NFL in Austin, TX

[1995hoo]

It's definitely possible for a team named after its home city (as opposed to the state or region, like the Titans or Patriots) to still have a large fanbase in another city. Bills and Packers are the most prominent examples.

On the other hand, I don't think it's possible to start another team in a state that already has a team named after that state. That rules out all locations in the New England states, Arizona, the Carolinas, Minnesota, and Tennessee, unless the existing team changes its name.

Of course it's possible. Look at two examples in Florida: The Florida Marlins were founded some five years prior to the Tampa Bay Devil Rays and did not change their name at the time of the 1998 expansion. They only changed their name to "Miami" as part of the deal to build the new ballpark. On the flip side of that, the Tampa Bay Lightning joined the NHL in 1992, and then the following year the Florida Panthers joined (recognizing that in that example, the Florida Panther is a specific animal such that the name makes particular sense). I do recall reading that the Miami Heat were originally to be called the Florida Heat until the NBA made them change it after granting Orlando a franchise in the same round of expansion. That's arguably different because both teams were joining the league at the same time.

The Golden State Warriors might be another example, as they are one of four NBA teams in California and are not the first of those franchises to be located there, as would the Texas Rangers (moved there in 1972 after a team had already been in Houston for 10 years).

It's all a case of what the league decides to allow. I think it just happens to be the case that in the majority of locations where there is a team named for a state or other larger geographic reference, there aren't any other plausible locations in that state for a pro team (e.g., Denver is the only plausible area in Colorado for pro sports, Phoenix in Arizona, and the Twin Cities in Minnesota). Texas and Tennessee are the two main exceptions. (As for the New England Patriots, there isn't really another location in New England for pro football. Obviously Hartford had an NHL team that got squeezed out. The NHL made them change their name from "New England" when they joined the NHL from the WHA.)

[thspfc]

Omaha

Not enough people.

Have them play in Council Bluffs, name them Iowa instead of Omaha or Nebraska (such as the New England Patriots covers six states), and you'll get the entirety of Iowa, the eastern half of Nebraska (which is almost all of its population), and Sioux Falls, SD.

Only if they become fans of the team though.

Exactly. Iowa is split several ways between Bears, Vikings, Packers, Chiefs, and even Broncos fans. No room for anyone else there.

[thspfc]

I'd put a team back in St. Louis before Austin.

Other cities where they could put one:

OKC

Cowboys.

Salt Lake City

They might run into problems with attendance at Sunday games due to the heavily Mormon population.

Memphis

Titans.

Omaha

Not enough people.

Wichita

Chiefs.

San Juan

Lol 

Titans play in Nashville.

I know.

Wichita and Omaha each have a larger population than New Orleans and comparable metro area populations.

New Orleans has also had a franchise since 1967, when it was much bigger than Omaha and Wichita. Nowadays, teams would need larger cities to support new franchises. Look at Jacksonville. Larger than New Orleans, but the franchise is struggling to gain support, even within its own city, because it's only been around for a couple decades.

[NWI_Irish96]

Omaha

Not enough people.

Have them play in Council Bluffs, name them Iowa instead of Omaha or Nebraska (such as the New England Patriots covers six states), and you'll get the entirety of Iowa, the eastern half of Nebraska (which is almost all of its population), and Sioux Falls, SD.

Only if they become fans of the team though.

Exactly. Iowa is split several ways between Bears, Vikings, Packers, Chiefs, and even Broncos fans. No room for anyone else there.

In 1983, central Indiana was about 75% Bears fans and 25% Bengals fans. There are a handful of die-hards left, but the area is just about 100% Colts now. If Iowa did get a team (spoiler alert: they won't), they would get fans.

[webny99]

On the other hand, I don't think it's possible to start another team in a state that already has a team named after that state. That rules out all locations in the New England states, Arizona, the Carolinas, Minnesota, and Tennessee, unless the existing team changes its name.

Of course it's possible. Look at two examples in Florida: ...

The Golden State Warriors might be another example. ...

It's all a case of what the league decides to allow. I think it just happens to be the case that in the majority of locations where there is a team named for a state or other larger geographic reference, there aren't any other plausible locations in that state for a pro team (e.g., Denver is the only plausible area in Colorado for pro sports, Phoenix in Arizona, and the Twin Cities in Minnesota). Texas and Tennessee are the two main exceptions. ...

I guess "not possible" was a bit too strong. It certainly could happen, but I don't think it's likely to, especially in the NFL, and the reason you mentioned above is a big reason why.

I'm not counting the Texans as "named after Texas", because not only are they the Houston Texans, the Cowboys are the much older and more successful franchise in the state. I feel somewhat similarly about the Golden State Warriors; "California Warriors" would be a more problematic name and one less likely to last long-term.

As for Memphis, I think there are enough better spots for an NFL franchise that it's easier just to say Tennessee has its bases covered with the Titans and leave Memphis off the list.

[Bruce]

Austin's new MLS team begins play in a few months and sold out all their season tickets (over 15K) out of 44K deposits, despite being unpopular with some hardcore fans due to the scummy relocation saga. The market is definitely hungry for pro sports.

[ilpt4u]

Jacksonville is really the only market that has an NFL team but shouldn't, so I could see San Antonio/Austin being a candidate for relocation.

Strictly by the numbers, Green Bay shouldn't have an NFL team. The Favre->Rodgers era rejuvenated the franchise and the fanbase to support them in Green Bay

In the 80s into the early 90s, even in Favre's first few seasons with the Pack, they played some of their home games in Milwaukee at the old County Stadium - because they couldn't get fans to travel to Green Bay for the games (because the team was pretty bad for a decent run then)

The fact that they are now well into 3 decades of consistent success, selling out Lambeau isn't a problem. Should the Packers ever slip back towards the bottom of the league, for 5+ seasons or more, the NFL might look at having the team play at least some of their games elsewhere, tho I'm not sure Miller Park is an option for Football/don't know if it can be set in a Football configuration. Madison would be a potential option, etc

I think it would take a longer run at the bottom for the NFL to force the sale of the team to a Private Owner and then relocate the team, but it is not out of the overall eventual realm of possibilities. More likely would be the Packers build a new stadium in Milwaukee to call home and play a game or two in Green Bay every season, should the fanbase ever decide to quit making the pilgrimage north and packing Lambeau on Sundays

[ilpt4u]

Are there any other cities besides St Louis who have lost two different NFL teams (the Cardinals and the Rams)? St Louis ranks larger in population (#20) than 13 other MSAs who do have NFL teams. Something will have to give on that front too. The Dome in St Louis opened in 1995. It's still worthwhile as a football venue, but unlikely to attract an expansion team. Nevertheless St Louis is a major metro without an NFL team (the city does have successful MLB and NHL teams).

Cleveland lost both the Rams, and more recently and famously, the original Browns aka the Ravens

Of course, Los Angeles famously lost the Raiders and the Rams in the 90s, and also lost the Chargers to San Diego, very early in the AFL days

As we know, Cleveland got a new Browns team, and LA got the Rams and Chargers back

[DTComposer]

Wichita and Omaha each have a larger population than New Orleans and comparable metro area populations.

New Orleans has also had a franchise since 1967, when it was much bigger than Omaha and Wichita. Nowadays, teams would need larger cities to support new franchises. Look at Jacksonville. Larger than New Orleans, but the franchise is struggling to gain support, even within its own city, because it's only been around for a couple decades.

Let's also get the facts straight. The New Orleans MSA and CSA are much larger than Omaha and Wichita. Omaha city proper is larger, but New Orleans is larger than Wichita and growing much faster (still re-populating post-Katrina).

CITY
Omaha - 478K, 17% growth rate
New Orleans - 390K, 14% growth rate
Wichita - 389K, 2% growth rate

MSA
New Orleans - 1270K
Omaha - 949K
Wichita - 640K

CSA
New Orleans - 1507K
Omaha - 986K
Wichita - 675K

The numbers skew even more towards New Orleans if you include the adjacent metros (Baton Rouge vs. Lincoln)

(2019 Census Bureau estimates)

[triplemultiplex]

The fact that they are now well into 3 decades of consistent success, selling out Lambeau isn't a problem. Should the Packers ever slip back towards the bottom of the league, for 5+ seasons or more, the NFL might look at having the team play at least some of their games elsewhere, tho I'm not sure Miller Park is an option for Football/don't know if it can be set in a Football configuration. Madison would be a potential option, etc

I think it would take a longer run at the bottom for the NFL to force the sale of the team to a Private Owner and then relocate the team, but it is not out of the overall eventual realm of possibilities. More likely would be the Packers build a new stadium in Milwaukee to call home and play a game or two in Green Bay every season, should the fanbase ever decide to quit making the pilgrimage north and packing Lambeau on Sundays

The thing about the Packers is the market is the entire state of Wisconsin.  So the physical location of the team in the state is incidental.  No drop off in quality would make it 'better' to hold games in some other city. 

With so few games in a regular season, pro football is less dependent on a large population living immediately nearby to put butts in the seats.  It's not like baseball or basketball where there are lots of games and casual fans can be like, "Hey what are you doing after work?  Wanna go to a game?" and expect to actual get in without getting gouged.  Going to an NFL game takes planning.

The ecosystem of pro football has changed dramatically from the circumstances that lead to the Packers playing a few home games per year in Milwaukee.  Even if the team sucked for a while, I don't think moving the team elsewhere in the state would be necessary.  Furthermore, if the NFL ever gets to the point where they demand to move the Packers, it will be because the league is about to fold.

[CoreySamson]

As for Memphis, I think there are enough better spots for an NFL franchise that it's easier just to say Tennessee has its bases covered with the Titans and leave Memphis off the list.

One thing you do have to keep in mind about Memphis is that some people there are still pretty bitter over the fact that Nashville ended up getting the Oilers and Memphis didn't. I know some people over there and none are big fans of the Titans. In the many times I've been to Memphis, I haven't seen people wearing Titans shirts or otherwise outwardly supporting the Titans. On the other hand, around where I live, Cowboys jerseys and bumper stickers are everywhere (although Texans stuff still outnumbers it slightly). And it's not like the people I know hate football; they support Tennesseean college football teams. So I don't see a problem with Memphis getting a team.

As for the New Orleans debate downthread, basically the entire state of Louisiana treats it as their team, similar to how Wisconsin treats the Packers as their team. You won't find very much Cowboys support at all anywhere except for maybe the Shreveport area. Lake Charles is much closer to Houston than it is to New Orleans, but good luck trying to find a bar or restaurant there with Texans memorabilia hanging on the wall. They treat the Saints like they treat LSU football, or how nearly anyone in the state of Arkansas supports the Razorbacks.

Were the NFL to expand to 40 teams, here's where I would expect the expansion teams to go:
Memphis
San Antonio/Austin
Birmingham
Norfolk/Virginia Beach
Albuquerque
Mexico City
San Diego
Saint Louis

[Henry]

I think 32 teams is enough as it is. But if it ever got to the point where the NFL expanded again, I could see these cities vying for new franchises:

San Antonio, San Diego, St. Louis, Salt Lake City, Toronto, Portland, Oklahoma City, Brooklyn

[ilpt4u]

So basically, the San Antonio/Austin Future Pro Sports Teams need to actually be based in San Marcos. Got it

It is neat to watch (from afar) how the San Antonio and Austin Metro Areas are getting closer and closer to becoming one and the same

[Bobby5280]

On the other hand, this area has long been, yes I am going to use the term, "Redskin Country", and I am not sure that (a) the residents of the area would support an expansion team or (b) the Washington team would vote in favor of a new team playing nearly 200 miles away from them.  The area is very diverse and I do not believe there would be a strong support for a team.

I think the large military population in the Hampton Roads area would be a good source of business for an NFL team. And there's important military bases just to the South in North Carolina. It is indeed a problem for that area to be less than 200 miles from DC and the Redskins' market. But then again, Baltimore is far closer to DC and they still managed to get another NFL team after losing the Colts.

But if there aren't any rules about one huge metro area being too close to another with an existing NFL team, then that would put Orlando (#23 MSA), Portland (#25 MSA) and Sacramento (#26 MSA) well ahead of Virginia Beach-Norfolk (#37 MSA). And that's also assuming San Diego, St Louis and Austin-San Antonio would be ahead of all those cities at acquiring NFL teams.

It's not a matter of whether the area deserves an NFL team. It's a matter of whether or not there is a market for a brand new team. Are there people in Austin that would support an NFL expansion team instead of teams that they've been rooting for their whole lives (see: Cowboys, largest fanbase in the league and most valueable sports franchise in the world; Texans, 160 miles away; Longhorns, 3 miles away, largest fanbase in college football)?

Five million people is reason enough for the Austin-San Antonio region to get an NFL team, be it an expansion team or an existing team that moves there. There is another 2 million Texans living to the South of San Antonio (Laredo, Corpus Christi and over 1 million in the Rio Grande Valley). Austin-San Antonio was in the discussion with the Raiders relocation plans. Ultimately the Raiders' owners chose Las Vegas.

The Cowboys' status as "most valuable sports franchise in the world" is questionable. The team hasn't won or even appeared in a Super Bowl since the 1990's. The current organization has all kinds of problems, from the very top going down.

Austin very much has its own identity and culture apart from Dallas-Fort Worth and Houston. Those metros have more in the way of a rivalry going on than some kind of kindred spirit connection. There is plenty of money in the Austin area and even a good number of celebrities calling that place home. An NFL team would be a natural fit there.

If you put an NFL team in Austin I bet they would be the fourth most popular football team among people in Austin, after the Longhorns, Cowboys, and Texans.

Any notion that Austin is not a big enough market to support NCAA and NFL football teams is just silly. Austin is not some tiny po-dunk market. The city limits population is on the verge of the 1 million mark. Metro pop is over 2 million. San Antonio nearby has a bigger city limits population than Dallas. There are significantly smaller cities than Austin supporting both NCAA and NFL teams without any trouble.

Strictly by the numbers, Green Bay shouldn't have an NFL team. The Favre->Rodgers era rejuvenated the franchise and the fanbase to support them in Green Bay

The Green Bay Packers have a very unique situation in all of pro sports. The city of Green Bay owns the team and the stadium. The Packers draw a lot of fans from the Milwaukee area just down the road as well as other parts of Wisconsin and the Michigan UP. Despite the lull prior to the arrival of Brett Favre, the Packers already had a legendary history. There is no way that team is pulling up stakes and moving anywhere else.

[TheHighwayMan3561]

Iowa is like Alabama in that the college teams reign supreme, particularly the Hawkeyes. Same with the Cornhuskers in Nebraska. Those may as well be the local pro teams, and there's not enough market for NFL.

[webny99]

If you put an NFL team in Austin I bet they would be the fourth most popular football team among people in Austin, after the Longhorns, Cowboys, and Texans.

Any notion that Austin is not a big enough market to support NCAA and NFL football teams is just silly. Austin is not some tiny po-dunk market. The city limits population is on the verge of the 1 million mark. Metro pop is over 2 million. San Antonio nearby has a bigger city limits population than Dallas. There are significantly smaller cities than Austin supporting both NCAA and NFL teams without any trouble.

Jumping in here...
Austin and San Antonio both have plenty of people. That's not the issue. The issue is that because they've grown so fast this century, a lot of those people came from other places, and therefore have loyalties to other teams. Not to mention the natives that are already loyal to the Texans or (more likely) the Cowboys, and have been since way back when those cities were too small to support their own teams.

It could still work, but it wouldn't necessarily have a giant fanbase born overnight, and I'd pick San Antonio over Austin because it's further away from DFW/Houston and has been bigger (and more well-known nationally), for longer.

[ilpt4u]

Strictly by the numbers, Green Bay shouldn't have an NFL team. The Favre->Rodgers era rejuvenated the franchise and the fanbase to support them in Green Bay

The Green Bay Packers have a very unique situation in all of pro sports. The city of Green Bay owns the team and the stadium. The Packers draw a lot of fans from the Milwaukee area just down the road as well as other parts of Wisconsin and the Michigan UP. Despite the lull prior to the arrival of Brett Favre, the Packers already had a legendary history. There is no way that team is pulling up stakes and moving anywhere else.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Green_Bay_Packers,_Inc.

The Packers are not owned by the City of Green Bay, but they are owned by a publicaly held non-profit corporation. They are basically a Publicaly owned non-profit with shareholders

That alone is a reason for the NFL to (someday) "encourage"  a sale to a Private owner. The NFL doesn't like that the Finanicals of the Packers specifically, and partially of the entire League can be easily attained, due to the Packers being a Publicaly-held non-profit corporation

The Packers have an incredible history - oldest Franchise in the NFL and 3rd Franchise to join (what became) the NFL that is still playing to this day (Franchise is older than the Bears and Cardinals, but the Packers were not allowed into what became the NFL in its charter year, due to not following all charter requirements)

It would take a long lull and massive drop in their popularity and in game attendance for the Packers to be moved out of Wisconsin - to the point it would be putting the non-profit out of business, agreed. Even then, I think the other NFL owners would at least make an attempt to sustain the team in Wisconsin - but I don't think the owners would do that for forever, because they like $$$ too much

I don't think it is beyond question that the Packers could experiment (again) with playing games in Milwaukee and/or Madison

Green Bay is about 1:45-2 hour drive, each way, from Milwaukee. About 2:20 from Madison. The population center of the state is just north of between Milwaukee and Madison, well south of Green Bay

Theoretically, anyway, they should be able to induce more Demand for ticket sales, playing near the state population center. Again, due to their current run of sustained success since the early-mid 90s, Packers season and single game tickets are hot, in-demand items. The only way Demand would need to be induced, would be another Packer return to the bottom of the league, for multiple, consecutive seasons - which for NFL fans 30 and younger, isn't an NFL you've seen in your lifetime! I'm talking a Cleveland Browns or Jacksonville Jags level of sustained bad, here - maybe even worse

[TheHighwayMan3561]

Nah, I think the promotion of Green Bay and Lambeau as the "cathedral"  of football (something John Madden popularized in the 90s) has made it a destination enough that they'll never need to play home games elsewhere willingly. I went to a Patriots/Packers game in 2014 and the secondary ticket market has made it popular and much more accessible for visiting fans (both of the road team and of the Packers' national fanbase) to go to games there.

[ilpt4u]

Nah, I think the promotion of Green Bay and Lambeau as the "cathedral"  of football (something John Madden popularized in the 90s) has made it a destination enough that they'll never need to play home games elsewhere willingly. I went to a Patriots/Packers game in 2014 and the secondary ticket market has made it popular and much more accessible for visiting fans to go to games there.

You could very well be right. The only way we'd find out if that is enough to sustain them for a 10-15 year lull would be if they actually had one

As a Bears fan, I can always hope! But honestly, the Packers have done very well, making that Franchise a long sustained powerhouse in the NFL, on the field, in team business ops, and in TV ratings

[TheHighwayMan3561]

Nah, I think the promotion of Green Bay and Lambeau as the "cathedral"  of football (something John Madden popularized in the 90s) has made it a destination enough that they'll never need to play home games elsewhere willingly. I went to a Patriots/Packers game in 2014 and the secondary ticket market has made it popular and much more accessible for visiting fans to go to games there.

You could very well be right. The only way we'd find out if that is enough to sustain them for a 10-15 year lull would be if they actually had one

As a Bears fan, I can always hope! But honestly, the Packers have done very well, making that Franchise a long sustained powerhouse in the NFL, on the field, in team business ops, and in TV ratings

I feel that. Unfortunately the Packers are the Ned Flanders of the NFL, a team everybody loves except for the Homer Simpson-sequel jealous Vikings and Bears fans. They didn't pick up the equally powerful hatred that follows teams like the Cowboys' national fanbase.

[oscar]

The Packers are not owned by the City of Green Bay, but they are owned by a publicaly held non-profit corporation. They are basically a Publicaly owned non-profit with shareholders

That alone is a reason for the NFL to (someday) "encourage"  a sale to a Private owner. The NFL doesn't like that the Finanicals of the Packers specifically, and partially of the entire League can be easily attained, due to the Packers being a Publicaly-held non-profit corporation.

Problem for the NFL is that the Packers' ownership structure is designed to make it virtually impossible for the team to be taken private, or moved to another city. The latter especially pains the NFL, since the possibility/threat of moving the team can't be used as leverage to get Green Bay or some other city to spend lots of money for a new stadium.

In 2011, the Packers sold more stock, to raise funds for stadium improvements. I bought a share, as a Christmas present for a Cheesehead friend. I carefully read the prospectus, something I often did in my former day job (I had retired earlier that year), and also out of professional interest in non-profit corporations and especially the rare ones like the Packers that have stockholders. The prospectus made it painfully clear that stockholders were basically powerless, would never get any dividends or other financial benefit, and would get very little out of their ownership stakes other than a suitable-for-framing stock certificate.

[Bobby5280]

Austin and San Antonio both have plenty of people. That's not the issue. The issue is that because they've grown so fast this century, a lot of those people came from other places, and therefore have loyalties to other teams.

Both Austin and San Antonio have been legitimately large cities for a long time, well before the turn of this century. The two cities are close enough that they are considered to be in the same region. Over the past 30 years the growth in both cities (Austin in particular) has been accelerated. Lately growth has been booming between the two cities in New Braunfels, San Marcos, etc.

It's one thing to be loyal to an NFL team hundreds or even thousands of miles away. It's another to have a team within local driving distance to be able to see games live. With the kind of money that has already been in Austin there won't be any problem developing a fan base. Let's not forget there is a novelty of seeing the local team play NFL teams from elsewhere.

[1995hoo]

Are there any other cities besides St Louis who have lost two different NFL teams (the Cardinals and the Rams)? St Louis ranks larger in population (#20) than 13 other MSAs who do have NFL teams. Something will have to give on that front too. The Dome in St Louis opened in 1995. It's still worthwhile as a football venue, but unlikely to attract an expansion team. Nevertheless St Louis is a major metro without an NFL team (the city does have successful MLB and NHL teams).

Cleveland lost both the Rams, and more recently and famously, the original Browns aka the Ravens

Of course, Los Angeles famously lost the Raiders and the Rams in the 90s, and also lost the Chargers to San Diego, very early in the AFL days

As we know, Cleveland got a new Browns team, and LA got the Rams and Chargers back

There were a bunch of other franchise moves/folded teams in the NFL's early years, which means many cities have lost teams. Disregarding most of those and counting only cities that have lost a "modern era" team that is still in existence, and disregarding anything prior to 1933 when the league adopted a standardized scheduling model, I would add the following to the list above:

Baltimore lost the original Colts (joined the NFL from the AAFC, folded after one year) and, more famously, the replacement Colts (moved to Indianapolis).

Boston lost both the Redskins (moved to DC after 1936 season) and the Boston Yanks (folded in 1948).

Dallas lost the original Texans (folded after 1952; franchise rights transferred to Baltimore as the new Colts) and the AFL Texans (moved to Kansas City as the Chiefs).

[thspfc]

Jacksonville is really the only market that has an NFL team but shouldn't, so I could see San Antonio/Austin being a candidate for relocation.

Strictly by the numbers, Green Bay shouldn't have an NFL team. The Favre->Rodgers era rejuvenated the franchise and the fanbase to support them in Green Bay

In the 80s into the early 90s, even in Favre's first few seasons with the Pack, they played some of their home games in Milwaukee at the old County Stadium - because they couldn't get fans to travel to Green Bay for the games (because the team was pretty bad for a decent run then)

The fact that they are now well into 3 decades of consistent success, selling out Lambeau isn't a problem. Should the Packers ever slip back towards the bottom of the league, for 5+ seasons or more, the NFL might look at having the team play at least some of their games elsewhere, tho I'm not sure Miller Park is an option for Football/don't know if it can be set in a Football configuration. Madison would be a potential option, etc

I think it would take a longer run at the bottom for the NFL to force the sale of the team to a Private Owner and then relocate the team, but it is not out of the overall eventual realm of possibilities. More likely would be the Packers build a new stadium in Milwaukee to call home and play a game or two in Green Bay every season, should the fanbase ever decide to quit making the pilgrimage north and packing Lambeau on Sundays

You ever been to Green Bay? You will never see a more loyal sports community. There is Packers colors, branding, and memorabilia EVERYWHERE. The street signs are green and yellow. The buildings downtown light up green and yellow. All the resturants have walls full of Packers jerseys, helmets, and pictures. The Packers aren't going anywhere.

[thspfc]

As for Memphis, I think there are enough better spots for an NFL franchise that it's easier just to say Tennessee has its bases covered with the Titans and leave Memphis off the list.

One thing you do have to keep in mind about Memphis is that some people there are still pretty bitter over the fact that Nashville ended up getting the Oilers and Memphis didn't. I know some people over there and none are big fans of the Titans. In the many times I've been to Memphis, I haven't seen people wearing Titans shirts or otherwise outwardly supporting the Titans. On the other hand, around where I live, Cowboys jerseys and bumper stickers are everywhere (although Texans stuff still outnumbers it slightly). And it's not like the people I know hate football; they support Tennesseean college football teams. So I don't see a problem with Memphis getting a team.

Nowadays Nashville is booming and Memphis is a declining dump.