AARoads Forum

[Split from the Austin thread in Mid-South (https://www.aaroads.com/forum/index.php?topic=26632). -S.]

Quote from: bwana39 on December 13, 2020, 05:16:23 PM

Quote from: Bobby5280 on December 13, 2020, 04:37:55 PM
In the Austin area they're going to have to get more serious about upgrading certain roads, like I-35 through the middle of Austin and US-290 going out the West side of Austin. Tesla's Gigafactory 5 is going to be built near TX-130 and Harold Green Road, which is one exit North of the TX-71/TX-130 interchange. That will add to the traffic load. I think there is a good chance an NFL team will relocate to the Austin-San Antonio region within the next 10 years.

Austin hates roads I agree they need upgraded, but the no-build option often wins there.

NFL- Not if Jerry Jones has anything to do with it.  As far as that goes, the McNairs, and the Bidwells are not wanting any new blood in their regions.

Jerry Jones has been on record of being supportive of San Antonio getting an NFL team.  I know he has a hold of the market and all, but that's what he said, and maybe because he sees a chance to profit share with said expansion team.  The McNairs have no control in Texas, and the Bidwells don't have any at all.  The Cardinals don't even register a blip here.  Hell, the Saints are geographically closer still barely register a fan base in this state. 

It's less Jerry and more lack of big HQs (read: luxury boxes) in SA/Austin. UT is certainly in no hurry to compete with an NFL team in trying to fill its 100k stadium, either.

As more HQs move to/are founded in the region, momentum for an NFL team will likely grow along with it.

^
Well, with Oracle and potentially Tesla moving to Austin along with some others, I'd say that area deserves an NFL team.

san antonio had the saints for a bit too. also it looks like austins road system is decent, but perhaps east west connectivity could use some work.

Austin is a mixed bag. They've made progress on highways well outside the downtown area. Toll roads like TX-130 have room to grow. But I-35 near downtown remains a serious bottleneck. And I'm pretty concerned the expansion projects TX DOT and others are planning are falling way behind the pace of new development in the Austin region.

Quote from: TXtoNJIt's less Jerry and more lack of big HQs (read: luxury boxes) in SA/Austin.

There is plenty of money in Austin. Not only is the tech sector growing there, along with everything else, but Austin is a magnet for celebrities too. I don't think an NFL team serving the Austin-San Antonio region would have any trouble filling sky boxes.

The Saints only moved to San Antonio for one year: 2005, following the devastation of Hurricane Katrina in NOLA and the disastrous use of the Superdome there as a last minute evacuation shelter for those who couldn't get out of Katrina's way. They moved their front office facilities to SA, and played some "home" games there (along with one or two at LSU's Tiger Stadium in Baton Rouge, IIRC.

Then new Saints owner Tom Benson did put out the idea of permanently moving the team to San Antonio, as a means of blackmailing the state of Louisiana for more assistance in either building a new stadium in Metarie close to where the current team practice/office complex stands, or totally rebuilding the Superdome. The NFL brass, then led by Paul Tagliabue, however, came in with full boots on and nixed that effort, possibly due to fear of losing all that tourist revenues from all the Super Bowls played there. Ultimately, the NFL, Benson, and the state of LA agreed to completely rebuild the Superdome and add some extra baubles to keep the team there.

The rebuild was completed before the next season (2006), and the Saints reopened with a new attitude, a new coach (Sean Payton), a relatively young gunslinger QB (Drew Brees, acquired from the then San Diego Chargers), and a prime time Monday Night Football game against their hated rival Atlanta Falcons. One Steve Gleason blocked punt recovery for a TD, and the rest is history.

That aside, San Antonio would make for a excellent location for an NFL franchise. They certainly have the population base (San Antonio/Austin), they have reach into the Latin/Mexican communities of South Texas (which is a required tingle up the spine of current commish Roger Goddell for "diversity"), and the facilities are already there. They'll probably have to wait until either an existing franchise (Jacksonville?) asks to pull the trigger and move, or the league decides to twin them with another city in an expansion move (probably San Diego as consolation for losing the Chargers to Los Angeles).

Sorry for the diversion, just wanted to add the history and context here.

Quote from: TXtoNJ on December 15, 2020, 03:35:36 PM
It's less Jerry and more lack of big HQs (read: luxury boxes) in SA/Austin. UT is certainly in no hurry to compete with an NFL team in trying to fill its 100k stadium, either.

As more HQs move to/are founded in the region, momentum for an NFL team will likely grow along with it.

As stated, yes there are corporations headquartered in Austin, and many more to come.  Many big ones coming that are game changers.

Quote from: Anthony_JK on December 16, 2020, 03:51:56 AM
The Saints only moved to San Antonio for one year: 2005, following the devastation of Hurricane Katrina in NOLA and the disastrous use of the Superdome there as a last minute evacuation shelter for those who couldn't get out of Katrina's way. They moved their front office facilities to SA, and played some "home" games there (along with one or two at LSU's Tiger Stadium in Baton Rouge, IIRC.

Then new Saints owner Tom Benson did put out the idea of permanently moving the team to San Antonio, as a means of blackmailing the state of Louisiana for more assistance in either building a new stadium in Metarie close to where the current team practice/office complex stands, or totally rebuilding the Superdome. The NFL brass, then led by Paul Tagliabue, however, came in with full boots on and nixed that effort, possibly due to fear of losing all that tourist revenues from all the Super Bowls played there. Ultimately, the NFL, Benson, and the state of LA agreed to completely rebuild the Superdome and add some extra baubles to keep the team there.

The rebuild was completed before the next season (2006), and the Saints reopened with a new attitude, a new coach (Sean Payton), a relatively young gunslinger QB (Drew Brees, acquired from the then San Diego Chargers), and a prime time Monday Night Football game against their hated rival Atlanta Falcons. One Steve Gleason blocked punt recovery for a TD, and the rest is history.

That aside, San Antonio would make for a excellent location for an NFL franchise. They certainly have the population base (San Antonio/Austin), they have reach into the Latin/Mexican communities of South Texas (which is a required tingle up the spine of current commish Roger Goddell for "diversity"), and the facilities are already there. They'll probably have to wait until either an existing franchise (Jacksonville?) asks to pull the trigger and move, or the league decides to twin them with another city in an expansion move (probably San Diego as consolation for losing the Chargers to Los Angeles).

Sorry for the diversion, just wanted to add the history and context here.

That is all true.  The only thing I would change was calling it a year.  It was a few games during Katrina cleanup, and then gone.  I know you kinda pointed that out, but it was a big deal here that it was extremely short and even more temporary feeling.  Not nearly enough to consider them a permanent fixture in Texas for fan base purposes.  I remember when Tom Benson first made some noise about moving to San Antonio, then Ray Nagy (then mayor of New Orleans) went on a tirade about how he wanted the Cleveland Browns treatment (when they "moved" to Baltimore, and the city was promised a franchise) guaranteed.  Paul Tagliabue then squashed it, saying that moving to San Antonio was "a step backward."  It was very obvious then, that if one of the major four sports leagues want something to happen a certain way, they will see to it that it does.  They love having the Super Bowl in New Orleans.  Although the rules don't specifically prohibit cities without an NFL team to host the Super Bowl, it sure looks bad for the league to love hosting the Super Bowl in a city that couldn't even keep their team.  The same thing went on in Los Angeles, and is why the league tried for 20 years to get someone to move there.  They loved hosting the Super Bowl there, but the stadiums in LA weren't modern enough to do so. 

Anyway, back to the topic, I think a huge NFL stadium between Kyle and San Marcos would be perfect.  It would draw both Austin and San Antonio.  The NFL and college football play on different days specifically so they don't compete head to head.  The same people that pile in to see the Longhorns on Saturday will pile into the new stadium on Sunday to watch the NFL team, I promise.  I am a diehard Cowboy fan, I mean like generations, and even I would love to see a new team here.  As huge as football is in Texas, I think it is an embarrassment there are only two NFL franchises in the state, where California has four. 

I don't think it will come to a team moving.  I think it will all start rolling in  the next CBA talk in 2022.  That has been the earmarked "let's put a team in London" discussion time, since the owners have been happy with the current 32 team format.  The powers that be feel that "happiness" will come to an end in 2022 and the London team might become a reality. If you are gonna add a team, you have to add another to keep the balance in the divisions (in theory).  The NFL is a different cat in that you can have an odd number of teams so long as you have a bye week every week, including opening week.  They have done that in the past.  It all comes down to how unique football is.  They play once a week, almost the same time on the same day.  As long as the odd man out has a bye on that day, no harm no foul.  It's not like having an odd amount of MLB teams where one team has to sit out for an entire three game series. 

Quote from: ethanhopkin14I don't think it will come to a team moving.  I think it will all start rolling in  the next CBA talk in 2022.  That has been the earmarked "let's put a team in London" discussion time, since the owners have been happy with the current 32 team format.  The powers that be feel that "happiness" will come to an end in 2022 and the London team might become a reality. If you are gonna add a team, you have to add another to keep the balance in the divisions (in theory).

If the NFL were to add new teams to the existing 32 they would have to add at least four teams in order to maintain balanced conferences and divisions. And even in that scenario the league would have to go through a re-alignment, cutting the number of divisions from 8 to 6. They would have to go from 32 teams to 40 in order to have 8 balanced divisions across 2 conferences.

In the near term I think it's more possible for an existing team in an under-performing market to pull up stakes and move to a new location. Jacksonville is definitely at some risk of losing the Jaguars, even though the Jaguars organization has been innovative at entertaining its fans in Jacksonville. Buffalo has been on the bubble for a long time at either keeping or losing the Bills. Buffalo is small for an NFL market, but the team has a storied history and also draws football fans from Canada. A while back the Carolina Panthers seemed in danger of moving, but with Triangle area in NC booming the Panthers seem less likely to move.

Of course, when an NFL team demands a new stadium from local taxpayers (currently at a cost upwards of $2 billion) that can decide the issue quickly. City leaders and taxpayers in San Diego said "well...bye" when the Chargers organization made its stadium demands. The same went for Oakland. Are the locals in Jacksonville, Buffalo or Charlotte willing to open their wallets big time to subsidize a live sport whose costs to see games in-person are just flat out insane?

I think it's easier to sell locals on live sports that don't require such giant size stadiums, such as professional basketball or hockey. Oklahoma City scored the Thunder (which used to be the Seattle Supersonics) based on how well they supported the New Orleans Hornets following the Hurricane Katrina disaster. OKC already had a new NBA/NHL sized arena ready for such a team. Now with the Thunder in full-on tear-down mode we'll see how well OKC supports the team while it stinks for a number of years.

Even though it's likely London could support an NFL team very well, I think it's a long shot for London to get a team full time. It all has to do with the TV scheduling and the ocean-hopping flights. Mexico City is another international expansion possibility, but that place has its issues too. Canada already has its own pro football league.

Austin-San Antonio remains as a giant, untapped market for the NFL. I didn't even think about South Texas as an additional draw. Corpus Christi is about 130 miles away and Laredo about 140. The Rio Grande Valley is another 2 hours drive farther South. But there is over 1 million people living down there.

Austin has no major sports team.  Baseball would be the most logical fit.  With Austin & San Antonio metro areas both on the cusp of large enough  San Antonio is 24th largest MSA and Austin is 29th.  Austin is larger than Cincinnati, Kansas City, Indianapolis, Cleveland, Nashville, New Orleans, Buffalo, and Green Bay (as well as being the fastest largest growing city in the country).  SA is also larger than Pittsburgh and Las Vegas.  The downtowns are 80 miles apart so put a stadium between San Marcos and New Braunfels halfway.  Combined it would serve the 12th largest area in the NFL.

I do not see the Austin-San Antonio region as an either-or scenario for a Major League Baseball team or an NFL team. The market is big enough to support any pro sports franchise, be it pro football, baseball, hockey or soccer. For now San Antonio has the only top level pro sports franchise (the Spurs NBA team).

Austin does have a AAA baseball team, the Round Rock Express -which is currently the AAA team for the Texas Rangers. Oklahoma City used to be home to the Rangers' AAA team (the Redhawks). The affiliations between the Redhawks went back and forth between the Rangers and Houston Astros. IIRC, Nolan Ryan had something to do with the Round Rock Express taking over as the Rangers' AAA team. The OKC AAA team is now the Dodgers, obviously affiliated with the LA Dodgers. I think OKC should have kept the Redhawks name.

Quote from: Bobby5280 on December 17, 2020, 12:35:58 AM
Austin does have a AAA baseball team, the Round Rock Express -which is currently the AAA team for the Texas Rangers. Oklahoma City used to be home to the Rangers' AAA team (the Redhawks). The affiliations between the Redhawks went back and forth between the Rangers and Houston Astros. IIRC, Nolan Ryan had something to do with the Round Rock Express taking over as the Rangers' AAA team.

He made that happen when he was president of the Rangers. There was a time when major league teams were trying to get their AAA and AA franchises closer to home so the execs could pop in more frequently to watch prospects.

Quote
The OKC AAA team is now the Dodgers, obviously affiliated with the LA Dodgers. I think OKC should have kept the Redhawks name.

Agreed. I understand the Dodgers' desire to cross-brand but I miss the names with local flavor. Bring back the 89ers!!

Quote from: rte66manHe made that happen when he was president of the Rangers. There was a time when major league teams were trying to get their AAA and AA franchises closer to home so the execs could pop in more frequently to watch prospects.

The Houston Astros sure followed that formula. Its AAA team is now in Sugarland (the Skeeters). OKC is a long way from LA. Nolan Ryan's nickname "The Express" was the inspiration for the Round Rock Express name.

Quote from: Bobby5280 on December 16, 2020, 09:29:56 PM

Quote from: ethanhopkin14I don't think it will come to a team moving.  I think it will all start rolling in  the next CBA talk in 2022.  That has been the earmarked "let's put a team in London" discussion time, since the owners have been happy with the current 32 team format.  The powers that be feel that "happiness" will come to an end in 2022 and the London team might become a reality. If you are gonna add a team, you have to add another to keep the balance in the divisions (in theory).

If the NFL were to add new teams to the existing 32 they would have to add at least four teams in order to maintain balanced conferences and divisions. And even in that scenario the league would have to go through a re-alignment, cutting the number of divisions from 8 to 6. They would have to go from 32 teams to 40 in order to have 8 balanced divisions across 2 conferences.

Yep.  As interesting as it would be seeing the NFL expand from 32 to 40, consider that in the 50+ years since the AFL/NFL merger, the NFL has gone from 26 to 32 teams.

Where would those 8 additional NFL cities come from?

Outside the Lower 48: London, Mexico City, Honolulu
Previous NFL cities: St. Louis, Oakland, San Diego
Major metro areas without a team: San Antonio/Austin, OKC/Tulsa

Where else could a team go?  Memphis?  Less likely if St. Louis gets a team back.  Sacramento?  Less likely if Oakland gets a team back.  A second team in Chicago?  Portland OR?  Salt Lake City?  Birmingham AL?  Columbus OH?  Little Rock?  Des Moines?  None of those seem any more likely than the first eight I listed.

I'd love to see the NFL go to 40 teams,  I just don't see it happening any time soon.

I don't think there would be any problem finding 8 metro areas worthwhile in supporting an expansion NFL team. The real trick is finding adequately large metro areas whose citizens are willing to foot much of the bill for a new, modern football stadium. And then there's the headaches involved figuring out the season schedules and travel plans.

Wikipedia has San Diego ranked as the largest MSA without an NFL team. But that's only because they separate San Antonio and Austin into two distinct MSAs (both of which have 2.5 and 2.2 million people respectively). The citizens and city government of San Diego were willing to let the Chargers move to LA. But we've seen this movie at least a couple times before. The original Cleveland Browns organization packed up and moved to Baltimore in the middle of the night 25 years ago. Baltimore was the original home to the Indianapolis Colts. The Houston Oilers moved to Nashville. Both Cleveland and Houston have NFL teams once again. San Diego will go only so many years without its own NFL team. Someone just has to make the right deal.

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).

Orlando has a 2.6 million MSA population (ranked 23 in the US). But it is just too close to Tampa, Jacksonville and even Miami to justify a 4th NFL team in Florida. San Antonio-New Braunfels is ranked #24 and Austin #29. If you combine the San Antonio-Austin region into one big MSA it jumps Phoenix into the top 10.

Portland and Sacramento are "honorable mentions." Both have MSA populations over 2 million, which is higher than a decent number of existing NFL markets. But both are within reasonable proximity to the 49ers and Seahawks markets. I doubt Portland's taxpayers would go for funding an NFL stadium, considering the politics of the region.

Honolulu is a no-go. It's a great site for the Pro Bowl. But not for a full time NFL team. The market is too small in population (MSA ranked #56). And it's way too far West and isolated in terms of time zone. Birmingham's MSA ranks #50. Des Moines ranks #83. Boise is growing fast, but ranks #78. Columbus, OH ranks #32, but is halfway between Cleveland and Cincinnati; so that's pushing it.

Considering the business and population growth of the Research Triangle in North Carolina, it could actually be a shrewd play to locate an NFL team in the Virginia Beach-Norfolk area. That's a big tourism center. And it would be about the same distance from the Triangle as Charlotte. But then again, the Panthers could just end up moving into a brand new stadium closer to Raleigh. They wouldn't even have to change the "Carolina Panthers" team name. Convenient.

While I wouldn't mind seeing an NFL team in Oklahoma, neither the OKC or Tulsa MSAs are big enough to support such a thing (OKC is ranked #41 and Tulsa #55). I don't think OK taxpayers would be willing to foot the expense of an insanely expensive NFL stadium. Besides, Oklahoma's idea of "pro football" is the Oklahoma Sooners and OK State Cowboys.

Europe is an interesting situation. London has proved very well they are willing to fully support an NFL team full time. But if the NFL expands to Europe London cannot be the only location. I think the NFL would need at least 4 teams in Europe (2 in the AFC and 2 in the NFC) to make the situation manageable. London is an easy choice. I don't think the UK has any other cities large enough to support an NFL franchise (and the pricey stadium that goes with it). So I think it comes down to other cosmopolitan cities such as Paris, Berlin, Madrid, Rome or Stockholm.

Long story short: to get to 40 NFL teams, I think you put 4 new teams in the US and 4 in Europe. In Europe, I think it should be London, Paris, Berlin and Madrid. Stockholm and Rome would be alternates. If it was my call the 4 new US markets would be Austin-San Antonio, San Diego, St Louis and...crap. The last one is a difficult choice. I think the Virginia Beach area would be worthwhile -especially for the huge military population there. Salt Lake could be a slim possibility due to how far it is from any other existing NFL market. I don't know for sure, but it seems like Salt Lake is closer to Boise than it is to Las Vegas. Salt Lake could have a lot of regional reach into Idaho, Montana as well as much of Utah.

If a Hampton Roads team could draw like the old Norfolk Neptunes did in the Continental Football League back in the 1960's (avg. home attendance in 1968 & 1969: a little over 13,000 in a league where the avg. attendance was 5,700/game), then great.  The stadium is there (Virginia Beach Sportsplex) which could be expanded to accommodate an NFL team along with some land available for more parking (the field hockey area southwest of the stadium would have to go to achieve this).

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.  Also, in reality, a new stadium would have to be built.  Where?  I really do not know.  The area near downtown Norfolk is very crowded and if a stadium were to be built, many residents would be displaced.  Stumpy Lake area?  No, not good enough infrastructure.  Greenbrier/Great Bridge?  Too built up now--25 years ago it may have been plusible.  Bowers Hill area?  Kind of out of the way--similar to where the Virginia Beach Sportsplex is located.  Plus, would residents from Newport News and Hampton make the trek to the Southside to attend an NFL game?  Maybe, however, it depends on where the stadium would be.

This has been a subject that has been discussed on and off in the Hampton Roads area for around 35 years.  At one time, someone had a rendering of a stadium that was supposed to be built in Hampton Roads, yes the water.  It was to be built on a man-made island with a causeway built from Newport News or Hampton to get to the stadium parking area.  I also believe there was supposed to be some parking areas on the shore and the fans could walk along the causeway (pedestrian walkway) to attend the game.  That was a crazy idea.

There are just so many cons that seem to outweigh the pros in this subject.  If anyone has an opinion on this, I am more than willing to read it.

I believe that if a 36th US NFL team came to fruition, the market would be at the saturation point.  There would not be any area to place another NFL team that would be profitable to that team or the NFL.  Hampton Roads would be a good choice, however, many things would have to align for this to happen.  Some larger areas are unfeasible because of location (Columbus, Orlando, Sacramento--too close to existing NFL teams).  Portland is a case of its own.  So, the NFL may have to look at areas that are above 35 in the MSA's if they want a 36th US team.

I have two cities to suggest other than Hampton Roads.  Oklahoma City, even though it is 41st in MSA, or Memphis, even though the city is 210 miles from where the Tennessee Titans play.

NFL is fine where and how it is. Ratings are declining across the board for pro sports. Now is not the time to be splurging on expansion teams, especially in cities that already have a strong association with existing teams. 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.

Quote from: CoreySamson on December 15, 2020, 03:54:52 PM
^
Well, with Oracle and potentially Tesla moving to Austin along with some others, I'd say that area deserves an NFL team.

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)? There probably are. Are there enough of them? Heck no. Austin is about the 107th place I would start an NFL franchise right now. I would rather have one in London or Mexico City. Plus, what happens when the Austin team inevatibly stinks their first few years in the league? That shininess will wear off really fast, especially if the Cowboys or Texans are good.

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

Other cities where they could put one:

OKC
Salt Lake City
Memphis
Omaha
Wichita
San Juan

Quote from: RobbieL2415 on December 22, 2020, 10:28:54 AM
I'd put a team back in St. Louis before Austin.

Other cities where they could put one:

OKC

Cowboys.

Quote
Salt Lake City

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

Quote
Memphis

Titans.

Quote
Omaha

Not enough people.

Quote
Wichita

Chiefs.

Quote
San Juan

Lol  :-D

There is not enough player talent to warrant an expansion beyond 32 teams. We already have a pretty big talent gap between the best and worst teams, but it's at least close enough to where a team like the Jets can pull off an upset of a team like the Rams every now and then.

If you expand the NFL, you'll be guaranteed to have at least one 0-16 team every year, and nobody wants that.

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.

Quote from: thspfc on December 22, 2020, 10:35:25 AM

Quote
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.

Quote from: thspfc on December 22, 2020, 10:35:25 AM

Quote from: RobbieL2415 on December 22, 2020, 10:28:54 AM
I'd put a team back in St. Louis before Austin.

Other cities where they could put one:

OKC

Cowboys.

Quote
Salt Lake City

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

Quote
Memphis

Titans.

Quote
Omaha

Not enough people.

Quote
Wichita

Chiefs.

Quote
San Juan

Lol  :-D

Titans play in Nashville.
Wichita and Omaha each have a larger population than New Orleans and comparable metro area populations.
With regards to Salt Lake City, perhaps Congress could eliminate the Sports Broadcast Act of 1961 so the Big 3 could regularly broadcast pro football on Saturdays. And with more people streaming sports, this may not be an issue going forward.

Quote from: 1 on December 22, 2020, 10:44:59 AM

Quote from: thspfc on December 22, 2020, 10:35:25 AM

Quote
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.

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.

To go to 36 teams, I'd add (note the focus on the South and West):
-Oklahoma City, OK
-Portland, OR
-San Antonio, TX
-Salt Lake City, UT

To go to 40 teams, I'd add:
-Sacramento, CA
-St. Louis, MO
-Omaha, NE (likely located in IA, as 1 suggests)
-Boise, ID (market would include MT and WY)

Other suggestions would include Hampton Roads, Richmond, Lexington or Louisville, KY, or Birmingham, AL. Technically, Alabama is the most populous state with no connections to an existing NFL team, but college football is much bigger there.

If you think San Diego should be on the list, just move the Chargers back to LA. We don't need 3 teams in SoCal, but that's a separate conversation. And ultimately, the whole exercise is just theoretical, because the NFL doesn't really need more teams.

Quote from: webny99 on December 22, 2020, 11:36:24 AM
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.)

Quote from: jeffandnicole on December 22, 2020, 10:55:59 AM

Quote from: 1 on December 22, 2020, 10:44:59 AM

Quote from: thspfc on December 22, 2020, 10:35:25 AM

Quote
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.

Quote from: RobbieL2415 on December 22, 2020, 10:46:17 AM

Quote from: thspfc on December 22, 2020, 10:35:25 AM

Quote from: RobbieL2415 on December 22, 2020, 10:28:54 AM
I'd put a team back in St. Louis before Austin.

Other cities where they could put one:

OKC

Cowboys.

Quote
Salt Lake City

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

Quote
Memphis

Titans.

Quote
Omaha

Not enough people.

Quote
Wichita

Chiefs.

Quote
San Juan

Lol  :-D

Titans play in Nashville.

I know.

Quote
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.

Quote from: thspfc on December 22, 2020, 03:39:07 PM

Quote from: jeffandnicole on December 22, 2020, 10:55:59 AM

Quote from: 1 on December 22, 2020, 10:44:59 AM

Quote from: thspfc on December 22, 2020, 10:35:25 AM

Quote
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.

Quote from: 1995hoo on December 22, 2020, 11:50:20 AM

Quote from: webny99 on December 22, 2020, 11:36:24 AM
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.

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.

Quote from: cabiness42 on December 22, 2020, 10:44:03 AM
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

Quote from: Bobby5280 on December 21, 2020, 10:56:33 PM
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

Quote from: thspfc on December 22, 2020, 03:43:29 PM

Quote
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)

Quote from: ilpt4u on December 22, 2020, 05:00:57 PMThe 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. :P

Quote from: webny99 on December 22, 2020, 04:09:04 PM
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

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

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

Quote from: amroad17On 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.

Quote from: thspfcIt'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.

Quote from: thspfcIf 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.

Quote from: ilpt4uStrictly 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.

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.

Quote from: Bobby5280 on December 22, 2020, 09:37:33 PM

Quote from: thspfcIf 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.

Quote from: Bobby5280 on December 22, 2020, 09:37:33 PM

Quote from: ilpt4uStrictly 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

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.

Quote from: TheHighwayMan394 on December 22, 2020, 11:04:47 PM
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

Quote from: ilpt4u on December 22, 2020, 11:11:48 PM

Quote from: TheHighwayMan394 on December 22, 2020, 11:04:47 PM
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.

Quote from: ilpt4u on December 22, 2020, 10:59:29 PM
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.

Quote from: webny99Austin 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.

Quote from: ilpt4u on December 22, 2020, 05:06:34 PM

Quote from: Bobby5280 on December 21, 2020, 10:56:33 PM
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).

Quote from: ilpt4u on December 22, 2020, 05:00:57 PM

Quote from: cabiness42 on December 22, 2020, 10:44:03 AM
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.

Quote from: CoreySamson on December 22, 2020, 07:53:44 PM

Quote from: webny99 on December 22, 2020, 04:09:04 PM
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.

I have no problem with a team being in a medium-sized city. For example, if there was a team in St. George, UT instead of Las Vegas, its fanbase would still include Las Vegas (and might gain Salt Lake City), and Fort Smith, AR or the Northwest Arkansas metro instead of Oklahoma City, Tulsa, or Little Rock would get fans from both Oklahoma and Arkansas. The problem is when there are two teams too close to each other in a market that's not NYC or LA, or if it's empty enough that even if it had everything closest to it, it would still be almost nothing (a team in MT that's too far from Salt Lake City would get at maximum ID, WY, ND, SD, eastern WA and OR, and western NE – this is only 6 million excluding Canada, but including Spokane, Fargo, and Sioux Falls that are not even guaranteed to root for the Montana team).

Quote from: 1 on December 23, 2020, 09:42:16 AM
I have no problem with a team being in a medium-sized city. For example, if there was a team in St. George, UT instead of Las Vegas, its fanbase would still include Las Vegas (and might gain Salt Lake City), and Fort Smith, AR or the Northwest Arkansas metro instead of Oklahoma City, Tulsa, or Little Rock would get fans from both Oklahoma and Arkansas. The problem is when there are two teams too close to each other in a market that's not NYC or LA, or if it's empty enough that even if it had everything closest to it, it would still be almost nothing (a team in MT that's too far from Salt Lake City would get at maximum ID, WY, ND, SD, eastern WA and OR, and western NE – this is only 6 million excluding Canada, but including Spokane, Fargo, and Sioux Falls that are not even guaranteed to root for the Montana team).

You also have to consider how far people are willing to drive from. I bet 80% of the people going to Packers games are coming from Wisconsin, so it's a max 2-3 hour drive for them.
And about that. The first time I went to a Packers game was in 2013. It was in November against the Vikings. The game went to overtime and ended in a tie. Traffic leaving Green Bay was so bad that I was able to watch several minutes of the Cowboys/Giants game by looking out the car window at a TV inside of a bar while stopped at a red light for forever. I think there should be a connector freeway from the Lambeau parking lot to I-41.

Quote from: thspfc on December 23, 2020, 10:04:27 AM
I think there should be a connector freeway from the Lambeau parking lot to I-41.

:-D
I don't think even the Packers have enough clout to get that done.  Besides, what would it do the other 357 days of the year. :P

Your mistake was leaving right after the game.  No reason to do that; might as well sit back an enjoy a post-game tailgate.  That's why one always throws in a few sodas or teas or something when they pack for a Lambeau trip; so they can post-game and still keep the driver sober.

It's beside the point, really since the actual parking lots don't come close to accommodating all of the vehicles that are there.  I've never parked at an official Lambeau Field parking lot before.  I've parked at a funeral home, a motel, the Shopko (before they tore it down) and of course, someone's lawn.  It is a handsome income stream for anyone who owns property within walking distance of the stadium.

The parking situation at Lambeau somewhat resembles that for the Carolina Panthers' stadium in downtown Charlotte. The "official" parking at the Panthers' stadium is very small. But there are over 30,000 spaces within walking distance of the stadium, including downtown office buildings with parking garages well-used during the week but with lots of space available on weekends.

One of my ex-bosses, who went on to work in one of those office buildings, explained that his monthly parking contract had an exclusion for Panthers weekday night games (Monday and Thursday evenings). He had to either go home on those game nights, or leave his car there and pay the special game rate.

Quote from: oscar on December 23, 2020, 12:09:37 PM
The parking situation at Lambeau somewhat resembles that for the Carolina Panthers' stadium in downtown Charlotte. The "official" parking at the Panthers' stadium is very small. But there are over 30,000 spaces within walking distance of the stadium, including downtown office buildings with parking garages well-used during the week but with lots of space available on weekends.

One of my ex-bosses, who went on to work in one of those office buildings, explained that his monthly parking contract had an exclusion for Panthers weekday night games (Monday and Thursday evenings). He had to either go home on those game nights, or leave his car there and pay the special game rate.

Comparisons are made also between Lambeau and Wrigley Field, since both are basically in the middle of a neighborhood, and both have all sorts of "creative"  options for private parties selling parts of their parking lot or driveway or yard for parking

Of course, Wrigley being right at a Red Line "L"  stop basically enables anywhere along the Red Line a parking spot to go to the game, and since most of the Downtown Metra Terminals are within walking distance of the State Street Subway/the Red Line, Public Transport is a good way to get to Cubs games, too

Wasn't there a time that the Packer would play a slate of home games in Milwaukee, where I presume most of their fans are?

Quote from: AlexandriaVA on December 23, 2020, 12:48:34 PM
Wasn't there a time that the Packer would play a slate of home games in Milwaukee, where I presume most of their fans are?

Used to be 1 game per year up through the mid-90s.

Quote from: thspfcNowadays Nashville is booming and Memphis is a declining dump.

Even if Memphis didn't have its various problems (lots of poverty, crime, etc) the market would still be too small to support an NFL team. They're in the same position as other medium size metros like OKC and Tulsa or Salt Lake.

Quote from: 1I have no problem with a team being in a medium-sized city. For example, if there was a team in St. George, UT instead of Las Vegas, its fanbase would still include Las Vegas (and might gain Salt Lake City), and Fort Smith, AR or the Northwest Arkansas metro instead of Oklahoma City, Tulsa, or Little Rock would get fans from both Oklahoma and Arkansas.

Any new NFL market would need a MSA population of at least 2 million or more people. There is only a few such places in the US like that which don't already have an NFL team. Oklahoma City has an MSA population of 1.4 million (#41 in the US). Tulsa's MSA is just under 1 million (#55). Little Rock has around 750,000 MSA and while the NW Arkansas region is booming, its MSA pop is 530,000. That's not big enough for any top level sports team, much less the NFL. OKC is a big enough market to support an NBA team. IIRC, the Chesapeake Energy Arena in OKC was built initially as an attempt to lure an NHL team. It's a good place to see a concert. One thing I'm sure of is an NFL team would have little trouble selling luxury sky boxes in OKC. But good luck getting the city's taxpayers (or state's taxpayers) to fund the stadium. I think there's not enough of a working class fan base to support an NFL team in OKC. The proximity to Dallas is another problem.

Football fans are going to drive only so far to see a game live inside the stadium and/or tailgate in the parking lots. In the scenario that OKC got an NFL team I wouldn't expect a great deal of traffic coming from cities like Tulsa, Fort Smith or Little Rock.

Another BIG issue with NFL teams is the size of local TV markets. All the broadcast rights issues is a money thing. A major media market is going to generate more ratings, more advertising revenue, etc. It turns things like the stadium naming rights into a more lucrative angle. An NFL team isn't going to have such prospects of raking in the "cheddar" building a stadium in a city like Des Moines or Fargo.

In the Las Vegas area, they built Allegiant Stadium exactly where it needed to be: just across I-15 from the Vegas Strip. St George, UT is a bedroom community in a very religiously conservative state.

I know this is all fictional because the NFL isn't expanding anytime soon, but a 2nd team in Chicago would do better than most of the locations being floated.

Quote from: 1 on December 23, 2020, 09:42:16 AM
I have no problem with a team being in a medium-sized city. For example, if there was a team in St. George, UT instead of Las Vegas, its fanbase would still include Las Vegas (and might gain Salt Lake City), and Fort Smith, AR or the Northwest Arkansas metro instead of Oklahoma City, Tulsa, or Little Rock would get fans from both Oklahoma and Arkansas. The problem is when there are two teams too close to each other in a market that's not NYC or LA, or if it's empty enough that even if it had everything closest to it, it would still be almost nothing (a team in MT that's too far from Salt Lake City would get at maximum ID, WY, ND, SD, eastern WA and OR, and western NE – this is only 6 million excluding Canada, but including Spokane, Fargo, and Sioux Falls that are not even guaranteed to root for the Montana team).

Half of the appeal of playing in Vegas is that it's Vegas. There is no comparison to them being in Vegas and being in St. George, or Paragonah, or Littleton. AZ.

Quote from: cabiness42 on December 23, 2020, 01:03:14 PM
I know this is all fictional because the NFL isn't expanding anytime soon, but a 2nd team in Chicago would do better than most of the locations being floated.

Have you seen the issues the White Sox have been facing lately?

The fact of the matter is, there's not a single place in the country right now where a new NFL team could succeed. Some existing teams struggled with attendance before the pandemic.

Prior to the SARS-CoV-2 pandemic some existing NFL teams were dealing with attendance issues due to political issues (fan blowback from players kneeling during the National Anthem), but the attendance drop off wasn't as bad as media outlets tried to describe it. Attendance levels also rise and fall based on any individual team's level of success.

Quote from: cabiness42 on December 23, 2020, 12:49:55 PM

Quote from: AlexandriaVA on December 23, 2020, 12:48:34 PM
Wasn't there a time that the Packer would play a slate of home games in Milwaukee, where I presume most of their fans are?

Used to be 1 game per year up through the mid-90s.

1 preseason, and 3 regular season games.

Quote from: Bobby5280 on December 23, 2020, 02:37:37 PM
Prior to the SARS-CoV-2 pandemic some existing NFL teams were dealing with attendance issues due to political issues (fan blowback from players kneeling during the National Anthem), but the attendance drop off wasn't as bad as media outlets tried to describe it. Attendance levels also rise and fall based on any individual team's level of success.

The other problem with the NFL (all sports and television are in the same boat) is that even though ratings are very high compared to other television shows, even the NFL's ratings have markedly declined over the past decade.  You can state it's related to political speech, but just about all broadcast/cable programming is having the same issue.  Fewer eyes watching means less reasons for an advertiser to pony up the big money. 

Truth is, Austin/San Antonio would be one of the best non-served markets for the NFL if they could come up with a way to best monetize in person viewing (higher number of seats/suites), plus two good metros in close proximity (less than 80 miles from downtown to downtown).

Quote from: cabiness42 on December 23, 2020, 12:49:55 PM

Quote from: AlexandriaVA on December 23, 2020, 12:48:34 PM
Wasn't there a time that the Packer would play a slate of home games in Milwaukee, where I presume most of their fans are?

Used to be 1 game per year up through the mid-90s.

There were three games in Milwaukee, plus a pre-season game, every year.

As for post-game traffic, once I-41 is upgraded to six lanes between De Pere and Appleton (planned for construction in the 2025-2030 time span)....

:nod:

Mike

Quote from: thspfc on December 23, 2020, 02:12:53 PM

Quote from: cabiness42 on December 23, 2020, 01:03:14 PM
I know this is all fictional because the NFL isn't expanding anytime soon, but a 2nd team in Chicago would do better than most of the locations being floated.

Have you seen the issues the White Sox have been facing lately?

The fact of the matter is, there's not a single place in the country right now where a new NFL team could succeed. Some existing teams struggled with attendance before the pandemic.

Attendance is such a small piece of revenue anymore. TV revenue and the high-dollar suites and boxes are what bring in most of the revenue.

Quote from: cabiness42 on December 23, 2020, 01:03:14 PM
I know this is all fictional because the NFL isn't expanding anytime soon, but a 2nd team in Chicago would do better than most of the locations being floated.

What about El Paso? That puts a team between Dallas and Phoenix and more of a home team for NM residents.

Quote from: RobbieL2415 on December 23, 2020, 03:33:45 PM

Quote from: cabiness42 on December 23, 2020, 01:03:14 PM
I know this is all fictional because the NFL isn't expanding anytime soon, but a 2nd team in Chicago would do better than most of the locations being floated.

What about El Paso? That puts a team between Dallas and Phoenix and more of a home team for NM residents.

El Paso would get NM, a decent amount of population on the Mexican side of the border that probably doesn't care about American football, Lubbock, possibly the Rio Grande Valley, and probably not San Antonio or Austin because they're closer to DFW and Houston than they are to El Paso.

Total scores so far, counting the number of congressional districts that would be in its territory:
San Antonio/Austin: 12 (10 in TX and 2 in NM)
El Paso: 10 (6 in TX, 3 in NM, 1 in AZ), and that assumes the Rio Grande Valley is included despite not being the closest
Montana including Salt Lake City: 9 (3 in UT, 2 in ID, 1 in OR, WA, MT, WY)
Birmingham, assuming college football doesn't interfere: 9 (6 in AL, 3 in MS)
Albuquerque: 8 (4 in TX, 3 in NM, 1 in AZ)
Northwest Arkansas: 8 (4 in OK, 3 in AR, 1 in MO)
Memphis: 8 (3 in AR, 2 in TN, 2 in MS, 1 in MO)
Council Bluffs, IA: 7 (4 in IA, 2 in NE, 1 in SD)
Norfolk: 6 (4 in VA and 2 in NC)
San Juan: 4 (all 4 in PR)

I can't directly compare a second Chicago team to a team that far away from all other teams.

Quote from: RobbieL2415 on December 23, 2020, 03:33:45 PM

Quote from: cabiness42 on December 23, 2020, 01:03:14 PM
I know this is all fictional because the NFL isn't expanding anytime soon, but a 2nd team in Chicago would do better than most of the locations being floated.

What about El Paso? That puts a team between Dallas and Phoenix and more of a home team for NM residents.

On that note, how about Albuquerque? That's a really large metro area with no pro teams, and it doesn't seem locals are especially attached to any existing NFL team.

Quote from: rte66man on December 17, 2020, 09:24:49 AM

Quote from: Bobby5280 on December 17, 2020, 12:35:58 AM
Austin does have a AAA baseball team, the Round Rock Express -which is currently the AAA team for the Texas Rangers. Oklahoma City used to be home to the Rangers' AAA team (the Redhawks). The affiliations between the Redhawks went back and forth between the Rangers and Houston Astros. IIRC, Nolan Ryan had something to do with the Round Rock Express taking over as the Rangers' AAA team.

He made that happen when he was president of the Rangers. There was a time when major league teams were trying to get their AAA and AA franchises closer to home so the execs could pop in more frequently to watch prospects.

Quote
The OKC AAA team is now the Dodgers, obviously affiliated with the LA Dodgers. I think OKC should have kept the Redhawks name.

Agreed. I understand the Dodgers' desire to cross-brand but I miss the names with local flavor. Bring back the 89ers!!

Dodgers is a ridiculous name for OKC

Quote from: Finrod on December 21, 2020, 08:59:45 PM

Quote from: Bobby5280 on December 16, 2020, 09:29:56 PM

Quote from: ethanhopkin14I don't think it will come to a team moving.  I think it will all start rolling in  the next CBA talk in 2022.  That has been the earmarked "let's put a team in London" discussion time, since the owners have been happy with the current 32 team format.  The powers that be feel that "happiness" will come to an end in 2022 and the London team might become a reality. If you are gonna add a team, you have to add another to keep the balance in the divisions (in theory).

If the NFL were to add new teams to the existing 32 they would have to add at least four teams in order to maintain balanced conferences and divisions. And even in that scenario the league would have to go through a re-alignment, cutting the number of divisions from 8 to 6. They would have to go from 32 teams to 40 in order to have 8 balanced divisions across 2 conferences.

Yep.  As interesting as it would be seeing the NFL expand from 32 to 40, consider that in the 50+ years since the AFL/NFL merger, the NFL has gone from 26 to 32 teams.

Where would those 8 additional NFL cities come from?

Outside the Lower 48: London, Mexico City, Honolulu
Previous NFL cities: St. Louis, Oakland, San Diego
Major metro areas without a team: San Antonio/Austin, OKC/Tulsa

Where else could a team go?  Memphis?  Less likely if St. Louis gets a team back.  Sacramento?  Less likely if Oakland gets a team back.  A second team in Chicago?  Portland OR?  Salt Lake City?  Birmingham AL?  Columbus OH?  Little Rock?  Des Moines?  None of those seem any more likely than the first eight I listed.

I'd love to see the NFL go to 40 teams,  I just don't see it happening any time soon.

I could see them going to 36.  So many options: San Antonio, Portland, Sacramento, Orlando would be my top 4 choices

Quote from: CoreySamson on December 23, 2020, 03:44:15 PM

Quote from: RobbieL2415 on December 23, 2020, 03:33:45 PM

Quote from: cabiness42 on December 23, 2020, 01:03:14 PM
I know this is all fictional because the NFL isn't expanding anytime soon, but a 2nd team in Chicago would do better than most of the locations being floated.

What about El Paso? That puts a team between Dallas and Phoenix and more of a home team for NM residents.

On that note, how about Albuquerque? That's a really large metro area with no pro teams, and it doesn't seem locals are especially attached to any existing NFL team.

We're going lower and lower with each new post in this thread.

I'm asking: for once, can we use our brains to think?

I actually think Albert Lea MN and Salina KS would be really good places to add a team because that would give all 6 people who live in those places a team to root for. Plus the Interstate junctions in those places make for really good control cities. Also, I-97 should be a 3di and I-99 is out of the grid

Quote from: thspfc on December 23, 2020, 09:07:06 PM
I actually think Albert Lea MN and Salina KS would be really good places to add a team because that would give all 6 people who live in those places a team to root for. Plus the Interstate junctions in those places make for really good control cities. Also, I-97 should be a 3di and I-99 is out of the grid

You forgot Benson, NC. That way people would have a little more context behind that control city. Maybe even put another one in Lake City FL while we're at it.


On a serious note:
Austin/SA - 7/10 would recommend.

Quote from: Life in ParadiseThe other problem with the NFL (all sports and television are in the same boat) is that even though ratings are very high compared to other television shows, even the NFL's ratings have markedly declined over the past decade.  You can state it's related to political speech, but just about all broadcast/cable programming is having the same issue.  Fewer eyes watching means less reasons for an advertiser to pony up the big money.

Viewers do have more choices than ever. 30 years ago a major OTA broadcast network (NBC, ABC, CBS, FOX) would have needed close to a 20 share average in ratings to beat other networks for a weekly total or for one of the sweeps periods. Today a network can win with under a 10 share. The viewing base is so fractured that cable networks can edge out OTA broadcast networks from time to time. Add in all the cord cutting, streaming services, other web-based video outlets and the audience base gets divided some more. DVRs and time-shifting add another problem: fewer viewers watching the show live and then fast-forwarding thru the commercials later.

Getting people to attend NFL games in person is a tricky thing. I think I'd rather drink a glass of bleach than attend a Dallas Cowboys game in person. It's a pain getting there. And the sheer price-gouging for everything from parking to bottled water is insane. I'd rather watch the game from the comfort of my home on my 65" TV set. I didn't always have a bad attitude toward attending NFL games in person. The cost of watching a normal season game wasn't always so costly either.

Quote from: 1El Paso would get NM, a decent amount of population on the Mexican side of the border that probably doesn't care about American football, Lubbock, possibly the Rio Grande Valley, and probably not San Antonio or Austin because they're closer to DFW and Houston than they are to El Paso.

El Paso is not a big enough market for an NFL team, much less any other top tier sports team. The El Paso MSA is 845,000. Including Las Cruces gets the CSA just over a million. An NFL teams needs a market at least double that size. BTW, Albuquerque is not nearly big enough either.

Quote from: thspfc on December 23, 2020, 09:07:06 PM
I actually think Albert Lea MN and Salina KS would be really good places to add a team because that would give all 6 people who live in those places a team to root for. Plus the Interstate junctions in those places make for really good control cities. Also, I-97 should be a 3di and I-99 is out of the grid

Iowa has no team and the Barnstormers did okay

Quote from: 1 on December 23, 2020, 09:42:16 AM
I have no problem with a team being in a medium-sized city. For example, if there was a team in St. George, UT instead of Las Vegas, its fanbase would still include Las Vegas (and might gain Salt Lake City), and Fort Smith, AR or the Northwest Arkansas metro instead of Oklahoma City, Tulsa, or Little Rock would get fans from both Oklahoma and Arkansas. The problem is when there are two teams too close to each other in a market that's not NYC or LA, or if it's empty enough that even if it had everything closest to it, it would still be almost nothing (a team in MT that's too far from Salt Lake City would get at maximum ID, WY, ND, SD, eastern WA and OR, and western NE – this is only 6 million excluding Canada, but including Spokane, Fargo, and Sioux Falls that are not even guaranteed to root for the Montana team).

You are forgetting that teams make money through attendance

Nobody has raised this argument, so I will.

Way too much of the NFL's revenue comes from its national TV contracts.  That revenue is split equally- 32 ways. 

If the NFL were to expand, that revenue would be split more ways.  The numbers that have been advanced here are 36 and 40.  If you go to 36 or 40, but don't expand outside the USA, you most likely do not increase the revenue available under those TV contracts.  But now you divide it 36 or 40 ways instead of 32.

If you add teams outside the USA, though, you potentially increase the TV haul.  And the added revenue might be enough to work for everybody.

As far as US markets go, the teams didn't leave St. Louis and San Diego due to lack of support.  I'd offer them and Austin/San Antonio and Tidewater Virginia as my four US expansion cities.  Internationally, I'd look at London, either Frankfurt or Berlin, Paris, and Mexico City.

Quote from: Bobby5280 on December 23, 2020, 09:59:36 PM

Quote from: 1El Paso would get NM, a decent amount of population on the Mexican side of the border that probably doesn't care about American football, Lubbock, possibly the Rio Grande Valley, and probably not San Antonio or Austin because they're closer to DFW and Houston than they are to El Paso.

El Paso is not a big enough market for an NFL team, much less any other top tier sports team. The El Paso MSA is 845,000. Including Las Cruces gets the CSA just over a million. An NFL teams needs a market at least double that size. BTW, Albuquerque is not nearly big enough either.

I was trying to explain why El Paso would be a worse choice than Austin/San Antonio (by losing Austin/San Antonio and gaining very little compared to it), not why it was a valid choice. However, I think it would be a good choice for any sport that Mexico would be interested in (so not American football).

Quote from: texaskdog on December 23, 2020, 11:47:49 PM

Quote from: thspfc on December 23, 2020, 09:07:06 PM
I actually think Albert Lea MN and Salina KS would be really good places to add a team because that would give all 6 people who live in those places a team to root for. Plus the Interstate junctions in those places make for really good control cities. Also, I-97 should be a 3di and I-99 is out of the grid

Iowa has no team and the Barnstormers did okay

I hope you're not serious.

Quote from: Alps on December 24, 2020, 12:21:26 AM

Quote from: 1 on December 23, 2020, 09:42:16 AM
I have no problem with a team being in a medium-sized city. For example, if there was a team in St. George, UT instead of Las Vegas, its fanbase would still include Las Vegas (and might gain Salt Lake City), and Fort Smith, AR or the Northwest Arkansas metro instead of Oklahoma City, Tulsa, or Little Rock would get fans from both Oklahoma and Arkansas. The problem is when there are two teams too close to each other in a market that's not NYC or LA, or if it's empty enough that even if it had everything closest to it, it would still be almost nothing (a team in MT that's too far from Salt Lake City would get at maximum ID, WY, ND, SD, eastern WA and OR, and western NE – this is only 6 million excluding Canada, but including Spokane, Fargo, and Sioux Falls that are not even guaranteed to root for the Montana team).

You are forgetting that teams make money through attendance

Exactly. This thread is worse than the FritzOwl thread.

Attendance is actually far less important as a source of revenue for NFL teams than it is for the other major North American sports leagues, simply because the NFL's TV deal provides so much money.

Quote from: 1995hoo on December 24, 2020, 10:11:19 AM
Attendance is actually far less important as a source of revenue for NFL teams than it is for the other major North American sports leagues, simply because the NFL's TV deal provides so much money.

Less important is still extremely important.

Quote from: thspfc on December 24, 2020, 06:04:56 PM

Quote from: 1995hoo on December 24, 2020, 10:11:19 AM
Attendance is actually far less important as a source of revenue for NFL teams than it is for the other major North American sports leagues, simply because the NFL's TV deal provides so much money.

Less important is still extremely important.

The Packers are probably losing $8M-10M/game in revenue by not having fans in the stadium, $6M or so after the visiting team share is taken.

Mike

Quote from: thspfc on December 24, 2020, 06:04:56 PM

Quote from: 1995hoo on December 24, 2020, 10:11:19 AM
Attendance is actually far less important as a source of revenue for NFL teams than it is for the other major North American sports leagues, simply because the NFL's TV deal provides so much money.

Less important is still extremely important.

To use the Eagles for a very quick example:

There's slightly under 70,000 seats at the Linc.  I sit in the upper endzone, where tickets are cheapest, which would've been $95 per seat this year.  So, to do a very rough estimate: $95 x 69,000 = $6,560,000  (On a website I saw, they quote the average ticket price in 2019 was $119.  So I'm lowballing my estimate).

There are approximately 22,000 parking spots around the Linc.  Knowing how parking works, with people taking up spots for tailgating, and believing that some of those 22,000 spots are in lots not controlled by the Eagles, I'm going to lowball it to 15,000 vehicles, times $40 per vehicle:  $600,000.  And when people take up spots they're not parking in, I'm not just talking about a table, a cooler and a grill.  I'm talking entire bands and bar setups taking over these parking spots. 

That said, knowing these two items, that's about $7 million in revenue right there that's lost. 

Add in concessions.  I can't even guess what that is.  I know myself and my wife, I can go an entire season without spending a dime when I'm inside, because I ate and drank outside. Yet, I go to a single Flyers game, and we probably buy 2 beers each ($48), and some food (figure $10 - $20, depending what we get).  Either way, there's at minimum hundreds of thousands per game that is being spent on food, beverages and concessions at these games.

So, yeah, while TV rights may make up a lot of the revenue the Eagles get, there was also a lot of revenue they missed out on.  On the expense side, certain expenses were reduced; others increased. 

Quote from: thspfc on December 24, 2020, 08:44:35 AM

Quote from: texaskdog on December 23, 2020, 11:47:49 PM

Quote from: thspfc on December 23, 2020, 09:07:06 PM
I actually think Albert Lea MN and Salina KS would be really good places to add a team because that would give all 6 people who live in those places a team to root for. Plus the Interstate junctions in those places make for really good control cities. Also, I-97 should be a 3di and I-99 is out of the grid

Iowa has no team and the Barnstormers did okay

I hope you're not serious.

LOL I'm from Minnesota originally I hate Iowa.

Quote from: thspfc on December 24, 2020, 08:45:26 AM

Quote from: Alps on December 24, 2020, 12:21:26 AM

Quote from: 1 on December 23, 2020, 09:42:16 AM
I have no problem with a team being in a medium-sized city. For example, if there was a team in St. George, UT instead of Las Vegas, its fanbase would still include Las Vegas (and might gain Salt Lake City), and Fort Smith, AR or the Northwest Arkansas metro instead of Oklahoma City, Tulsa, or Little Rock would get fans from both Oklahoma and Arkansas. The problem is when there are two teams too close to each other in a market that's not NYC or LA, or if it's empty enough that even if it had everything closest to it, it would still be almost nothing (a team in MT that's too far from Salt Lake City would get at maximum ID, WY, ND, SD, eastern WA and OR, and western NE — this is only 6 million excluding Canada, but including Spokane, Fargo, and Sioux Falls that are not even guaranteed to root for the Montana team).

You are forgetting that teams make money through attendance

Exactly. This thread is worse than the FritzOwl thread.

FritzOwl's 128 team NFL including at least 1 team for every state

Quote from: texaskdog on December 26, 2020, 04:33:42 PM

Quote from: thspfc on December 24, 2020, 08:45:26 AM

Quote from: Alps on December 24, 2020, 12:21:26 AM

Quote from: 1 on December 23, 2020, 09:42:16 AM
I have no problem with a team being in a medium-sized city. For example, if there was a team in St. George, UT instead of Las Vegas, its fanbase would still include Las Vegas (and might gain Salt Lake City), and Fort Smith, AR or the Northwest Arkansas metro instead of Oklahoma City, Tulsa, or Little Rock would get fans from both Oklahoma and Arkansas. The problem is when there are two teams too close to each other in a market that's not NYC or LA, or if it's empty enough that even if it had everything closest to it, it would still be almost nothing (a team in MT that's too far from Salt Lake City would get at maximum ID, WY, ND, SD, eastern WA and OR, and western NE – this is only 6 million excluding Canada, but including Spokane, Fargo, and Sioux Falls that are not even guaranteed to root for the Montana team).

You are forgetting that teams make money through attendance

Exactly. This thread is worse than the FritzOwl thread.

FritzOwl's 128 team NFL including at least 1 team for every state

435 team NFL. My local team is the Lowell Textiles, which has no affiliation with the university, but who knows if that will change after we get 2020 Census results.

(Side note: if you add the CFL to the 435-team NFL according to population, you'll get close to the next power of 2: 512 teams. In addition, Puerto Rico gets 5 teams, DC gets one, and the other territories are considered to be part of Puerto Rico's fifth.)

EDIT: I just calculated that you would still be 21 short of 2^9 (512) even with the US territories (as mentioned above) and Canada (51, counting each province separately). However, let's add everything in NANP. The Dominican Republic gets 14 (although they're more of a baseball country), Jamaica gets 4, Trinidad and Tobago gets 2, and the rest (outside the US) collectively get 1, and you're at exactly 512.

Quote from: Bobby5280 on December 22, 2020, 09:37:33 PM
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.

It is strictly a numbers thing.  The Dallas Cowboys are the most valuable sports franchise in the world.  More than Real Madrid, more than Manchester United.  It has nothing to do with on-field performance, which as a fan has been painful, and everything to do with pure $$$.  It is a fact, look it up. 

Quote from: 1995hoo on December 22, 2020, 11:50:20 AM

Quote from: webny99 on December 22, 2020, 11:36:24 AM
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.)

The case of the Rangers and Twins (and for that, all of the big four teams in Minnesota) isn't based on naming a team after a region to attract broader fans.  They both were named after the state they play in rather than a city because they both play in twin city areas.  Both cases, neither of the "anchor" cities wanted to relinquish the name in favor of the other city, despite the fact that one city was far more populous than the other.  It was basically the reason why both metro areas still have an I-35E and an I-35W.  Obviously the Rangers and Twins could be named after Dallas and Minneapolis respectively, but in fairness to the metropolitan area, they got the blanket treatment.  I tend to take both these examples to be different examples than the Florida Marlins, Arizona Cardinals, Colorado Rockies and Arizona Diamondbacks.  Those teams saw an opportunity to capitalize on the entire state. 

Which brings me to a burning idea that I have never wrapped my head around.   Does the branding of a team for a region or entire state actually work?

My example is I live in Austin.  Texas has two baseball teams.  I grew up a Cubs fan, but a secondary Astros fan.  I like the Rangers too but the Astros more.  I have been to more Astros games and watch them on TV more than the Rangers (dating back to the days they both were horrible).  Of course it's because Austin is more in the Astros radio and TV market than the Rangers (its weird because Austin is kinda in a no-mans land for baseball that is not strictly one or the other, but definitely leans more Astros)  Now, never once did I try to lean more to the Rangers because they were the Texas Rangers instead of the Dallas Rangers and I felt they spoke to me more because I live in Texas.  Never once did I have distain for the Astros because they were the Houston Astros, a city I didn't live in.  No, Houston was a town in my state and it gave me some distant hometown pride. 

All of this to say, does the regional thing actually work at all?  Do you have more of will to drive 1.5 hours to watch a pro sports team because they are named after the state than a city?  Say you live in Waco.  You are clearly in the Rangers market, but still 1.5 hours away from their field.  Are you really, honestly, less inclined to take a 1.5 hour road trip to watch them if they are the Dallas Rangers, and are you really more inclined since they are the Texas Rangers?  Does it even really matter.  Does anyone have any sort of numbers to prove this marketing crap actually works?

I think naming a team after a state instead of a city works exactly in the circumstances you provided-when the team is in a twin city metro and you don't want to disenfranchise either half of the metro.

I don't think it has any value anywhere else. There probably isn't a team that has a stronger bond with its state than the Packers and they're named for a small city rather than the state. The Patriots didn't become more popular than the Celtics until they started winning--being called New England rather than Boston didn't help them any. There was no noticeable increase in the Cardinals' popularity when they changed from Phoenix to Arizona. Nobody started driving up from Tucson just because of the name change.

In the case of Arizona, there is a pretty intense rivalry between the Phoenix and Tucson areas, even if the Phoenix metropolitan area is now about five times as populous.  In Tucson they go out of their way to not be like Phoenix.  Freeways are a prime example.  So when the original Diamondbacks ownership group found a way to not only not call the team Phoenix, but to have spring training in Tucson, that was a win.  Also remember that the Cardinals have never played in Phoenix.  They originally played at Sun Devil Stadium in Tempe before the current stadium in Glendale was built.

The Patriots were the Boston Patriots until they moved to the stadium in Foxboro.  The Marlins didn't become the Miami Marlins until the City of Miami built them a stadium inside the city of Miami.  The Texas Rangers have always played in Arlington, which is neither (and between) Dallas and Fort Worth.  The Twins originally played their home games in Bloomington.  When the Bears were considering building a new stadium in the suburbs, Mayor Daley threatened legal action to prevent them from using "Chicago" in their name.

Why the Indiana Pacers and the Indianapolis Colts?  Shouldn't the Giants and Jets now be called New Jersey?

In the end, much ado over very little.

Quote from: Konza on December 28, 2020, 04:20:12 PM
Why the Indiana Pacers and the Indianapolis Colts?

I'll go out on a limb and say the NBA franchise is the Indiana Pacers and not the Indianapolis Pacers due to the statewide pride Hoosiers seem to have regarding basketball

Not quite the same level for football, so the NFL franchise that abandoned Baltimore adopted the city name, hence the Indianapolis Colts

Quote from: Konza on December 28, 2020, 04:20:12 PM
In the case of Arizona, there is a pretty intense rivalry between the Phoenix and Tucson areas, even if the Phoenix metropolitan area is now about five times as populous.  In Tucson they be like Phoenix.  Freeways are a prime example.  So when the original Diamondbacks ownership group found a way to not only not call the team Phoenix, but to have spring training in Tucson, that was a win.  Also remember that the Cardinals have never played in Phoenix.  They originally played at Sun Devil Stadium in Tempe before the current stadium in Glendale was built.

The Patriots were the Boston Patriots until they moved to the stadium in Foxboro.  The Marlins didn't become the Miami Marlins until the City of Miami built them a stadium inside the city of Miami.  The Texas Rangers have always played in Arlington, which is neither (and between) Dallas and Fort Worth.  The Twins originally played their home games in Bloomington.  When the Bears were considering building a new stadium in the suburbs, Mayor Daley threatened legal action to prevent them from using "Chicago" in their name.

Why the Indiana Pacers and the Indianapolis Colts?  Shouldn't the Giants and Jets now be called New Jersey?

In the end, much ado over very little.

That's another debate I am not a fan of.  Having a team play in a suburb does not make them ineligible for using the city they are based in.  Yes, when the Cardinals moved to Phoenix in 1988, they did technically move to Tempe.  A)  Sun Devil Stadium is a few miles from being in the city limits of Phoenix and B) everyone with even half a molecule of a brain knows that the team is "based" in Phoenix, the anchor city, not Tempe, a suburb.  The Lions were still the Detriot Lions when they played in the Silverdome in Pontiac.  The Cowboys have had 2 homes since leaving the Cotton Bowl in 1972, first Texas Stadium in Irving and now AT&T in Arlington.  That doesn't change their name.  All those years they played in Irving, not a single person showing up to the game honestly thought the team name should be the Irving Cowboys.  Everyone knew Dallas was one of the largest cities in Texas and a big time pro team bears the name of the big time pro city of a metro area regardless of the soil the stadium occupies and regardless of which jurisdiction the soil is under.  Holiday World of Houston was forever in Katy.  Everyone knew they named it Houston because of it's big time appeal.  It is small potatoes that the company bought less expensive land in a suburb city with more room to make a bigger building (or stadium) with ample parking rather than jamming it downtown. 

The New York Jets and Giants play in East Rutherford, New Jersey.  They do now, and they did in the previous stadium.  It's been happening for over 40 years.  I think we can all really get over that one.  Who really cares?  I hate the Giants as a Cowboys fan and I don't even use that lame line of them not playing in New York.  Everyone knows New York city is so densely populated that there is no room for a stadium and the best land for it was in the suburbs...and oh yeah, there happens to be a state line between Manhattan and East Rutherford.  Its not like they play in Vermont, traveled 100s of miles to build a stadium and still called themselves the New York Giants.  Everyone also knows who the big dog in that metro area is, state line or no state line.  It's New York city. 

I also hate it when teams try to actually brand themselves with a stupid move like that.  When the Angels moved to Anaheim Stadium, they became the California Angels, then the Anaheim Angels, and now they are back to the Los Angeles Angels!!!  The whole time they didn't move an inch!  Its because smarter heads prevailed and saw that having Los Angeles in their name was more correct (and $$$ beneficial) as that's the big city in the area. 

Having a team play in a suburb, yet still retain the big city name is not uncommon at all.  At least no like you make it seem.  The Twins moved to Bloomington in 1960 because that's where the stadium was, not because they wanted to move to Bloomington.  Everyone knew they were moving to Minneapolis/St. Paul.  They were named the Minnesota Twins not because they physically played in Bloomington, but solely because St. Paul didn't want them to be the Minneapolis Twins and Minneapolis didn't want them to be the St. Paul Twins (or Saints   :nod:).  All the above is the same for the Rangers, almost exactly, save the names (with the exception of the fact someone actually did bring up the fact that Arlington was between Ft. Worth and Dallas so the Rangers should go with the Texas name, but again, it wasn't because they moved to Arlington, they were moving to the Dallas/Ft. Worth metroplex and their MLB ready field just happened to be built in Arlington so they played there).

Sorry to go off like that, but that's such a huge pet peeve of mine.  Yes the Jets and Giants don't play in either New York city or New York State; yes the Dallas Cowboys play in Arlington, TX; yes the Washington Football Team plays in Landover, MD; yes the Los Angeles Angels play in Anaheim, CA; yes The Kansas City Chiefs and Royals play in Independence, MO; yes the San Francisco 49ers play in Santa Clarita, CA; yes the Las Vegas Strip isn't in Las Vegas, but actually in an unincorporated area of Clark County, Nevada (and thus making the Raiders not playing in Las Vegas either).  Does it matter?  Hell no.  everyone knows who the big dog is in all of those scenarios. 

Quote from: ethanhopkin14 on December 28, 2020, 05:02:13 PM
I also hate it when teams try to actually brand themselves with a stupid move like that.  When the Angels moved to Anaheim Stadium, they became the California Angels, then the Anaheim Angels, and now they are back to the Los Angeles Angels!!!  The whole time they didn't move an inch!  Its because smarter heads prevailed and saw that having Los Angeles in their name was more correct (and $$$ beneficial) as that's the big city in the area. 

The problem with "Los Angeles Angels" is that it's redundant. Could you imagine a team called the Texas Texans?

Quote from: 1 on December 28, 2020, 05:07:01 PM

Quote from: ethanhopkin14 on December 28, 2020, 05:02:13 PM
I also hate it when teams try to actually brand themselves with a stupid move like that.  When the Angels moved to Anaheim Stadium, they became the California Angels, then the Anaheim Angels, and now they are back to the Los Angeles Angels!!!  The whole time they didn't move an inch!  Its because smarter heads prevailed and saw that having Los Angeles in their name was more correct (and $$$ beneficial) as that's the big city in the area. 

The problem with "Los Angeles Angels" is that it's redundant. Could you imagine a team called the Texas Texans?

Philadelphia Phillies.

Quote from: 1 on December 28, 2020, 05:07:01 PM

Quote from: ethanhopkin14 on December 28, 2020, 05:02:13 PM
I also hate it when teams try to actually brand themselves with a stupid move like that.  When the Angels moved to Anaheim Stadium, they became the California Angels, then the Anaheim Angels, and now they are back to the Los Angeles Angels!!!  The whole time they didn't move an inch!  Its because smarter heads prevailed and saw that having Los Angeles in their name was more correct (and $$$ beneficial) as that's the big city in the area. 

The problem with "Los Angeles Angels" is that it's redundant. Could you imagine a team called the Texas Texans?

I used to say that too, then I grew out of it.  It's two different languages.  The more in line example would be the Texas Tejases, the San Antonio Anthonys or the El Paso Passes.  Sure it's redundant, but not the only case.  The Dodgers farm club team in Montreal before the Expos came along was the Montreal Royals, and, had the Kansas City team not taken that name first, the Expos would have been the Royals too. 

Now I'm chuckling at the thought of the Orchard Park Bills playing the Foxborough Patriots tonight.

For those so inclined, there's currently an article on MLB.com that speculates what might have happened to the 30 current MLB franchises had the St. Louis Browns moved to Los Angeles for the 1942 season.

Apparently the Browns had proposed the move,  had garnered enough support from the other AL team owners, and the vote was scheduled to take place on December 8, 1941.  Apparently events of the previous day caused the owners to change their minds about moving a team to the West Coast.

Quote from: Konza on December 28, 2020, 06:06:12 PM
For those so inclined, there's currently an article on MLB.com that speculates what might have happened to the 30 current MLB franchises had the St. Louis Browns moved to Los Angeles for the 1942 season.

Apparently the Browns had proposed the move,  had garnered enough support from the other AL team owners, and the vote was scheduled to take place on December 8, 1941.  Apparently events of the previous day caused the owners to change their minds about moving a team to the West Coast.

Somewhere on this forum there's a discussion of that article.

If the NFL were to be in Austin I wanted to pick 49ers or Raiders once their current stadium deal expires given that Ex-Bay Area residents and companies are moving to the Austin Area.

Quote from: ethanhopkin14 on December 28, 2020, 05:02:13 PM
The New York Jets and Giants play in East Rutherford, New Jersey.  They do now, and they did in the previous stadium.  It's been happening for over 40 years.  I think we can all really get over that one.  Who really cares?  I hate the Giants as a Cowboys fan and I don't even use that lame line of them not playing in New York.  Everyone knows New York city is so densely populated that there is no room for a stadium and the best land for it was in the suburbs...and oh yeah, there happens to be a state line between Manhattan and East Rutherford.  Its not like they play in Vermont, traveled 100s of miles to build a stadium and still called themselves the New York Giants.

They should build a stadium in Orleans County, New York. That way they would be able to actually play in New York State and still have easy access to what I hear are some really great beaches.

One factor not mentioned yet in whether a team uses a city or a state to identify itself: how does it sound?

"Minnesota Vikings" sounds better than "Minneapolis Vikings"

"Colorado Rockies" sounds better than "Denver Rockies" (especially since Denver isn't technically in the Rockies)

"Indiana Pacers" sounds better than "Indianapolis Pacers" (too many "s" sounds in rapid succession)

"Texas Rangers" sounds better because of historical context than "Dallas Rangers"
(Tonight on Walker: Dallas Ranger... Chuck Norris kicks cartoonish, one-dimensional bad guys in the face.)

Might be six of one/half dozen of the other to some people, but to others, it hits the ear better so that's what people are drawn to.

Quote from: Konza on December 28, 2020, 06:06:12 PM
For those so inclined, there's currently an article on MLB.com that speculates what might have happened to the 30 current MLB franchises had the St. Louis Browns moved to Los Angeles for the 1942 season.

Apparently the Browns had proposed the move,  had garnered enough support from the other AL team owners, and the vote was scheduled to take place on December 8, 1941.  Apparently events of the previous day caused the owners to change their minds about moving a team to the West Coast.

Wow.  That was an amazing article.  Some of it was of course for entertainment, but it makes a lot of sense considering what kind of dominoes would have fell had the Browns moved for Los Angeles.  The Dodgers wouldn't be there obviously, and neither would the Giants in San Francisco to start, but to think of the other possibilities that were blocked along the way because the dominoes hadn't fell yet, or maybe would never fall....

Quote from: triplemultiplex on December 29, 2020, 09:46:45 AM

"Texas Rangers" sounds better because of historical context than "Dallas Rangers"
(Tonight on Walker: Dallas Ranger... Chuck Norris kicks cartoonish, one-dimensional bad guys in the face.)

Ironically, there was a minor league team who was once called the Dallas Rangers. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dallas_Rangers

And it would be kind of bizarre changing it from the 'Green Bay Packers' into the 'Wisconsin Packers', especially changing the logos.  The team has an intense fan interest pretty much statewide and in many ways the people in the southeastern part of the state are even more rabidly into them than are those in their Fox Valley home.

Mike

Quote from: bing101If the NFL were to be in Austin I wanted to pick 49ers or Raiders once their current stadium deal expires given that Ex-Bay Area residents and companies are moving to the Austin Area.

The Raiders just moved into Allegiant Stadium in Las Vegas this year. The 49ers moved into Levi's Stadium in Santa Clara in 2014. That's a pretty recent move. Vegas is booming, so the Raiders are staying put there. The SF Bay area has more residents than the combination of the Austin and San Antonio MSAs. The SF Bay area is still doing well, even if some tech firms in California are pulling up stakes and moving to Austin.

The Austin region's best hope to get an NFL team in the near term is seeing an existing team move there. But it has to be a franchise in far more trouble with local market conditions, stadium issues, etc.

Quote from: Scott5114They should build a stadium in Orleans County, New York. That way they would be able to actually play in New York State and still have easy access to what I hear are some really great beaches.

Orleans County, New York? That's between Rochester and Buffalo -where the Bills play already. I think Buffalo is going to have a hard enough time keeping the Bills put in Buffalo. That region can't support a second NFL team. As for beaches, there aren't many along the shores of Lake Ontario in that area. There is a very limited window year round when anyone could comfortably swim in Lake Ontario.

If either the Jets or Giants were going to leave the Meadowlands for a site within NY state they would be better off trying to find a site somewhere in Queens or choosing a site upstate from NYC, either in Westchester County or across the Hudson in Rockland County. There are no easy alternatives. The only large patches of open land within the five boroughs are former landfills or swamps. Upstate there is a lot of high dollar properties, state parks, etc.

Quote from: triplemultiplex"Texas Rangers" sounds better because of historical context than "Dallas Rangers"

There is already a Texas Rangers team in Major League Baseball. While the Cardinals and Giants do have teams in both the NFL and MLB those teams used to be located in the same cities. Both Cardinals teams were in St Louis and the San Francisco Giants baseball teams was once in New York. The Dallas Cowboys and Texas Rangers organizations are separate entities and neither is going to be changing team names to copy the other.

Quote from: Bobby5280 on December 29, 2020, 03:00:16 PM

Quote from: Scott5114They should build a stadium in Orleans County, New York. That way they would be able to actually play in New York State and still have easy access to what I hear are some really great beaches.

Orleans County, New York? That's between Rochester and Buffalo -where the Bills play already. I think Buffalo is going to have a hard enough time keeping the Bills put in Buffalo. That region can't support a second NFL team. As for beaches, there aren't many along the shores of Lake Ontario in that area. There is a very limited window year round when anyone could comfortably swim in Lake Ontario.

If either the Jets or Giants were going to leave the Meadowlands for a site within NY state they would be better off trying to find a site somewhere in Queens or choosing a site upstate from NYC, either in Westchester County or across the Hudson in Rockland County. There are no easy alternatives. The only large patches of open land within the five boroughs are former landfills or swamps. Upstate there is a lot of high dollar properties, state parks, etc.

https://www.aaroads.com/forum/index.php?topic=28049.175 (this is just one page in the multi-page discussion)

Quote from: Bobby5280

Quote from: triplemultiplex"Texas Rangers" sounds better because of historical context than "Dallas Rangers"

There is already a Texas Rangers team in Major League Baseball. While the Cardinals and Giants do have teams in both the NFL and MLB those teams used to be located in the same cities. Both Cardinals teams were in St Louis and the San Francisco Giants baseball teams was once in New York. The Dallas Cowboys and Texas Rangers organizations are separate entities and neither is going to be changing team names to copy the other.

I think triplemultiplex was not referring to the proposed NFL team as the Texas Rangers, but was commenting on my comment on Texas Rangers vs Dallas Rangers for the baseball team. I was asking if a person outside the metroplex identifies more with the team since they are the Texas Rangers instead of the Dallas Rangers.

Also, contrary to popular belief, the current Arizona Cardinals history is not like the New York Giants history.  The football Giants of New York were indeed named after the baseball team of the same name that used to play in New York to build a big fan base as baseball was way more popular than pro football at the time.  The St. Louis Football Cardinals were based in Chicago before that and were the Chicago Cardinals for a while.  The fact that they moved to share the city of St. Louis with the baseball team of the same name is mostly coincidence. 

A side project:  How many mascots are shared by teams of different sports in the big four North American sports, and of them, which ones are not named for the other.  IE: The baseball and football versions of the Giants are named alike intentionally.

The Minneapolis Lakers departed for LA shortly before the Vikings were founded and the Twins arrived from DC. Despite being one of the NBA's top teams in most of the 1950s, attendance plummeted by the end of the decade. Supposedly, people in St. Paul had little interest in supporting a team named "Minneapolis" , and when the Twins arrived Calvin Griffith wanted to title the team the "Twin Cities Twins"  which was rejected by MLB, so he settled on "Minnesota"  which was unprecedented in pro sports at the time. The Vikings followed suit. Part of that was also probably that both teams played in Bloomington for their first 20 seasons before the Metrodome was built.

Quote from: Stephane Dumas on December 29, 2020, 10:33:47 AM

Quote from: triplemultiplex on December 29, 2020, 09:46:45 AM

"Texas Rangers" sounds better because of historical context than "Dallas Rangers"
(Tonight on Walker: Dallas Ranger... Chuck Norris kicks cartoonish, one-dimensional bad guys in the face.)

Ironically, there was a minor league team who was once called the Dallas Rangers. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dallas_Rangers

As that article mentions, Clint Murchison considered naming his NFL team the Dallas Rangers but chose not to do so because of that baseball team. Later, after they moved, he polled the fan base on whether to keep the name Cowboys or change the name to Rangers. A number of fans gave the unsolicited answer "Murchison is stupid." (Source: When we were kids my brother loved to read books about football teams' history and one of them was about Dallas and mentioned it.)


(Edited to fix a typo)

Quote from: ethanhopkin14 on December 29, 2020, 04:56:31 PM
A side project:  How many mascots are shared by teams of different sports in the big four North American sports, and of them, which ones are not named for the other.  IE: The baseball and football versions of the Giants are named alike intentionally.

NFL Carolina and NHL Florida Panthers
NHL Ottawa and MLB (moved and renamed) Washington Senators
MLB Texas and NHL New York Rangers
NHL Edmonton and NFL (moved and renamed) Houston Oilers
NBA Sacramento and NHL Los Angeles Kings

None of these have one named for the other as far as I know.

One example of a team named for another, though the name not being exactly the same: When the NFL Decatur Staleys relocated to Chicago, the were named the Bears as an homage to the MLB Cubs, whose stadium they used for 50 years.

Quote from: cabiness42 on December 29, 2020, 07:02:04 PM

Quote from: ethanhopkin14 on December 29, 2020, 04:56:31 PM
A side project:  How many mascots are shared by teams of different sports in the big four North American sports, and of them, which ones are not named for the other.  IE: The baseball and football versions of the Giants are named alike intentionally.

NFL Carolina and NHL Florida Panthers
NHL Ottawa and MLB (moved and renamed) Washington Senators
MLB Texas and NHL New York Rangers
NHL Edmonton and NFL (moved and renamed) Houston Oilers
NBA Sacramento and NHL Los Angeles Kings

None of these have one named for the other as far as I know.

One example of a team named for another, though the name not being exactly the same: When the NFL Decatur Staleys relocated to Chicago, the were named the Bears as an homage to the MLB Cubs, whose stadium they used for 50 years.

Is the Detroit Tigers and the Cincinnati Bengals pushing it?

Along those same lines, the Chicago Bears/Cubs and the Memphis Grizzlies

Las Vegas Raiders, Tampa Bay Buccaneers, and Pittsburgh Pirates

Pushing it even further: Utah Jazz and St Louis Blues (music savants will point out Jazz and Blues are separate things)

Washington (formerly known as) Redskins, Cleveland Indians, Atlanta Braves, Kansas City Chiefs, Chicago Blackhawks

New Orleans Saints and Los Angeles Angels is maybe pushing it too far

Quote from: ethanhopkin14 on December 28, 2020, 05:02:13 PM
I also hate it when teams try to actually brand themselves with a stupid move like that.  When the Angels moved to Anaheim Stadium, they became the California Angels, then the Anaheim Angels, and now they are back to the Los Angeles Angels!!!  The whole time they didn't move an inch!  Its because smarter heads prevailed and saw that having Los Angeles in their name was more correct (and $$$ beneficial) as that's the big city in the area. 

Was it, though? Adjusted for inflation: the Angels' revenue increased by 69% from 2005 (the year of the change from Anaheim to Los Angeles) to 2019; the Dodgers' revenue increased by 118%.

The Angels' revenue was 87% that of the Dodgers in 2005. In 2019, the Angels' revenue was 68% that of the Dodgers.

The value of the Angels in 2005 was 69% that of the Dodgers. In 2019, it was down to 58%.

Certainly, having a better on-field product contributes to this, but basically the Angels have lost ground in the market since the name change. If the other team were not as iconic as the Dodgers, perhaps the move would have made more sense. But trying to make inroads against one of the two most popular teams in any sport in town, and one of the most iconic teams in baseball, when they're in the heart of the city and your team is located 30 miles outside of the center of town, seemed like a fool's errand to me at the time and still does.

The Angels have Orange County (3.2 million people), and from a distance and convenience factor, could easily lay claim to Long Beach (where they were recently considering building a new stadium) and a big chunk of the Inland Empire, giving them a top-third market.

It should be noted that the Angels don't even put "Los Angeles" on their road uniforms (Tampa Bay is the only other team that doesn't have their location on some variant of their uniforms).

Quote from: cabiness42 on December 29, 2020, 07:02:04 PM
NBA Sacramento and NHL Los Angeles Kings

Interestingly, the NBA Kings were originally the Rochester Royals who, when they moved to Kansas City, changed to the Kings specifically to avoid confusion with the MLB Royals.

Quote from: DTComposer on December 29, 2020, 07:15:52 PM

Quote from: cabiness42 on December 29, 2020, 07:02:04 PM
NBA Sacramento and NHL Los Angeles Kings

Interestingly, the NBA Kings were originally the Rochester Royals who, when they moved to Kansas City, changed to the Kings specifically to avoid confusion with the MLB Royals.

One could claim that Kings/Royals is a related/similar/same mascot anyway

Quote from: DTComposer on December 29, 2020, 07:13:35 PM
It should be noted that the Angels don't even put "Los Angeles" on their road uniforms (Tampa Bay is the only other team that doesn't have their location on some variant of their uniforms).

I don't believe the Phillies do either, unless they have an alternate I'm not aware of.

Quote from: TheHighwayMan394 on December 29, 2020, 08:40:09 PM

Quote from: DTComposer on December 29, 2020, 07:13:35 PM
It should be noted that the Angels don't even put "Los Angeles" on their road uniforms (Tampa Bay is the only other team that doesn't have their location on some variant of their uniforms).

I don't believe the Phillies do either, unless they have an alternate I'm not aware of.

The Phillies do not.  I am willing to put the Cardinals on this list because I don't count that stupid faux back uniform they wear on Sundays recently because, I think it will be ditched in the next few years. 

Quote from: cabiness42 on December 29, 2020, 07:02:04 PM

Quote from: ethanhopkin14 on December 29, 2020, 04:56:31 PM
A side project:  How many mascots are shared by teams of different sports in the big four North American sports, and of them, which ones are not named for the other.  IE: The baseball and football versions of the Giants are named alike intentionally.

NFL Carolina and NHL Florida Panthers
NHL Ottawa and MLB (moved and renamed) Washington Senators
MLB Texas and NHL New York Rangers
NHL Edmonton and NFL (moved and renamed) Houston Oilers
NBA Sacramento and NHL Los Angeles Kings

None of these have one named for the other as far as I know.

One example of a team named for another, though the name not being exactly the same: When the NFL Decatur Staleys relocated to Chicago, the were named the Bears as an homage to the MLB Cubs, whose stadium they used for 50 years.

Ottawa and Saskatchewan Rough[]R(r)iders  :bigass:

Quote from: cabiness42 on December 29, 2020, 07:02:04 PM

Quote from: ethanhopkin14 on December 29, 2020, 04:56:31 PM
A side project:  How many mascots are shared by teams of different sports in the big four North American sports, and of them, which ones are not named for the other.  IE: The baseball and football versions of the Giants are named alike intentionally.

NFL Carolina and NHL Florida Panthers
NHL Ottawa and MLB (moved and renamed) Washington Senators
MLB Texas and NHL New York Rangers
NHL Edmonton and NFL (moved and renamed) Houston Oilers
NBA Sacramento and NHL Los Angeles Kings

None of these have one named for the other as far as I know.

One example of a team named for another, though the name not being exactly the same: When the NFL Decatur Staleys relocated to Chicago, the were named the Bears as an homage to the MLB Cubs, whose stadium they used for 50 years.

The Rangers kinda have a slight connection.  George Lewis "Tex" Rickard was the founder of the New York Rangers, who, when looking for a mascot, everyone called the hockey team "Tex's Rangers", of course a play on the lawmen Texas Rangers, from whom the baseball team with the same name was named after.  So while both the New York and Texas Rangers were not named after one or the other, both names came from the same source. 

As mentioned before, technically the Arizona and St. Louis Cardinals are not named after each other. 

Quote from: ilpt4u on December 29, 2020, 07:08:52 PM

Quote from: cabiness42 on December 29, 2020, 07:02:04 PM

Quote from: ethanhopkin14 on December 29, 2020, 04:56:31 PM
A side project:  How many mascots are shared by teams of different sports in the big four North American sports, and of them, which ones are not named for the other.  IE: The baseball and football versions of the Giants are named alike intentionally.

NFL Carolina and NHL Florida Panthers
NHL Ottawa and MLB (moved and renamed) Washington Senators
MLB Texas and NHL New York Rangers
NHL Edmonton and NFL (moved and renamed) Houston Oilers
NBA Sacramento and NHL Los Angeles Kings

None of these have one named for the other as far as I know.

One example of a team named for another, though the name not being exactly the same: When the NFL Decatur Staleys relocated to Chicago, the were named the Bears as an homage to the MLB Cubs, whose stadium they used for 50 years.

Is the Detroit Tigers and the Cincinnati Bengals pushing it?

Along those same lines, the Chicago Bears/Cubs and the Memphis Grizzlies

Las Vegas Raiders, Tampa Bay Buccaneers, and Pittsburgh Pirates

Pushing it even further: Utah Jazz and St Louis Blues (music savants will point out Jazz and Blues are separate things)

Washington (formerly known as) Redskins, Cleveland Indians, Atlanta Braves, Kansas City Chiefs, Chicago Blackhawks

New Orleans Saints and Los Angeles Angels is maybe pushing it too far

Denver Broncos and Indianapolis Colts would make the list albeit same league and different type of horse, but a horse none the less. 

The New York Titans were named after the New York Giants, because owner Harry Wismer said,"What's bigger than a Giant?  A Titan!" Of course Sonny Werblin bought the team from Wismer and changed the name to the Jets, and that's the end of that....but the Houston Oilers moved to Menp...Nashville and played a few seasons as the Tennessee Oilers before becoming the second team in NFL history to be the Titans, so indirectly....

Quote from: ethanhopkin14 on December 30, 2020, 10:18:16 AM
Denver Broncos and Indianapolis Colts would make the list albeit same league and different type of horse, but a horse none the less. 

Chargers is a horse reference as well.

---

I'll stir the pot: move the Jets to SA/Austin.  They've been terrible forever and no city needs two football teams.  Yeah, yeah, New York can support two teams economically, but whatever, man.  They've always been second fiddle to the Giants anyway.  Give the Jets a fresh start in Texas. :P

Quote from: triplemultiplex on December 30, 2020, 10:41:42 AM

Quote from: ethanhopkin14 on December 30, 2020, 10:18:16 AM
Denver Broncos and Indianapolis Colts would make the list albeit same league and different type of horse, but a horse none the less. 

Chargers is a horse reference as well.

---

I'll stir the pot: move the Jets to SA/Austin.  They've been terrible forever and no city needs two football teams.  Yeah, yeah, New York can support two teams economically, but whatever, man.  They've always been second fiddle to the Giants anyway.  Give the Jets a fresh start in Texas. :P

Actually, Barron Hilton was the original owner and named the team the Chargers after the charging of a credit card.  After all, what else would the Hilton family think about?

I would also go as far as to say New York could easily handle a third NFL team.  You could build a stadium on the fringes of Queens on Long Island and they would prosper.  In their inaugural year, they would still play better than the Jets. 

Quote from: ethanhopkin14 on December 30, 2020, 09:26:12 AM

Quote from: TheHighwayMan394 on December 29, 2020, 08:40:09 PM

Quote from: DTComposer on December 29, 2020, 07:13:35 PM
It should be noted that the Angels don't even put "Los Angeles" on their road uniforms (Tampa Bay is the only other team that doesn't have their location on some variant of their uniforms).

I don't believe the Phillies do either, unless they have an alternate I'm not aware of.

The Phillies do not.  I am willing to put the Cardinals on this list because I don't count that stupid faux back uniform they wear on Sundays recently because, I think it will be ditched in the next few years. 

I stand corrected. I just scrolled quickly through the uniforms and saw Phil... and didn't think it through.

i forgot to add the Boston Bruins to my Chicago Bears/Cubs and Memphis Grizzlies list

Quote from: Bobby5280 on December 29, 2020, 03:00:16 PM

If either the Jets or Giants were going to leave the Meadowlands for a site within NY state they would be better off trying to find a site somewhere in Queens or choosing a site upstate from NYC, either in Westchester County or across the Hudson in Rockland County. There are no easy alternatives. The only large patches of open land within the five boroughs are former landfills or swamps. Upstate there is a lot of high dollar properties, state parks, etc.

Long Island might be a good spot.

Quote from: DTComposer on December 29, 2020, 07:15:52 PM

Quote from: cabiness42 on December 29, 2020, 07:02:04 PM
NBA Sacramento and NHL Los Angeles Kings

Interestingly, the NBA Kings were originally the Rochester Royals who, when they moved to Kansas City, changed to the Kings specifically to avoid confusion with the MLB Royals.

You missed one destination.  The Royals went from Rochester to Cincinnati from 1957-1972 when they were the Cincinnati Royals and then went to Kansas City.

Quote from: Life in Paradise on December 30, 2020, 12:31:36 PM

Quote from: DTComposer on December 29, 2020, 07:15:52 PM

Quote from: cabiness42 on December 29, 2020, 07:02:04 PM
NBA Sacramento and NHL Los Angeles Kings

Interestingly, the NBA Kings were originally the Rochester Royals who, when they moved to Kansas City, changed to the Kings specifically to avoid confusion with the MLB Royals.

You missed one destination.  The Royals went from Rochester to Cincinnati from 1957-1972 when they were the Cincinnati Royals and then went to Kansas City.

I was aware of that, but left it out (as well as the Kansas City-Omaha experiment) for brevity and clarity.

Quote from: cabiness42 on December 29, 2020, 07:02:04 PM

Quote from: ethanhopkin14 on December 29, 2020, 04:56:31 PM
A side project:  How many mascots are shared by teams of different sports in the big four North American sports, and of them, which ones are not named for the other.  IE: The baseball and football versions of the Giants are named alike intentionally.

NFL Carolina and NHL Florida Panthers
NHL Ottawa and MLB (moved and renamed) Washington Senators
MLB Texas and NHL New York Rangers
NHL Edmonton and NFL (moved and renamed) Houston Oilers
NBA Sacramento and NHL Los Angeles Kings

None of these have one named for the other as far as I know.

One example of a team named for another, though the name not being exactly the same: When the NFL Decatur Staleys relocated to Chicago, the were named the Bears as an homage to the MLB Cubs, whose stadium they used for 50 years.

Another that have the same team name, completely and currently:

NFL NY and NHL Winnipeg Jets

To get back on topic, everyone that is not sure of moving from 32 teams to 40 teams because there is an odd man out city to expand to, both Chicago and New York could easily handle a second or third team respectively.  It's kinda the AFL model.  Eight teams, most in non NFL markets and a few in NFL markets....the big markets.

Anyway, the way I see a realistic London franchise and a realistic eight team expansion (again, both seem out there, but if it could get done, this is the most plausible), would be:

1) It would be in waves.  Four teams one year, and four teams 4-6 years later. 

2) With the current format of 4 divisions per conference, four teams per division, you would have to start with a Europe Division.  For this example it would be in the AFC, so AFC Europe.  London, Madrid (NFL is also big in Spain), Berlin, and the last is tricky.  Either it be Munich to capitalize on Germany's love of American Football or another London team.  Logistically this one would work easiest.  6 of the 16 (17) games would be in the same time zone (or +1).  Eight home games plus three road games in division makes 11 games played in either 0 or +1 time zone.  The other 5 (6) games will be games in the US.  Three game road trip one time with a practice facility owned by each of the four teams state side so they can stay in the US for that trip and another 2 game trip and it's done. 

3) The second wave would be North American cities that need NFL franchises.  St Louis, San Diego, Toronto and San Antonio/Austin.  This would be in the NFC.  They can be added one to each of the existing divisions, or they could create a new NFC Central.

Quote from: ethanhopkin14With the current format of 4 divisions per conference, four teams per division, you would have to start with a Europe Division.  For this example it would be in the AFC, so AFC Europe.  London, Madrid (NFL is also big in Spain), Berlin, and the last is tricky.  Either it be Munich to capitalize on Germany's love of American Football or another London team.

Munich is a pretty big city, big enough even to support an NFL class football team, but I don't think it's a big enough market to deserve one of only four European NFL teams. That's why earlier in the thread I suggested London, Berlin, Madrid and Paris. That's four teams in four different major European countries.

The Paris metro dwarfs Munich in terms of population. Out of European cities Paris' metro population of 12 million is second only to London's 14 million. London and Paris have a historic rivalry, yet are linked directly via high speed rail. Barcelona's metro population is slightly larger than that of Berlin, but Germany has the largest population in Western Europe (over 80 million). And I don't like putting 2 European NFL teams in the same country when other countries (such as Italy with Rome and Milan) wouldn't get any teams in either scenario.

Back in North America and the four other teams to bring the total up to 40, San Antonio-Austin has to be up front for consideration. That market was a finalist to get the Raiders. I'd rather see markets like San Diego and St Louis get new teams than see New York get a freaking third team or Chicago get a second one. Orlando and Portland have metros of roughly 2.5 million or more people and rank in the top 25 biggest MSAs in the US. The question is which four markets to choose. At the very least I think a qualifier for the site should require at least 2 million or more in metro population.

Putting NFL teams in Canada would seem like a decent idea if Canada didn't already have its own pro football league. Toronto and Vancouver are both giant sized, cosmopolitan cities. But with the CFL there already that raises a big question whether there is enough of a market for the NFL to compete with the CFL in those cities.

Regarding Bobby5280's final comment, I wonder whether the NFL owners view Mexico City as a more viable location than Toronto, both because of the CFL and political considerations related thereto as well as because of stadium size. The latter is even more true now that the SkyDome has been locked in the baseball configuration. BMO Field is too small for an NFL franchise, and the SkyDome would have been the smallest stadium in the league. On the other hand, Azteca is arguably too big.

Regarding European cities, Amsterdam was one of the longer-term cities in the old World League/NFL Europe.

Quote from: Bobby5280 on January 04, 2021, 04:07:55 PM
Putting NFL teams in Canada would seem like a decent idea if Canada didn't already have its own pro football league. Toronto and Vancouver are both giant sized, cosmopolitan cities. But with the CFL there already that raises a big question whether there is enough of a market for the NFL to compete with the CFL in those cities.

I would agree with you, except, even people in Canada think the CFL is a joke.  There are lots of people in Toronto particular, that only watch American college and NFL football.  I was in Toronto in October and went to a sports bar to watch the Texas/OU game on every TV in the joint, not Canadian college teams.  That night I went to the Argonauts game that night and even the people there didn't care about the game.

I know the NFL and CFL have a tight relationship and there are TV revenue deals between the leagues, and that might be the only thing that can stop the NFL from expanding there, but, the CFL doesn't have the pull the NFL does.  We know who will win that brawl.  I honestly thing Toronto is a market the NFL is very desperate to have. 

Quote from: Bobby5280 on January 04, 2021, 04:07:55 PM

Quote from: ethanhopkin14With the current format of 4 divisions per conference, four teams per division, you would have to start with a Europe Division.  For this example it would be in the AFC, so AFC Europe.  London, Madrid (NFL is also big in Spain), Berlin, and the last is tricky.  Either it be Munich to capitalize on Germany's love of American Football or another London team.

Munich is a pretty big city, big enough even to support an NFL class football team, but I don't think it's a big enough market to deserve one of only four European NFL teams. That's why earlier in the thread I suggested London, Berlin, Madrid and Paris. That's four teams in four different major European countries.

The Paris metro dwarfs Munich in terms of population. Out of European cities Paris' metro population of 12 million is second only to London's 14 million. London and Paris have a historic rivalry, yet are linked directly via high speed rail. Barcelona's metro population is slightly larger than that of Berlin, but Germany has the largest population in Western Europe (over 80 million). And I don't like putting 2 European NFL teams in the same country when other countries (such as Italy with Rome and Milan) wouldn't get any teams in either scenario.

As OT as this is, I don't see Paris supporting American football, but I can definitely see it in Munich.

Quote from: Alps on January 04, 2021, 06:39:21 PM

Quote from: Bobby5280 on January 04, 2021, 04:07:55 PM

Quote from: ethanhopkin14With the current format of 4 divisions per conference, four teams per division, you would have to start with a Europe Division.  For this example it would be in the AFC, so AFC Europe.  London, Madrid (NFL is also big in Spain), Berlin, and the last is tricky.  Either it be Munich to capitalize on Germany's love of American Football or another London team.

Munich is a pretty big city, big enough even to support an NFL class football team, but I don't think it's a big enough market to deserve one of only four European NFL teams. That's why earlier in the thread I suggested London, Berlin, Madrid and Paris. That's four teams in four different major European countries.

The Paris metro dwarfs Munich in terms of population. Out of European cities Paris' metro population of 12 million is second only to London's 14 million. London and Paris have a historic rivalry, yet are linked directly via high speed rail. Barcelona's metro population is slightly larger than that of Berlin, but Germany has the largest population in Western Europe (over 80 million). And I don't like putting 2 European NFL teams in the same country when other countries (such as Italy with Rome and Milan) wouldn't get any teams in either scenario.

As OT as this is, I don't see Paris supporting American football, but I can definitely see it in Munich.

There was a reason the World League was sometimes called "NFL Deutschland" at the end (five of the six teams were located in Germany).

Quote from: Alps on January 04, 2021, 06:39:21 PM

Quote from: Bobby5280 on January 04, 2021, 04:07:55 PM

Quote from: ethanhopkin14With the current format of 4 divisions per conference, four teams per division, you would have to start with a Europe Division.  For this example it would be in the AFC, so AFC Europe.  London, Madrid (NFL is also big in Spain), Berlin, and the last is tricky.  Either it be Munich to capitalize on Germany's love of American Football or another London team.

Munich is a pretty big city, big enough even to support an NFL class football team, but I don't think it's a big enough market to deserve one of only four European NFL teams. That's why earlier in the thread I suggested London, Berlin, Madrid and Paris. That's four teams in four different major European countries.

The Paris metro dwarfs Munich in terms of population. Out of European cities Paris' metro population of 12 million is second only to London's 14 million. London and Paris have a historic rivalry, yet are linked directly via high speed rail. Barcelona's metro population is slightly larger than that of Berlin, but Germany has the largest population in Western Europe (over 80 million). And I don't like putting 2 European NFL teams in the same country when other countries (such as Italy with Rome and Milan) wouldn't get any teams in either scenario.

As OT as this is, I don't see Paris supporting American football, but I can definitely see it in Munich.

Yes, and this is why I picked Munich over Paris.  Yes Paris is bigger, but Germany has the bigger American Football following. Paris doesn't give a crap about the NFL.

I don't see anywhere in Europe supporting NFL football. American football is American.

Quote from: 1995hooRegarding Bobby5280's final comment, I wonder whether the NFL owners view Mexico City as a more viable location than Toronto, both because of the CFL and political considerations related thereto as well as because of stadium size. The latter is even more true now that the SkyDome has been locked in the baseball configuration. BMO Field is too small for an NFL franchise, and the SkyDome would have been the smallest stadium in the league. On the other hand, Azteca is arguably too big.

In order for any city to attract an NFL team, be it a new expansion team or an existing team relocating, the deal is going to hinge on a brand new stadium being built. The stadium would be the "bait" to lure the team there. There is an expectation of NFL stadiums having a sufficient number of sky-boxes and other amenities. Older existing stadiums can rarely live up to that.

For instance, San Diego lost the Chargers due to the citizens there not wanting to spend a giant amount of taxpayer dollars on a new stadium. St Louis is still paying for the Dome at America's Center, which opened 25 years ago. The stadium was renovated in 2010. But it probably doesn't measure up to current demands of NFL team owners.

I don't think Mexico City is a good fit for an NFL team, even if it is the most populated city in North America. The stadium issue is one thing. Estadio Azteca is 100% a purely soccer stadium. And it's pretty old. The thing opened in 1966. It doesn't have the modern features NFL stadiums are expected to have. Even if a very expensive new NFL stadium could be built there other bad issues remain. Mexico City is at a pretty high altitude, 7350 feet. That's a LOT higher than any other NFL city. Altitude can be enough of a differnce maker with games played in Denver at 5280 feet.

Perhaps the worst problem with putting an NFL team in Mexico City is that Mexico is practically a third world country. Mexico City is not a very safe place to run a NFL team. Players and team personnel would need top notch, trustworthy security 24/7. Corruption and crime is rampant in Mexico. American citizens can travel to certain tourist zones like Cancun relatively safely. It would be a whole other matter for NFL fans to travel to an away game to watch their team play in Mexico City. I wouldn't be farting around in Mexico City unless I was 100% fluent in Mexican Spanish, very street smart and not so white looking. There is crime in cities like Toronto, Vancouver or European cities like London, Paris and Berlin. But those are all "first world" cities with far greater relative levels of safety.

Quote from: ethanhopkin14Yes Paris is bigger, but Germany has the bigger American Football following. Paris doesn't give a crap about the NFL.

Not all 12 million people in Paris, or the 50+ million others in France, think the same stereotypical snooty, anti-American way. The San Francisco Bay Area has lots of snotty, very liberal people yet that market supported the 49ers and Raiders for many years. Paris is an international city filled with people from all over the place. I think a team there could work, especially if it was marketed in the right way. A London vs Paris thing would be a natural rivalry.

The only factor that could be an argument for putting two NFL teams in Germany is the United States' direct involvement with Germany via the military bases we still operate there, not to mention all the Americans who travel between Germany and the US frequently. Here in Lawton, with it being an Army town, we have a decent number of German-born people living here. France and the US also have important history, such as the sacred cemeteries at Normandy and Marne (Belleau Wood). The French Revolution was inspired in part by the American Revolution.

Quote from: thspfcI don't see anywhere in Europe supporting NFL football. American football is American.

If you have long-established American NFL teams playing new teams in Europe all in the same league the fans will care. What they don't give a hoot about is a separate European league populated with players who couldn't make it onto a legit NFL team.

Quote from: Bobby5280 on January 05, 2021, 03:31:16 PM
Perhaps the worst problem with putting an NFL team in Mexico City is that Mexico is practically a third world country. Mexico City is not a very safe place to run a NFL team. Players and team personnel would need top notch, trustworthy security 24/7. Corruption and crime is rampant in Mexico. American citizens can travel to certain tourist zones like Cancun relatively safely. It would be a whole other matter for NFL fans to travel to an away game to watch their team play in Mexico City. I wouldn't be farting around in Mexico City unless I was 100% fluent in Mexican Spanish, very street smart and not so white looking. There is crime in cities like Toronto, Vancouver or European cities like London, Paris and Berlin. But those are all "first world" cities with far greater relative levels of safety.

Mexico isn't that dangerous except in the US border zone.

Quote from: Bobby5280 on January 05, 2021, 03:31:16 PM
....

Quote from: thspfcI don't see anywhere in Europe supporting NFL football. American football is American.

If you have long-established American NFL teams playing new teams in Europe all in the same league the fans will care. What they don't give a hoot about is a separate European league populated with players who couldn't make it onto a legit NFL team.

I recall when the World League began its first season, there was an article in the newspaper about it that speculated on how the European teams would draw. As to the London Monarchs, the writer said something along the lines of, "The demand for American football in London is clear, but the question remains how long Londoners will settle for the minor-league version. Probably for at least two seasons." That turned out to be pretty accurate–they played the first two seasons at Wembley and drew quite well, but then after the league suspended operations, they resumed play at White Hart Lane (Spurs' old ground), which was problematic due to the field being too small, and attendance dropped off by more than 50%.

The same writer theorized that the Frankfurt Galaxy would draw reasonably well, due in no small part to the number of American military personnel in Germany, and he was proven right because they were the only franchise to last through every season that league played. The other of the original three European teams were the Barcelona Dragons, and the writer noted that "American football is more foreign in Spain than in England and Germany."

Quote from: 1Mexico isn't that dangerous except in the US border zone.

There is a lot more than just the border zones that are dangerous in Mexico. Kidnappings and ransom are a big a business. Organized crime has infiltrated many city governments and police departments. If it was up to me I'd put teams in Toronto, Vancouver, Montreal and maybe even Calgary before even considering a Mexico team.

Quote from: 1955hooI recall when the World League began its first season, there was an article in the newspaper about it that speculated on how the European teams would draw.

The World League still wasn't the same thing as the concept I'm talking about. It was still a secondary, separate league apart from the American NFL teams. There was no star power in it. If you have an international NFL league that combines the established, legit NFL teams from America with perhaps 4 teams in Europe and maybe even a couple Canadian NFL teams it would be a bigger hit. Everyone would know the best football players in the world are playing in THAT league.

Quote from: Bobby5280 on January 05, 2021, 05:01:47 PM
....

Quote from: 1995hooI recall when the World League began its first season, there was an article in the newspaper about it that speculated on how the European teams would draw.

The World League still wasn't the same thing as the concept I'm talking about. It was still a secondary, separate league apart from the American NFL teams. There was no star power in it. If you have an international NFL league that combines the established, legit NFL teams from America with perhaps 4 teams in Europe and maybe even a couple Canadian NFL teams it would be a bigger hit. Everyone would know the best football players in the world are playing in THAT league.

That's more or less the point the writer I cited was trying to make when he referred to how long Londoners would settle for the minor-league version.

Quote from: Bobby5280 on January 05, 2021, 03:31:16 PM

Quote from: ethanhopkin14Yes Paris is bigger, but Germany has the bigger American Football following. Paris doesn't give a crap about the NFL.

Not all 12 million people in Paris, or the 50+ million others in France, think the same stereotypical snooty, anti-American way. The San Francisco Bay Area has lots of snotty, very liberal people yet that market supported the 49ers and Raiders for many years. Paris is an international city filled with people from all over the place. I think a team there could work, especially if it was marketed in the right way. A London vs Paris thing would be a natural rivalry.

I never said anything about snooty or stereotypical French people.  I am the one that has always gone to bat for French people because I have met so many very friendly French people in my travels to France.  In fact, the only time I have seen them unpleasant was not to me, but to an American tour bus filled with high school/college age girls that jumped out, were very loud and obnoxious, screamed "like" and "oh my god" constantly, acted over the top valley girl and complained that Paris wasn't like the US.

All that to say, the NFL just isn't on most French people's radar.  It was rare to get NFL games on the TVs in Paris, save from one Irish bar I found in St. Michelle.  In London, it's very easy to watch an NFL game on TV, and it will be an average bar, not a sports bar.  I could be wrong, its diverse enough, but in my travels it seems Germany cares more about the sport than France. 

Quote from: Bobby5280 on January 05, 2021, 05:01:47 PM

Quote from: 1Mexico isn't that dangerous except in the US border zone.

There is a lot more than just the border zones that are dangerous in Mexico. Kidnappings and ransom are a big a business. Organized crime has infiltrated many city governments and police departments. If it was up to me I'd put teams in Toronto, Vancouver, Montreal and maybe even Calgary before even considering a Mexico team.

Quote from: 1955hooI recall when the World League began its first season, there was an article in the newspaper about it that speculated on how the European teams would draw.

The World League still wasn't the same thing as the concept I'm talking about. It was still a secondary, separate league apart from the American NFL teams. There was no star power in it. If you have an international NFL league that combines the established, legit NFL teams from America with perhaps 4 teams in Europe and maybe even a couple Canadian NFL teams it would be a bigger hit. Everyone would know the best football players in the world are playing in THAT league.

Crime is an issue, yes, but one more important note about Mexico.  There is a huge gap between the upper class and the poverty stricken.  There is no middle class.  You are either filthy rich or dirt poor, and no in between.  The NFL is run on TV contracts and ticket/merchandise/concessions.  With no middle class, who will pay the $20 parking and $150 per ticket?  Who is going to afford cable to pay for the TV contracts, even though that's distributed, the Mexico City team will be dragging behind.  Even a $20 baseball ticket is way more than some Mexicans make in a month. 

Let me throw out that if the Canadian government would allow the NFL to place a team in Canada there would almost certainly have been at least one there by now.

It's kind of like why there is a required minimum Canadian content on Canadian TV and radio.  If the Canadian government relied on the market to protect Canadian culture, there would be a lot less Canadian culture than there now is.  The CFL is part of that.

The European expansion concept is an interesting one to ponder.  You would want the international teams to develop rivalries with each other; you would also want to minimize travel.  In a 40 team league, does that mean 10 divisions of 4, or 8 divisions of 5?  Anything I've read indicates that European teams would also have a US "base"  where they could train between games in North America.  Similarly, you would have to think the league would develop something similar in Europe so a US based team wouldn't have to return home between European games.

I wouldn't sell Mexico City short.  It's the largest city in North America, and if the right people were in charge they could probably make it work.  Again:  think TV markets.  Either São Paulo or Rio might also work as an International NFL city.

Recall the Canadian Parliament was set to pass a statute in the 1970s that effectively kept the WFL out of Toronto. The WLAF in 1991 and 1992 wasn't deemed a problem (there was a team in Montreal) because it was a spring league that played 10 games and so didn't compete with the CFL.

This is all a really fun exercise, but there isn't the talent available to field 36 competitive teams, let alone 40, and football is becoming less popular at the youth level. Smaller colleges are probably going to start dropping football.

The XFL was working until COVID shut it down. A well-run spring league can do well, and that's what should come back in 2022 using the cities being discussed here.

Quote from: cabiness42 on January 06, 2021, 07:48:22 AM
This is all a really fun exercise, but there isn't the talent available to field 36 competitive teams, let alone 40, and football is becoming less popular at the youth level. Smaller colleges are probably going to start dropping football.

The XFL was working until COVID shut it down. A well-run spring league can do well, and that's what should come back in 2022 using the cities being discussed here.

We all know a lesser league has great window dressing that fades very quick.  Would you like to see the London Xs play the Berlin Ys and exclusively those teams, or would you like to see London Xs play the Berlin Ys on Sunday, then next Sunday the London Xs play the New York Giants?

To your point about the talent level, yes I agree.  I think there is a lot of bad football in the NFL anyway.  Does it matter that we have 4 bad teams now and 8 in the future?  Besides, every expansion in every major North American sport has been rebutted with dilution of talent as a con.  Hasn't stopped anyone yet.

One thing also regarding Canada is that for the longest time, there has been a sort of 'gentleman's agreement' between the NFL and the CFL that the NFL would not infringe on the CFL's 'turf'.  Now, should the CFL implode, I would not object to NFL teams being set up in several larger Canadian cities, such as Toronto, Vancouver, Calgary, Edmonton.  I do note that for a while, the NFL Buffalo Bills related to Toronto much like the Packers did to Milwaukee when they played home games at Milwaukee County Stadium.

As for Mexico, I can see a team in Monterrey, NL before I can see one in Mexico City.

Mike

Quote from: ethanhopkin14 on January 06, 2021, 12:38:36 PM

Quote from: cabiness42 on January 06, 2021, 07:48:22 AM
This is all a really fun exercise, but there isn't the talent available to field 36 competitive teams, let alone 40, and football is becoming less popular at the youth level. Smaller colleges are probably going to start dropping football.

The XFL was working until COVID shut it down. A well-run spring league can do well, and that's what should come back in 2022 using the cities being discussed here.

We all know a lesser league has great window dressing that fades very quick.  Would you like to see the London Xs play the Berlin Ys and exclusively those teams, or would you like to see London Xs play the Berlin Ys on Sunday, then next Sunday the London Xs play the New York Giants?

To your point about the talent level, yes I agree.  I think there is a lot of bad football in the NFL anyway.  Does it matter that we have 4 bad teams now and 8 in the future?  Besides, every expansion in every major North American sport has been rebutted with dilution of talent as a con.  Hasn't stopped anyone yet.

You're right, it hasn't stopped anyone yet, as in none of the other leagues who have seen the NFL vacuum up more and more of their fans.

The NFL model is built more on getting you to watch games not involving your favorite team, so quality of play and competitiveness matter more.

Quote from: KonzaLet me throw out that if the Canadian government would allow the NFL to place a team in Canada there would almost certainly have been at least one there by now.

The Canadian government hasn't stood in the way of Major League Baseball, the National Hockey League or the National Basketball Association. All three organizations at least have teams in Toronto. Obviously the NHL has multiple Canadian teams along with a bunch of American ones.

One key reason why the NFL has historically never considered placing a team in Canada is weather and how that conflicts with the NFL season schedule. The CFL starts its seasons up in June and they end in November before the start of winter. And even in November the weather gets bad enough. A Canadian NFL team would have to play in an indoor stadium and even on artificial turf (unlike the retractable fields on which the Arizona Cardinals and Las Vegas Raiders play).

Quote from: cabiness42This is all a really fun exercise, but there isn't the talent available to field 36 competitive teams, let alone 40, and football is becoming less popular at the youth level. Smaller colleges are probably going to start dropping football.

Smaller colleges, particularly NCAA Division II schools, are dropping football because of cost. It has very little to do with lack of talent. Here in my city our local college, Cameron University, dropped its football program in 1992. It was a reasonably successful program. The Aggies won a NAIA Division I national title in 1987. But the sheer cost of the program, combined with Title IX regulations, made it financially unsustainable. Plenty of locals gripe about it. The university staff simply resonds "if you guys can find $14 million per year to run a team and corresponding Title IX obligations then we can bring back football." No one has the money for that.

Plenty of D1 schools are having trouble making ends meet with their football programs. Only the most popular D1 schools, such as Alabama, Notre Dame, Oklahoma, etc rake in lots of money with their football programs via tickets, merchandizing and donations.

Other sports, such as soccer, are gaining popularity and stealing kids away from football at the grade school and high school levels. Football is notorious for all the injuries that happen in the sport, both at the high school and college levels. Coaches have been prosecuted for player hospitalizations and deaths via heat exhaustion/stroke.

The NFL would be really pushing it by adding more teams. Other professional sports leagues have comparable numbers of teams to what the NFL has now. There are 30 teams in Major League Baseball, 31 in the National Hockey League, 30 in the NBA and 27 in Major League Soccer. The NFL has 32 teams now. I couldn't see it going to 36 or 40 without a serious realignment of divisions and placing at least 4 teams in Europe. The current schedule is long enough as it is; adding another week or two would be ridiculous. Even though I think there is plenty of talent out there (especially world-wide), an elite-level athlete's body can take only so much punishment.

Quote from: mgk920As for Mexico, I can see a team in Monterrey, NL before I can see one in Mexico City.

Monterrey is small compared to Mexico City. And in some respects it's even more dangerous. The farther North you go in Mexico the more it is controlled by the drug cartels.

Quote from: Bobby5280 on January 06, 2021, 02:15:28 PM
The Canadian government hasn't stood in the way of Major League Baseball, the National Hockey League or the National Basketball Association. All three organizations at least have teams in Toronto. Obviously the NHL has multiple Canadian teams along with a bunch of American ones.

Sorry, but no.  Canadian football is considered part of Canadian culture.  Introducing the NFL to Canada would eventually kill Canadian football, at least in its current form.

There is no "Canadian basketball" or "Canadian baseball" with different rules than their US counterparts.  And the NHL could be considered an export of Canadian sports culture.  That's OK, but not the other way around.

QuoteOne key reason why the NFL has historically never considered placing a team in Canada is weather and how that conflicts with the NFL season schedule. The CFL starts its seasons up in June and they end in November before the start of winter. And even in November the weather gets bad enough. A Canadian NFL team would have to play in an indoor stadium and even on artificial turf (unlike the retractable fields on which the Arizona Cardinals and Las Vegas Raiders play).

Like, maybe, at the Rogers Centre in Toronto?

Quote from: Konza on January 06, 2021, 04:53:11 PM

Quote from: Bobby5280 on January 06, 2021, 02:15:28 PM
The Canadian government hasn't stood in the way of Major League Baseball, the National Hockey League or the National Basketball Association. All three organizations at least have teams in Toronto. Obviously the NHL has multiple Canadian teams along with a bunch of American ones.

Sorry, but no.  Canadian football is considered part of Canadian culture.  Introducing the NFL to Canada would eventually kill Canadian football, at least in its current form.

There is no "Canadian basketball" or "Canadian baseball" with different rules than their US counterparts.  And the NHL could be considered an export of Canadian sports culture.  That's OK, but not the other way around.

QuoteOne key reason why the NFL has historically never considered placing a team in Canada is weather and how that conflicts with the NFL season schedule. The CFL starts its seasons up in June and they end in November before the start of winter. And even in November the weather gets bad enough. A Canadian NFL team would have to play in an indoor stadium and even on artificial turf (unlike the retractable fields on which the Arizona Cardinals and Las Vegas Raiders play).

Like, maybe, at the Rogers Centre in Toronto?

No, the Blue Jays "locked" it in the baseball configuration the year they changed the playing surface from dirt cutouts to the current configuration that looks like a grass field.   

Let's also not forget the Major League Baseball season ends well before Winter. The example of the Rogers Centre (baseball only) doesn't apply.

Quote from: KonzaSorry, but no. Canadian football is considered part of Canadian culture. Introducing the NFL to Canada would eventually kill Canadian football, at least in its current form.

The statement "Canadian football is considered part of Canadian culture" is not proof the Canadian government drew up legislation specifically banning the NFL from locating a team in Canada.

I would agree the CFL would have trouble competing with the NFL. However the two leagues operate on different schedules. And even if the NFL did come to Canada it would be in no more than one or two cities at best.

Quote from: KonzaAnd the NHL could be considered an export of Canadian sports culture. That's OK, but not the other way around.

Not the other way around? That sounds like a double standard to me. There are more NHL teams in the United States than Canada, even if hockey is "Canadian Sports culture." Hockey is played in Russia, Scandinavia and other Northern nations too.

Quote from: Bobby5280 on January 06, 2021, 08:09:57 PM
There are more NHL teams in the United States than Canada, even if hockey is "Canadian Sports culture."

The United States has ten times Canada's population.

The NHL is indeed originally a Canadian league. Despite the popular misuse of the term "Original Six," the teams to which that refers were not the original teams–only two of them were there from the beginning. The league started in 1917 with four teams, although the Montreal Wanderers folded almost immediately when their arena burned down. The other three were the Montreal Canadiens, Toronto Arenas (now the Maple Leafs), and the original Ottawa Senators (not organizationally related to the current team with the same name). The first American franchise was added in 1924 (the Boston Bruins). The league grew to as many as ten teams in the ensuing years before winding up with the so-called "Original Six" in 1942.

Quote from: 1995hoo on January 07, 2021, 07:46:55 AM
The NHL is indeed originally a Canadian league. Despite the popular misuse of the term "Original Six," the teams to which that refers were not the original teams–only two of them were there from the beginning. The league started in 1917 with four teams, although the Montreal Wanderers folded almost immediately when their arena burned down. The other three were the Montreal Canadiens, Toronto Arenas (now the Maple Leafs), and the original Ottawa Senators (not organizationally related to the current team with the same name). The first American franchise was added in 1924 (the Boston Bruins). The league grew to as many as ten teams in the ensuing years before winding up with the so-called "Original Six" in 1942.

I get the point you are making, and it's all true.  Just pointing out the inaccuracies in vernacular in basically all four of the North American sports.  The original 16 in Major League Baseball, or the also referred to original eight of the Senior Circuit (National League) are not the original National League teams.  That term exists from 1901 to the present only.  It represents the eight National League and eight American League teams that were in existence at the time of the American-National merger in 1901.  All 16 of those franchises are still in existence today.

Same with the original NFL franchises.  They only get the term original because they were the teams that were in the NFL before the NFL-AFL merger was official in 1970.  Some of those teams (49ers, Browns, a separate Baltimore Colts) came for the AAFC, and others joined through consolidations, or just joined like they did in the old days, but that term doesn't mean those teams were there in 1920 at the word go.  I get why they use those terms, but to the masses it can be confusing.   

Then there is the curious case of the Boston Yanks/New York Bulldogs/Dallas Texans/other Baltimore Colts.  when it was all said and done, this was the last team(s) to fold in NFL history.