ahead of them, the Packers would be consistently playing Sunday noon games announced by Fox's D team.
Bigger market teams draw ratings even when they're bad.
Green Bay is a big market team, just a small town where the stadium is.
Yup, Green Bay's market is essentially the entire state of Wisconsin, with 5.5+ million people.
Quote from: tchafe1978 on February 08, 2020, 04:17:13 PM
Quote from: Alps on February 08, 2020, 12:54:02 PM
Quote from: cabiness42 on February 08, 2020, 11:26:28 AM
Quote from: mgk920 on February 07, 2020, 11:53:32 PM
Quote from: cabiness42 on January 22, 2020, 01:16:21 PM
You need two things in order to expand a league, fan support and competitive talent. The NFL may very well have the fan support to add 4 more teams, but not the talent.
The soccer style promotion/relegation system would never work in the US. The TV networks count on the big markets always being there when negotiating deals. They aren't going to pay nearly as much if the teams in NY and Chicago could be out of the top tier at any point in time.
And yet, some of the highest TV ratings for the NFL over the past 2-3 decades have been for games involving the Packers.
:spin:
Mike
Smaller market teams will draw big ratings when they are good. If someone else had been smart enough to draft Aaron Rodgers ahead of them, the Packers would be consistently playing Sunday noon games announced by Fox's D team.
Bigger market teams draw ratings even when they're bad.
Green Bay is a big market team, just a small town where the stadium is.
Yup, Green Bay's market is essentially the entire state of Wisconsin, with 5.5+ million people.
328 million / 5.8 million ≈ 56
There are only 32 NFL teams.
Quote from: tchafe1978 on February 08, 2020, 04:17:13 PM
Quote from: Alps on February 08, 2020, 12:54:02 PM
Quote from: cabiness42 on February 08, 2020, 11:26:28 AM
Quote from: mgk920 on February 07, 2020, 11:53:32 PM
Quote from: cabiness42 on January 22, 2020, 01:16:21 PM
You need two things in order to expand a league, fan support and competitive talent. The NFL may very well have the fan support to add 4 more teams, but not the talent.
The soccer style promotion/relegation system would never work in the US. The TV networks count on the big markets always being there when negotiating deals. They aren't going to pay nearly as much if the teams in NY and Chicago could be out of the top tier at any point in time.
And yet, some of the highest TV ratings for the NFL over the past 2-3 decades have been for games involving the Packers.
:spin:
Mike
Smaller market teams will draw big ratings when they are good. If someone else had been smart enough to draft Aaron Rodgers ahead of them, the Packers would be consistently playing Sunday noon games announced by Fox's D team.
Bigger market teams draw ratings even when they're bad.
Green Bay is a big market team, just a small town where the stadium is.
Yup, Green Bay's market is essentially the entire state of Wisconsin, with 5.5+ million people.
GB is a "national" team compared to Jacksonville. Some teams draw big fan bases from across the country. Dallas is "America's Team" along with others like the Raiders and Steelers.
Rick
Quote from: nexus73 on February 08, 2020, 05:54:58 PM
Quote from: tchafe1978 on February 08, 2020, 04:17:13 PM
Quote from: Alps on February 08, 2020, 12:54:02 PM
Quote from: cabiness42 on February 08, 2020, 11:26:28 AM
Quote from: mgk920 on February 07, 2020, 11:53:32 PM
Quote from: cabiness42 on January 22, 2020, 01:16:21 PM
You need two things in order to expand a league, fan support and competitive talent. The NFL may very well have the fan support to add 4 more teams, but not the talent.
The soccer style promotion/relegation system would never work in the US. The TV networks count on the big markets always being there when negotiating deals. They aren't going to pay nearly as much if the teams in NY and Chicago could be out of the top tier at any point in time.
And yet, some of the highest TV ratings for the NFL over the past 2-3 decades have been for games involving the Packers.
:spin:
Mike
Smaller market teams will draw big ratings when they are good. If someone else had been smart enough to draft Aaron Rodgers ahead of them, the Packers would be consistently playing Sunday noon games announced by Fox's D team.
Bigger market teams draw ratings even when they're bad.
Green Bay is a big market team, just a small town where the stadium is.
Yup, Green Bay's market is essentially the entire state of Wisconsin, with 5.5+ million people.
GB is a "national" team compared to Jacksonville. Some teams draw big fan bases from across the country. Dallas is "America's Team" along with others like the Raiders and Steelers.
Rick
The Packers are a national team when they're good. In the 1980's, you couldn't pay people to watch their games.
The Cowboys, Bears, Giants and Jets are national teams even when they're bad.
Quote from: tchafe1978 on February 08, 2020, 04:17:13 PM
Quote from: Alps on February 08, 2020, 12:54:02 PM
Quote from: cabiness42 on February 08, 2020, 11:26:28 AM
Quote from: mgk920 on February 07, 2020, 11:53:32 PM
Quote from: cabiness42 on January 22, 2020, 01:16:21 PM
You need two things in order to expand a league, fan support and competitive talent. The NFL may very well have the fan support to add 4 more teams, but not the talent.
The soccer style promotion/relegation system would never work in the US. The TV networks count on the big markets always being there when negotiating deals. They aren't going to pay nearly as much if the teams in NY and Chicago could be out of the top tier at any point in time.
And yet, some of the highest TV ratings for the NFL over the past 2-3 decades have been for games involving the Packers.
:spin:
Mike
Smaller market teams will draw big ratings when they are good. If someone else had been smart enough to draft Aaron Rodgers ahead of them, the Packers would be consistently playing Sunday noon games announced by Fox's D team.
Bigger market teams draw ratings even when they're bad.
Green Bay is a big market team, just a small town where the stadium is.
Yup, Green Bay's market is essentially the entire state of Wisconsin, with 5.5+ million people.
The Packers are also one of the strongest road draws in the NFL. Along with the Steelers, they 'travel' extremely well. It is one of the main reasons why they're the only team left in the NFL who has not yet played a regular season game outside of the USA - no road team wants to lose out on that ticket revenue, too.
That along with active Packers' themed sports bars in pretty much every metro area in the USA and in many foreign countries.
Mike
Quote from: cabiness42 on February 08, 2020, 07:00:30 PM
Quote from: nexus73 on February 08, 2020, 05:54:58 PM
Quote from: tchafe1978 on February 08, 2020, 04:17:13 PM
Quote from: Alps on February 08, 2020, 12:54:02 PM
Quote from: cabiness42 on February 08, 2020, 11:26:28 AM
Quote from: mgk920 on February 07, 2020, 11:53:32 PM
Quote from: cabiness42 on January 22, 2020, 01:16:21 PM
You need two things in order to expand a league, fan support and competitive talent. The NFL may very well have the fan support to add 4 more teams, but not the talent.
The soccer style promotion/relegation system would never work in the US. The TV networks count on the big markets always being there when negotiating deals. They aren't going to pay nearly as much if the teams in NY and Chicago could be out of the top tier at any point in time.
And yet, some of the highest TV ratings for the NFL over the past 2-3 decades have been for games involving the Packers.
:spin:
Mike
Smaller market teams will draw big ratings when they are good. If someone else had been smart enough to draft Aaron Rodgers ahead of them, the Packers would be consistently playing Sunday noon games announced by Fox's D team.
Bigger market teams draw ratings even when they're bad.
Green Bay is a big market team, just a small town where the stadium is.
Yup, Green Bay's market is essentially the entire state of Wisconsin, with 5.5+ million people.
GB is a "national" team compared to Jacksonville. Some teams draw big fan bases from across the country. Dallas is "America's Team" along with others like the Raiders and Steelers.
Rick
The Packers are a national team when they're good. In the 1980's, you couldn't pay people to watch their games.
The Cowboys, Bears, Giants and Jets are national teams even when they're bad.
Same goes for the Patriots in those dark times between Super Bowl XX and Bledsoe.
Quote from: cabiness42 on February 08, 2020, 07:00:30 PM
The Packers are a national team when they're good. In the 1980's, you couldn't pay people to watch their games.
The Cowboys, Bears, Giants and Jets are national teams even when they're bad.
The NFL loves to force the Cowboys/Giants games twice a year down everyone's throat. I can't remember a Cowboys/Giants game that wasn't nationally televised in the last five years.
Quote from: thspfc on February 09, 2020, 09:54:19 PM
Quote from: cabiness42 on February 08, 2020, 07:00:30 PM
The Packers are a national team when they're good. In the 1980's, you couldn't pay people to watch their games.
The Cowboys, Bears, Giants and Jets are national teams even when they're bad.
The NFL loves to force the Cowboys/Giants games twice a year down everyone's throat. I can't remember a Cowboys/Giants game that wasn't nationally televised in the last five years.
I blame Fox for calling the Cowboys Murica's Team so there's that as well.
Quote from: mgk920 on February 09, 2020, 02:26:05 AM
The Packers are also one of the strongest road draws in the NFL. Along with the Steelers, they 'travel' extremely well.
Along with the Patriots, obviously. And, perhaps surprisingly (at least for those not from Western NY), you can put the Bills (https://www.12up.com/posts/bills-fans-are-absolutely-dominating-in-nashville-01dpgt7gkcpg) in that category as well.
Quote from: 1 on February 08, 2020, 04:24:38 PM
Quote from: tchafe1978 on February 08, 2020, 04:17:13 PM
Quote from: Alps on February 08, 2020, 12:54:02 PM
Green Bay is a big market team, just a small town where the stadium is.
Yup, Green Bay's market is essentially the entire state of Wisconsin, with 5.5+ million people.
328 million / 5.8 million ≈ 56
There are only 32 NFL teams.
The point being that 5.8 million isn't a big market. That's less than a third of the NYC area population, for example.
Of course, that isn't mutually exclusive with the Packers being a big-market team. They seem to have a nationwide fan base that's pretty much on par with the Cowboys and Steelers.