News:

The AARoads Wiki is live! Come check it out!

Main Menu

NFL 2026 (what if)

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

Previous topic - Next topic

Desert Man

#50
Sparker, how about a second Canadian Football League? In the 1990s, the CFL had a failed expansion in the US. Imagine the 7 existed plus 5 folded teams equals 12 teams of what I call the Snowbird Football League (SFL), focused solely on the US American sports market.

Arizona (Phoenix area?) Outlaws, Austin Tejanos, Baltimore Stallions, Birmingham Americans, Florida Manatees (Miami area?), Las Vegas Posse, Memphis Mad Dogs, Mississippi Southmen (Jackson), Sacramento Gold Miners, San Antonio Gunslingers, Shreveport Pirates, and West Florida Barracudas (Mobile AL-Pensacola FL?). I might add the St. Louis Bandits and San Diego Sharks, former NFL cities to this list...just because. 

In my fantasy NFL for the 2026-27 season, I mentioned the Hawaii Sharks...I should include Omaha NE which had the United Football League KnightHawks in the early 2010s.
Get your kicks...on Route 99! Like to turn 66 upside down. The other historic Main street of America.


dvferyance

#51
Why would San Antonio be a viable NFL market? After all if everyone is so sure the NFL would flop in Milwaukee why would San Antonio be any different? About everyone in San Antonio cheers for Dallas and I am sure the Cowboys have affiliates there like the Packers do with Milwaukee. So what's the difference if Milwaukee doesn't work then there is no reason San Antonio would be any different since the Cowboys are the team of all of Texas and not just Dallas.

sparker

Quote from: Desert Man on March 20, 2017, 12:52:29 PM
Sparker, how about a second Canadian Football League? In the 1990s, the CFL had a failed expansion in the US. Imagine the 7 existed plus 5 folded teams equals 12 teams of what I call the Snowbird Football League (SFL), focused solely on the US American sports market.

Arizona (Phoenix area?) Outlaws, Austin Texans, Baltimore Stallions, Birmingham Americans, Florida Manatees (Miami area?), Las Vegas Posse, Memphis Mad Dogs, Mississippi Southmen (Jackson), Sacramento Gold Miners, San Antonio Gunslingers, Shreveport Pirates, and West Florida Barracudas (Mobile AL-Pensacola FL?). I might add the St. Louis Bandits and San Diego Sharks, former NFL cities to this list...just because. 

In my fantasy NFL for the 2026-27 season, I mentioned the Hawaii Sharks...I should include Omaha NE which had the United Football League KnightHawks in the early 2010s.
Quote from: dvferyance on March 22, 2017, 06:22:59 PM
Why would San Antonio be a viable NFL market? After all if everyone is so sure the NFL would flop in Milwaukee why would San Antonio be any different? About everyone in San Antonio cheers for Dallas and I am sure the Cowboys have affiliates there like the Packers do with Milwaukee. So what's the difference if Milwaukee doesn't work then there is no reason San Antonio would be any different since the Cowboys are the team of Texas and not just Dallas.

When it first looked like the Vegas stadium deal was going to go south a couple of months ago, Mark Davis (Raiders' owner) floated San Antonio as an alternative destination -- but that was short-lived, as now it looks like a reworked LV deal will be finalized (with grudging NFL agreement).  As there is now a more or less continuous San Antonio-San Marcos-Austin population center from which to draw paying fans, I would think San Antonio would be a more than viable market.  After the Oilers left Houston, no one thought that a replacement NFL team there could survive -- primarily due to the perpetual Cowboy PR machine -- but the Texans have proved that notion terribly wrong.  TX is large enough to divvy up a few loyalties -- and there's never been too much love lost between Austin and Dallas in any case. 

I have my doubts whether a new major pro football league would be able to secure sufficient funds from secondary cities like Birmingham, Shreveport (yeah, let's make sure the stadium is along the I-69 alignment!), or Mobile.  If any additional team is to get a foothold in FL, it would almost have to be sited in the Orlando area.  And in AZ, Tucson (about 700K population) would be a likely site for a new-league team.  As per my NFL expansion post, a 12-team roster would consist of the following cities/areas:
(1) San Diego (2) Tucson (3) Salt Lake City & environs [Provo, Ogden] (4) Oklahoma City (5) El Paso (6) Orlando (7) San Antonio [if and only if the NFL doesn't go there] (8) Honolulu (9) Columbus, OH (10) Memphis (11) Norfolk/Chesapeake/Virginia Beach [I'm sticking to my idea here -- the only major E. Coast metro area w/o a team, and with a shitload of government workers -- again, only if NFL doesn't expand there] , and (12) Sacramento [trust me, they'll latch on to any pro team anywhere anyhow!].  Alternates if NFL does SA and Virginia: Kentucky (Louisville or Lexington; try to draw fan base from both) and/or Omaha (get all the recently frustrated UN fans!).  My view is that an upstart league is starting off "in the hole" in any case; trying to siphon off fans from longstanding NFL teams (even those with shitty or uneven recent records) might be a bridge too far; start off with a relatively fresh slate. 

dvferyance

Quote from: sparker on March 22, 2017, 07:24:25 PM
Quote from: Desert Man on March 20, 2017, 12:52:29 PM
Sparker, how about a second Canadian Football League? In the 1990s, the CFL had a failed expansion in the US. Imagine the 7 existed plus 5 folded teams equals 12 teams of what I call the Snowbird Football League (SFL), focused solely on the US American sports market.

Arizona (Phoenix area?) Outlaws, Austin Texans, Baltimore Stallions, Birmingham Americans, Florida Manatees (Miami area?), Las Vegas Posse, Memphis Mad Dogs, Mississippi Southmen (Jackson), Sacramento Gold Miners, San Antonio Gunslingers, Shreveport Pirates, and West Florida Barracudas (Mobile AL-Pensacola FL?). I might add the St. Louis Bandits and San Diego Sharks, former NFL cities to this list...just because. 

In my fantasy NFL for the 2026-27 season, I mentioned the Hawaii Sharks...I should include Omaha NE which had the United Football League KnightHawks in the early 2010s.
Quote from: dvferyance on March 22, 2017, 06:22:59 PM
Why would San Antonio be a viable NFL market? After all if everyone is so sure the NFL would flop in Milwaukee why would San Antonio be any different? About everyone in San Antonio cheers for Dallas and I am sure the Cowboys have affiliates there like the Packers do with Milwaukee. So what's the difference if Milwaukee doesn't work then there is no reason San Antonio would be any different since the Cowboys are the team of Texas and not just Dallas.

When it first looked like the Vegas stadium deal was going to go south a couple of months ago, Mark Davis (Raiders' owner) floated San Antonio as an alternative destination -- but that was short-lived, as now it looks like a reworked LV deal will be finalized (with grudging NFL agreement).  As there is now a more or less continuous San Antonio-San Marcos-Austin population center from which to draw paying fans, I would think San Antonio would be a more than viable market.  After the Oilers left Houston, no one thought that a replacement NFL team there could survive -- primarily due to the perpetual Cowboy PR machine -- but the Texans have proved that notion terribly wrong.  TX is large enough to divvy up a few loyalties -- and there's never been too much love lost between Austin and Dallas in any case. 

I have my doubts whether a new major pro football league would be able to secure sufficient funds from secondary cities like Birmingham, Shreveport (yeah, let's make sure the stadium is along the I-69 alignment!), or Mobile.  If any additional team is to get a foothold in FL, it would almost have to be sited in the Orlando area.  And in AZ, Tucson (about 700K population) would be a likely site for a new-league team.  As per my NFL expansion post, a 12-team roster would consist of the following cities/areas:
(1) San Diego (2) Tucson (3) Salt Lake City & environs [Provo, Ogden] (4) Oklahoma City (5) El Paso (6) Orlando (7) San Antonio [if and only if the NFL doesn't go there] (8) Honolulu (9) Columbus, OH (10) Memphis (11) Norfolk/Chesapeake/Virginia Beach [I'm sticking to my idea here -- the only major E. Coast metro area w/o a team, and with a shitload of government workers -- again, only if NFL doesn't expand there] , and (12) Sacramento [trust me, they'll latch on to any pro team anywhere anyhow!].  Alternates if NFL does SA and Virginia: Kentucky (Louisville or Lexington; try to draw fan base from both) and/or Omaha (get all the recently frustrated UN fans!).  My view is that an upstart league is starting off "in the hole" in any case; trying to siphon off fans from longstanding NFL teams (even those with shitty or uneven recent records) might be a bridge too far; start off with a relatively fresh slate.
I doubt that any of those cities will get NFL teams. San Diego blew it they had their chance and said no. San Diego is not much of a sports town anyways. Tucson way too small and too close to Phoenix. Salt Lake City again too small they can barely support an NBA team. Oklahoma City Jerry Jones would never allow it. El Paso too small and Texas has 2 teams already. Orlando too close to Tampa and Florida already has 3 teams. San Antonio ditto for OKC. Honolulu too small and too far the prop bowl isn't even played there anymore. Columbus Ohio already has 2 teams and Columbus is a college football town. Memphis is the likeliest out of this bunch but from what I understand the Grizzles can barley draw a crowd there. Norfolk would be more suitable for the NBA/NHL. Sacramento too small too close to San Francisco not to mention California will have at least 3 teams. Omaha is too small and Louisville would be more suitable for the NBA. With Indianapolis and Cincinnati nearby 3 teams all within 100 miles or less is just too much.

tribar

Quote from: dvferyance on March 24, 2017, 03:09:59 PM
Quote from: sparker on March 22, 2017, 07:24:25 PM
Quote from: Desert Man on March 20, 2017, 12:52:29 PM
Sparker, how about a second Canadian Football League? In the 1990s, the CFL had a failed expansion in the US. Imagine the 7 existed plus 5 folded teams equals 12 teams of what I call the Snowbird Football League (SFL), focused solely on the US American sports market.

Arizona (Phoenix area?) Outlaws, Austin Texans, Baltimore Stallions, Birmingham Americans, Florida Manatees (Miami area?), Las Vegas Posse, Memphis Mad Dogs, Mississippi Southmen (Jackson), Sacramento Gold Miners, San Antonio Gunslingers, Shreveport Pirates, and West Florida Barracudas (Mobile AL-Pensacola FL?). I might add the St. Louis Bandits and San Diego Sharks, former NFL cities to this list...just because. 

In my fantasy NFL for the 2026-27 season, I mentioned the Hawaii Sharks...I should include Omaha NE which had the United Football League KnightHawks in the early 2010s.
Quote from: dvferyance on March 22, 2017, 06:22:59 PM
Why would San Antonio be a viable NFL market? After all if everyone is so sure the NFL would flop in Milwaukee why would San Antonio be any different? About everyone in San Antonio cheers for Dallas and I am sure the Cowboys have affiliates there like the Packers do with Milwaukee. So what's the difference if Milwaukee doesn't work then there is no reason San Antonio would be any different since the Cowboys are the team of Texas and not just Dallas.

When it first looked like the Vegas stadium deal was going to go south a couple of months ago, Mark Davis (Raiders' owner) floated San Antonio as an alternative destination -- but that was short-lived, as now it looks like a reworked LV deal will be finalized (with grudging NFL agreement).  As there is now a more or less continuous San Antonio-San Marcos-Austin population center from which to draw paying fans, I would think San Antonio would be a more than viable market.  After the Oilers left Houston, no one thought that a replacement NFL team there could survive -- primarily due to the perpetual Cowboy PR machine -- but the Texans have proved that notion terribly wrong.  TX is large enough to divvy up a few loyalties -- and there's never been too much love lost between Austin and Dallas in any case. 

I have my doubts whether a new major pro football league would be able to secure sufficient funds from secondary cities like Birmingham, Shreveport (yeah, let's make sure the stadium is along the I-69 alignment!), or Mobile.  If any additional team is to get a foothold in FL, it would almost have to be sited in the Orlando area.  And in AZ, Tucson (about 700K population) would be a likely site for a new-league team.  As per my NFL expansion post, a 12-team roster would consist of the following cities/areas:
(1) San Diego (2) Tucson (3) Salt Lake City & environs [Provo, Ogden] (4) Oklahoma City (5) El Paso (6) Orlando (7) San Antonio [if and only if the NFL doesn't go there] (8) Honolulu (9) Columbus, OH (10) Memphis (11) Norfolk/Chesapeake/Virginia Beach [I'm sticking to my idea here -- the only major E. Coast metro area w/o a team, and with a shitload of government workers -- again, only if NFL doesn't expand there] , and (12) Sacramento [trust me, they'll latch on to any pro team anywhere anyhow!].  Alternates if NFL does SA and Virginia: Kentucky (Louisville or Lexington; try to draw fan base from both) and/or Omaha (get all the recently frustrated UN fans!).  My view is that an upstart league is starting off "in the hole" in any case; trying to siphon off fans from longstanding NFL teams (even those with shitty or uneven recent records) might be a bridge too far; start off with a relatively fresh slate.
I doubt that any of those cities will get NFL teams. San Diego blew it they had their chance and said no. San Diego is not much of a sports town anyways. Tucson way too small and too close to Phoenix. Salt Lake City again too small they can barely support an NBA team. Oklahoma City Jerry Jones would never allow it. El Paso too small and Texas has 2 teams already. Orlando too close to Tampa and Florida already has 3 teams. San Antonio ditto for OKC. Honolulu too small and too far the prop bowl isn't even played there anymore. Columbus Ohio already has 2 teams and Columbus is a college football town. Memphis is the likeliest out of this bunch but from what I understand the Grizzles can barley draw a crowd there. Norfolk would be more suitable for the NBA/NHL. Sacramento too small too close to San Francisco not to mention California will have at least 3 teams. Omaha is too small and Louisville would be more suitable for the NBA. With Indianapolis and Cincinnati nearby 3 teams all within 100 miles or less is just too much.

The Titans can't even fill their own stadium in Nashville and they have the entire state. There's no way Tennessee can support two NFL teams.

sparker

Quote from: tribar on March 24, 2017, 03:24:34 PM
Quote from: dvferyance on March 24, 2017, 03:09:59 PM
Quote from: sparker on March 22, 2017, 07:24:25 PM
Quote from: Desert Man on March 20, 2017, 12:52:29 PM
Sparker, how about a second Canadian Football League? In the 1990s, the CFL had a failed expansion in the US. Imagine the 7 existed plus 5 folded teams equals 12 teams of what I call the Snowbird Football League (SFL), focused solely on the US American sports market.

Arizona (Phoenix area?) Outlaws, Austin Texans, Baltimore Stallions, Birmingham Americans, Florida Manatees (Miami area?), Las Vegas Posse, Memphis Mad Dogs, Mississippi Southmen (Jackson), Sacramento Gold Miners, San Antonio Gunslingers, Shreveport Pirates, and West Florida Barracudas (Mobile AL-Pensacola FL?). I might add the St. Louis Bandits and San Diego Sharks, former NFL cities to this list...just because. 

In my fantasy NFL for the 2026-27 season, I mentioned the Hawaii Sharks...I should include Omaha NE which had the United Football League KnightHawks in the early 2010s.
Quote from: dvferyance on March 22, 2017, 06:22:59 PM
Why would San Antonio be a viable NFL market? After all if everyone is so sure the NFL would flop in Milwaukee why would San Antonio be any different? About everyone in San Antonio cheers for Dallas and I am sure the Cowboys have affiliates there like the Packers do with Milwaukee. So what's the difference if Milwaukee doesn't work then there is no reason San Antonio would be any different since the Cowboys are the team of Texas and not just Dallas.

When it first looked like the Vegas stadium deal was going to go south a couple of months ago, Mark Davis (Raiders' owner) floated San Antonio as an alternative destination -- but that was short-lived, as now it looks like a reworked LV deal will be finalized (with grudging NFL agreement).  As there is now a more or less continuous San Antonio-San Marcos-Austin population center from which to draw paying fans, I would think San Antonio would be a more than viable market.  After the Oilers left Houston, no one thought that a replacement NFL team there could survive -- primarily due to the perpetual Cowboy PR machine -- but the Texans have proved that notion terribly wrong.  TX is large enough to divvy up a few loyalties -- and there's never been too much love lost between Austin and Dallas in any case. 

I have my doubts whether a new major pro football league would be able to secure sufficient funds from secondary cities like Birmingham, Shreveport (yeah, let's make sure the stadium is along the I-69 alignment!), or Mobile.  If any additional team is to get a foothold in FL, it would almost have to be sited in the Orlando area.  And in AZ, Tucson (about 700K population) would be a likely site for a new-league team.  As per my NFL expansion post, a 12-team roster would consist of the following cities/areas:
(1) San Diego (2) Tucson (3) Salt Lake City & environs [Provo, Ogden] (4) Oklahoma City (5) El Paso (6) Orlando (7) San Antonio [if and only if the NFL doesn't go there] (8) Honolulu (9) Columbus, OH (10) Memphis (11) Norfolk/Chesapeake/Virginia Beach [I'm sticking to my idea here -- the only major E. Coast metro area w/o a team, and with a shitload of government workers -- again, only if NFL doesn't expand there] , and (12) Sacramento [trust me, they'll latch on to any pro team anywhere anyhow!].  Alternates if NFL does SA and Virginia: Kentucky (Louisville or Lexington; try to draw fan base from both) and/or Omaha (get all the recently frustrated UN fans!).  My view is that an upstart league is starting off "in the hole" in any case; trying to siphon off fans from longstanding NFL teams (even those with shitty or uneven recent records) might be a bridge too far; start off with a relatively fresh slate.
I doubt that any of those cities will get NFL teams. San Diego blew it they had their chance and said no. San Diego is not much of a sports town anyways. Tucson way too small and too close to Phoenix. Salt Lake City again too small they can barely support an NBA team. Oklahoma City Jerry Jones would never allow it. El Paso too small and Texas has 2 teams already. Orlando too close to Tampa and Florida already has 3 teams. San Antonio ditto for OKC. Honolulu too small and too far the prop bowl isn't even played there anymore. Columbus Ohio already has 2 teams and Columbus is a college football town. Memphis is the likeliest out of this bunch but from what I understand the Grizzles can barley draw a crowd there. Norfolk would be more suitable for the NBA/NHL. Sacramento too small too close to San Francisco not to mention California will have at least 3 teams. Omaha is too small and Louisville would be more suitable for the NBA. With Indianapolis and Cincinnati nearby 3 teams all within 100 miles or less is just too much.

The Titans can't even fill their own stadium in Nashville and they have the entire state. There's no way Tennessee can support two NFL teams.

(With all the back-quotes, these posts are getting ridiculously long in the physical sense!)

The 12-team concept with admittedly secondary cities was not specifically referring to NFL additions, but rather a new league a la the old USFL -- or even the original 1960-vintage AFL.  No speculation as to where the $$ for developing these teams or their venues will come from -- most likely local businesspeople with big/grandiose ideas or habitual sports investors.  The latter would likely approach the venture with the idea that the NFL would eventually absorb at least the more successful teams of the newer league somewhere down the road.  Could work; most likely this is all speculation and nothing else!

Desert Man

A proposed alternative professional American football league limited in California to debut in 2018- the Pacific Pro (Football) League.  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PAC_Pro_League  Based in Los Angeles, they look to have 4 to 8 teams, most likely 2 in Los Angeles area, 1 in Orange County, 1 in San Diego (formerly had the Chargers), 1 in San Francisco, 1 in Oakland (the Raiders are leaving in 2 years), 1 in Stanford-Palo Alto and 1 in Sacramento. The L.A. Memorial (Olympics) Coliseum and Rose Bowl in Pasadena are suitable places to field future teams.
Get your kicks...on Route 99! Like to turn 66 upside down. The other historic Main street of America.

tribar

Quote from: Desert Man on April 02, 2017, 10:43:09 PM
A proposed alternative professional American football league limited in California to debut in 2018- the Pacific Pro (Football) League.  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PAC_Pro_League  Based in Los Angeles, they look to have 4 to 8 teams, most likely 2 in Los Angeles area, 1 in Orange County, 1 in San Diego (formerly had the Chargers), 1 in San Francisco, 1 in Oakland (the Raiders are leaving in 2 years), 1 in Stanford-Palo Alto and 1 in Sacramento. The L.A. Memorial (Olympics) Coliseum and Rose Bowl in Pasadena are suitable places to field future teams.

Yeah, that won't work.

sparker

Quote from: tribar on April 02, 2017, 10:44:55 PM
Quote from: Desert Man on April 02, 2017, 10:43:09 PM
A proposed alternative professional American football league limited in California to debut in 2018- the Pacific Pro (Football) League.  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PAC_Pro_League  Based in Los Angeles, they look to have 4 to 8 teams, most likely 2 in Los Angeles area, 1 in Orange County, 1 in San Diego (formerly had the Chargers), 1 in San Francisco, 1 in Oakland (the Raiders are leaving in 2 years), 1 in Stanford-Palo Alto and 1 in Sacramento. The L.A. Memorial (Olympics) Coliseum and Rose Bowl in Pasadena are suitable places to field future teams.

Yeah, that won't work.

CA-based college players -- even from the lesser-known but larger CSU campuses (Fresno, San Diego, San Jose, Long Beach, et. al.) seem to have no problem attracting the attention of NFL teams either within the draft or even as free agents.  A specifically-sited CA league would likely have problems recruiting out-of-state players of even marginal NFL skills, and only the second-tier CA-based players would likely even come out for such a league.  If the concept here is a "minor league" feeder to the NFL -- it's already been done (it's called the NCAA -- although they'll disavow that to the ends of the earth!).  Stacking CA metro areas with secondary teams isn't a viable concept.

dvferyance

#59
Quote from: Desert Man on April 02, 2017, 10:43:09 PM
A proposed alternative professional American football league limited in California to debut in 2018- the Pacific Pro (Football) League.  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PAC_Pro_League  Based in Los Angeles, they look to have 4 to 8 teams, most likely 2 in Los Angeles area, 1 in Orange County, 1 in San Diego (formerly had the Chargers), 1 in San Francisco, 1 in Oakland (the Raiders are leaving in 2 years), 1 in Stanford-Palo Alto and 1 in Sacramento. The L.A. Memorial (Olympics) Coliseum and Rose Bowl in Pasadena are suitable places to field future teams.
Will the LA Coliseum still be around then? It's like over 80 years old as is and I thought it was torn down a long time ago. Was surprised to hear it's still there.

sparker

Quote from: dvferyance on April 04, 2017, 05:09:17 PM
Quote from: Desert Man on April 02, 2017, 10:43:09 PM
A proposed alternative professional American football league limited in California to debut in 2018- the Pacific Pro (Football) League.  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PAC_Pro_League  Based in Los Angeles, they look to have 4 to 8 teams, most likely 2 in Los Angeles area, 1 in Orange County, 1 in San Diego (formerly had the Chargers), 1 in San Francisco, 1 in Oakland (the Raiders are leaving in 2 years), 1 in Stanford-Palo Alto and 1 in Sacramento. The L.A. Memorial (Olympics) Coliseum and Rose Bowl in Pasadena are suitable places to field future teams.
Will the LA Coliseum still be around then? It's like over 80 years old as is and I thought it was ton down a long time ago. Was surprised to hear it's still there.

USC plays their home games there (it's right next to the campus); AFAIK, the Rams are also using the venue until their new Inglewood stadium is completed. 

michravera

Quote from: sparker on April 04, 2017, 09:15:24 PM
Quote from: dvferyance on April 04, 2017, 05:09:17 PM
Quote from: Desert Man on April 02, 2017, 10:43:09 PM
A proposed alternative professional American football league limited in California to debut in 2018- the Pacific Pro (Football) League.  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PAC_Pro_League  Based in Los Angeles, they look to have 4 to 8 teams, most likely 2 in Los Angeles area, 1 in Orange County, 1 in San Diego (formerly had the Chargers), 1 in San Francisco, 1 in Oakland (the Raiders are leaving in 2 years), 1 in Stanford-Palo Alto and 1 in Sacramento. The L.A. Memorial (Olympics) Coliseum and Rose Bowl in Pasadena are suitable places to field future teams.
Will the LA Coliseum still be around then? It's like over 80 years old as is and I thought it was ton down a long time ago. Was surprised to hear it's still there.

USC plays their home games there (it's right next to the campus); AFAIK, the Rams are also using the venue until their new Inglewood stadium is completed.

I don't know whether a California-based second-tier professional football league would work or not. The Arena League seems to do OK with an effort at a national audience.

Sacramento (CASR-99), Fresno (CASR-99), Inland Empire (I-10), Las Vegas (I-15), Tuscon (I-10), Anaheim (I-5 extends CASR-99), San Diego (I-15), and something Northwest of LA (Ventura, Santa Barbara, San Jose -- All US-101) are all LARGE markets with their own local TV and radio stations and a College or MLB stadium. The worst drive in that whole bunch is Sacramento or San Jose or Santa Barbara to Tuscon.

Would it work? I don't know. No one has tried.

ixnay

Quote from: english si on March 13, 2017, 08:37:59 AM
Quote from: Rothman on March 12, 2017, 01:37:13 PMSorry, Cheddar became an American citizen in 1866.
And then turned curtain-like: soft, pliable, made quickly and served in thin sheets rather than the gorge-like: hard, a little crumbly, a bit sharp, taking a long time to age, etc. ;)

(I know Wisconsin can make decent cheese - it's the demand from the rest of the country for plastic and/or liquid cheese that gives US cheese a bad rap. And Kraft, who can't even do that well, but dominate the market).

Bump because I was Googling for the issue as to whether the Pack is Milwaukee's team and came across this thread...

As for cheese...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nX6DWqyXOxo&t=398s (scroll to 6:57)

(sorry, couldn't resist)

ixnay
The Washington/Baltimore/Arlington CSA has two Key Bridges, a Minnesota Avenue, and a Mannasota Avenue.

ixnay

I created a thread on the are-the-Packers-Milwaukee's-team debate on 506sports.com .

http://506sports.com/forum/index.php?topic=20648.0

ixnay
The Washington/Baltimore/Arlington CSA has two Key Bridges, a Minnesota Avenue, and a Mannasota Avenue.

tchafe1978

Quote from: ixnay on September 23, 2017, 08:31:20 AM
I created a thread on the are-the-Packers-Milwaukee's-team debate on 506sports.com .

http://506sports.com/forum/index.php?topic=20648.0

ixnay

Without even watching the video you posted or visiting the link, the answer is yes.

mgk920

The Milwaukeeans tend to be even more rabid Packer fans than us here in northeastern Wisconsin.

Mike

SSOWorld

Quote from: mgk920 on September 24, 2017, 12:28:49 PM
The Milwaukeeans tend to be even more rabid Packer fans than us here in northeastern Wisconsin.

Mike
The Milwaukeans tend to outnumber you up in northeastern Wisconsin ;)
Scott O.

Not all who wander are lost...
Ah, the open skies, wind at my back, warm sun on my... wait, where the hell am I?!
As a matter of fact, I do own the road.
Raise your what?

Wisconsin - out-multiplexing your state since 1918.

jbnv

The NFL shouldn't grow beyond 32 teams unless some sort of promotion-relegation system goes into place. There's a perfect number of divisions and teams per division. It's balanced.
🆕 Louisiana Highways on Twitter | Yes, I like Clearview. Deal with it. | Redos: US | La. | Route Challenge

Anthony_JK

I'm not so sure that NFL football in San Diego is dead, because due to the suckage in attendance for LA Chargers games, there's already talk of the NFL owners forcing Alex Spanos to relocate back to SD. LA couldn't handle the Rams back in the 1980's; how would you think they would handle both the Chargers AND the Rams?

The logistics of having a London franchise would probably be too much for a fall season. The best bet for London would be a revival of a spring developmental European league like the WLAF (or NFL Europe) combined with the current schedule of regular NFL games.

If I had my druthers, this would be my fantasy NFL setup (assuming no new teams added):

AFC East:
Patriots, Bills, Jets, Ravens

AFC South:
Dolphins, Jaguars, Texans, Titans

AFC North:
Steelers, Browns, Bengals, Colts

AFC West:
Broncos, Chiefs, Chargers, Raiders

Mostly, I make it more geographically compact by moving Baltimore to the East, Indy to the North, and Miami to the South.


NFC East:
Giants, Redskins, Eagles, Panthers

NFC South:
Cowboys, Saints, Falcons, Bucs

NFC North:
Bears, Lions, Packers, Vikings

NFC West:
Seahawks, Rams, 49ers, Cardinals

Sorry, Jerrah and Cowboys fans, but you belong in the SOUTH; screw tradition. I move Carolina to the NFC East to compensate.



dvferyance

I do agree that 32 is a good number for the NFL but I could see it going to 34 teams someday with a team in St Louis and a team in London. But why would the Chargers move back to San Diego? I really believe Spanos wanted to stay there and really tried hard to get a stadium deal there but after the referendum failed the writing was on the wall. The Chargers will fail in LA but I see them moving to another city in the future like Portland or San Antonio. What really should have happened is the Rams stay in St Louis the Raiders move to LA and the Chargers move to Vegas but that is all too late now.

DTComposer

Quote from: dvferyance on October 02, 2017, 03:02:08 PM
I really believe Spanos wanted to stay there

Not in the least. He would only stay if the taxpayers paid for his stadium. He filed for relocation more than a year before the stadium referendum came to a vote. He knew sentiment was against public funding, and he could use that as an "excuse" to get out of San Diego. He knew he would get more money going to Los Angeles, even if it meant playing in a toy stadium for a few years, then being second fiddle in the new Inglewood stadium. Money wins.

english si

Going back to the London issue, my mum travelled on two trains heading out of London to Wembley on Sunday morning (over 3 hours before kick-off and a while before the pubs would be open). Lots of people (busy standing levels), including lots of Germans (I guessed that it might have been a flight to City Airport from Germany that flooded her Jubilee line train from Canary Wharf) was what she noticed. However, I doubt it will be as attractive with twice the number of games, and without the special atmosphere of being a promotional series.

There's still not support for a team rather than the whole NFL. Perhaps another decade of the Jags happily giving up home games (they've won their last three London games, and only won four games in Jacksonville in that time period) will help fix that as the fans who began in the 80s and 90s (so Dolphins, Cowboys, 49ers are popular as they were the big teams then - and Raiders because they are the 49ers rivals) begin to be less of the crowd, as fans who began in the 10s and 20s grow in number. Certainly the Jags have increased their share in the shirts you see in London significantly by playing here each year.

dvferyance

Quote from: DTComposer on October 02, 2017, 04:01:05 PM
Quote from: dvferyance on October 02, 2017, 03:02:08 PM
I really believe Spanos wanted to stay there

Not in the least. He would only stay if the taxpayers paid for his stadium. He filed for relocation more than a year before the stadium referendum came to a vote. He knew sentiment was against public funding, and he could use that as an "excuse" to get out of San Diego. He knew he would get more money going to Los Angeles, even if it meant playing in a toy stadium for a few years, then being second fiddle in the new Inglewood stadium. Money wins.
What I should have said is he tried to stay there unlike Kroenke who was going to move regardless. Is it even possible to move back? I thought they were tearing down Qualcomm this year and the Padres stadium is only compatible to baseball. It's clear LA can't support 2 teams but I see no reason why the Chargers should move back to San Diego after the voters rejected the referendum. They had their chance to keep the team and blew it. The Chargers should look into relocating to a new city. San Antonio makes sense it has a stadium all ready and was used a a temporary home for the Saints during Katrina.

dvferyance

#73
Quote from: tchafe1978 on September 24, 2017, 04:25:24 AM
Quote from: ixnay on September 23, 2017, 08:31:20 AM
I created a thread on the are-the-Packers-Milwaukee's-team debate on 506sports.com .

http://506sports.com/forum/index.php?topic=20648.0

ixnay

Without even watching the video you posted or visiting the link, the answer is yes.
Milwaukee can support the Packers if they so chose but you can't count them as a Milwaukee based team becasue they play 2 hours north in Green Bay. When the Packers win the super bowl the trophy goes to Green Bay and Green Bay is considered the championship city not Milwaukee. Just like Memphis can support the Titans but they are a Nashville based team. I don't know why San Deigo can't still support the Chargers becasue they didn't move far and are still in the same state.

jp the roadgeek

Quote from: dvferyance on October 04, 2017, 12:26:50 PM
Quote from: tchafe1978 on September 24, 2017, 04:25:24 AM
Quote from: ixnay on September 23, 2017, 08:31:20 AM
I created a thread on the are-the-Packers-Milwaukee's-team debate on 506sports.com .

http://506sports.com/forum/index.php?topic=20648.0

ixnay

Without even watching the video you posted or visiting the link, the answer is yes.
Milwaukee can support the Packers if they so chose but you can't count them as a Milwaukee based team becasue they play 2 hours north in Green Bay. Just like Memphis can support the Titans but they are a Nashville based team. I don't know why San Deigo can't still support the Chargers becasue they didn't move far and are still in the same state.

Because the Chargers had a full history in San Diego and Spanos abandoned them.  The Packers have always been based in Green Bay, and played in Milwaukee to expand their fan base throughout the state, so there was no bad blood when the Packers moved all their home games to Lambeau.  And it was well understood that Memphis was just a temporary home for the Titans on their trek to Nashville, so there was never any bad blood there either.  LA and San Diego are two totally different markets; MLB certainly thought so when they allowed the Padres to join the NL in 1969.  Hypothetically, if a franchise in a sport were to move from Philadelphia to Pittsburgh, would the fan base still follow?  No, because the two cities, while in the same state, are two distinctly different markets, as are LA and San Diego.   
Interstates I've clinched: 97, 290 (MA), 291 (CT), 291 (MA), 293, 295 (DE-NJ-PA), 295 (RI-MA), 384, 391, 395 (CT-MA), 395 (MD), 495 (DE), 610 (LA), 684, 691, 695 (MD), 695 (NY), 795 (MD)



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