News:

Thank you for your patience during the Forum downtime while we upgraded the software. Welcome back and see this thread for some new features and other changes to the forum.

Main Menu

NFL 2026 (what if)

Started by Desert Man, February 14, 2017, 08:51:29 PM

Previous topic - Next topic

Desert Man

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.
Get your kicks...on Route 99! Like to turn 66 upside down. The other historic Main street of America.


Henry

That's quite ambitious! And of course, the one thing stopping London from ever getting a team is the logistics issue.
Go Cubs Go! Go Cubs Go! Hey Chicago, what do you say? The Cubs are gonna win today!

US 41

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.
Visited States and Provinces:
USA (48)= All of Lower 48
Canada (5)= NB, NS, ON, PEI, QC
Mexico (9)= BCN, BCS, CHIH, COAH, DGO, NL, SON, SIN, TAM

Desert Man

#3
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.
Get your kicks...on Route 99! Like to turn 66 upside down. The other historic Main street of America.

US 41

I don't think an NFL team in Toronto will ever happen either since Canada already has the CFL.
Visited States and Provinces:
USA (48)= All of Lower 48
Canada (5)= NB, NS, ON, PEI, QC
Mexico (9)= BCN, BCS, CHIH, COAH, DGO, NL, SON, SIN, TAM

michravera

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!

english si

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.

jeffandnicole

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.

texaskdog

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.

nexus73

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
US 101 is THE backbone of the Pacific coast from Bandon OR to Willits CA.  Industry, tourism and local traffic would be gone or severely crippled without it being in functioning condition in BOTH states.

english si

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.

DTComposer

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 Orlando
AFC 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

nexus73

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
US 101 is THE backbone of the Pacific coast from Bandon OR to Willits CA.  Industry, tourism and local traffic would be gone or severely crippled without it being in functioning condition in BOTH states.

texaskdog

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


nexus73

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
US 101 is THE backbone of the Pacific coast from Bandon OR to Willits CA.  Industry, tourism and local traffic would be gone or severely crippled without it being in functioning condition in BOTH states.

Henry

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.)
Go Cubs Go! Go Cubs Go! Hey Chicago, what do you say? The Cubs are gonna win today!

1995hoo

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.
"You know, you never have a guaranteed spot until you have a spot guaranteed."
—Olaf Kolzig, as quoted in the Washington Times on March 28, 2003,
commenting on the Capitals clinching a playoff spot.

"That sounded stupid, didn't it?"
—Kolzig, to the same reporter a few seconds later.

dvferyance

#17
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.

TheHighwayMan3561

The NFL will never expand to Milwaukee and have no need to do so. The Packers are unquestionably 110% Milwaukee's team.
self-certified as the dumbest person on this board for 5 years running

tribar

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?

dvferyance

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.

TheHighwayMan3561

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.
self-certified as the dumbest person on this board for 5 years running

ajlynch91

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.

english si

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, not a Curtain.

Rothman

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, not a Curtain.

Sorry, Cheddar became an American citizen in 1866.
Please note: All comments here represent my own personal opinion and do not reflect the official position(s) of NYSDOT.



Opinions expressed here on belong solely to the poster and do not represent or reflect the opinions or beliefs of AARoads, its creators and/or associates.