NFL in Austin, TX

[texaskdog]

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

[Alps]

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

[Konza]

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.

[hotdogPi]

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.

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).

[thspfc]

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.

[thspfc]

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.

[1995hoo]

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.

[thspfc]

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.

[mgk920]

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

[jeffandnicole]

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. 

[texaskdog]

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.

[texaskdog]

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

[hotdogPi]

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.

[ethanhopkin14]

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. 

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?

[NWI_Irish96]

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.

[Konza]

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.

[ilpt4u]

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

[ethanhopkin14]

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   ).  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. 

[hotdogPi]

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?

[1995hoo]

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.

[ethanhopkin14]

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. 

[webny99]

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

[Konza]

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.

[1995hoo]

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.

[bing101]

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.