Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums
Sign in to follow this  
Yogibear

Will the NFL expand and add more teams to the league?

Recommended Posts

Posted (edited)

Now that there's a 17-game schedule in place, I wouldn't be surprised if the next step is for the NFL to further expand and add more teams to the league and have an additional 2 to 4 markets to the league.  And I know what everyone's going to say: Where will these markets be at?  Well, I've got for locations for where the NFL will expand to and ensure more markets in the NFL:

Birmingham

Memphis

Orlando

St. Louis

Here's why I say these four markets are the next in line to get an NFL expansion franchise.  For one thing, 3 of them used to have the old XFL franchises from 2001, and the other one, St. Louis, has an XFL franchise from this year.  I know I've said in the past that St. Louis took advantage of two NFL franchises and drove them both out of town, including a Super Bowl champion.  But, now that there is officially going to be a 17-game schedule, why not add more expansion teams to the the league and make it 34 or even 36 franchises in the league and have one of them be in St. Louis?  Another team in the market that I mentioned is Birmingham.  In 2001, that market had an XFL franchise, and prior to that, they used to host the USFL, so why can't Birmingham host an NFL expansion franchise as well?  As far as Memphis and Orlando are concerned, at one time, Memphis used to host the Titans before they ended up in Nashville, while Orlando hosts the Pro Bowl.  So, I can see the NFL expanding to those markets as well.  Does anyone else besides me see the NFL expanding and creating more teams in markets that don't have NFL franchises?  I want to hear from people in my hometown of St. Louis, as well as people from Birmingham, Memphis & Orlando as well on this topic!

Edited by Yogibear

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If the NFL expands further, I think the first places will be London and maybe Toronto or Mexico City. In answer, though, no. I don't think further expansion benefits quality of product, competitiveness or, in the case of international teams, fairness of schedule. I don't think opening domestic franchises in small markets helps line the pockets of large market teams as they lose big chunks in profit sharing (not to mention having four more owner votes favoring small market issues). I do think the opening of foreign markets, if they catch on, would increase net income and expand TV profit shares all around.  I favor the current 32, but unlike those deciding, my only real interest is in a fair and high quality game. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I can name 4 more markets that the NFL should consider expanding to:

Albuquerque

Louisville

Oklahoma City

Portland

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Not quite following, why does the NFL need more teams? You want Tebow to be a QB or something?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16 minutes ago, Tool said:

Not quite following, why does the NFL need more teams? You want Tebow to be a QB or something?

Next way to generate more money is my guess

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Yogibear said:

I can name 4 more markets that the NFL should consider expanding to:

Albuquerque

Louisville

Oklahoma City

Portland

Name four more.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

In another thread, I mentioned San Antonio.  Even though that would be a fourth Texas team, their short-lived AAF team had great attendance iirc and they tried to woo the Raiders a few years back. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Catbird said:

If the NFL expands further, I think the first places will be London and maybe Toronto or Mexico City. In answer, though, no.

This

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Dr. Octopus said:

Name four more.

Omaha

Salt Lake City

San Diego

San Antonio

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
7 hours ago, Yogibear said:

Now that there's a 17-game schedule in place, I wouldn't be surprised if the next step is for the NFL to further expand and add more teams to the league and have an additional 2 to 4 markets to the league.  And I know what everyone's going to say: Where will these markets be at?  Well, I've got for locations for where the NFL will expand to and ensure more markets in the NFL:

Birmingham

Memphis

Orlando

St. Louis

Here's why I say these four markets are the next in line to get an NFL expansion franchise.  For one thing, 3 of them used to have the old XFL franchises from 2001, and the other one, St. Louis, has an XFL franchise from this year.  I know I've said in the past that St. Louis took advantage of two NFL franchises and drove them both out of town, including a Super Bowl champion.  But, now that there is officially going to be a 17-game schedule, why not add more expansion teams to the the league and make it 34 or even 36 franchises in the league and have one of them be in St. Louis?  Another team in the market that I mentioned is Birmingham.  In 2001, that market had an XFL franchise, and prior to that, they used to host the USFL, so why can't Birmingham host an NFL expansion franchise as well?  As far as Memphis and Orlando are concerned, at one time, Memphis used to host the Titans before they ended up in Nashville, while Orlando hosts the Pro Bowl.  So, I can see the NFL expanding to those markets as well.  Does anyone else besides me see the NFL expanding and creating more teams in markets that don't have NFL franchises?  I want to hear from people in my hometown of St. Louis, as well as people from Birmingham, Memphis & Orlando as well on this topic!

 

How many cities with less than 250,000 residents have an NFL team? (only Green Bay?) 1.1 million in the metro area isn't sufficient.  It's not a wealthy area either. Without a history, there's virtually no chance an NFL team succeeds there.  If you want to put a team in Alabama, Huntsville would have a better chance (and soon will be larger than Birmingham) but that doesn't seem likely to succeed either. 

 

Edited by -OZ-

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There aren't enough good quarterbacks to add more teams. Hell, there aren't enough good quarterbacks to support the teams we have now.

 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Interesting topic and I’ve always wondered, they always talk about places like London, but my thought that I‘ve personally never heard until this thread and do see that Catbird mentioned one of the places where I’ve always thought about by naming Toronto. But why do you not hear about Canada? Also why have they not played a game there? Is it because of the CFL due to some sort of contract CFL has with Canada or something? I would think that’s the first place they would want to try and expand to when looking at places outside of the US. I think it could be huge. I could be totally off on this though too obviously, as maybe they have played a game in Canada which I don’t recall and it wasn’t a big draw so not worth the investment or maybe the CFL isn’t a big draw and that’s what they are going off of. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Expanding is among the worst ideas there are.  Diluting the quality of the product is never a good idea.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
42 minutes ago, whole-show said:

Interesting topic and I’ve always wondered, they always talk about places like London, but my thought that I‘ve personally never heard until this thread and do see that Catbird mentioned one of the places where I’ve always thought about by naming Toronto. But why do you not hear about Canada? Also why have they not played a game there? Is it because of the CFL due to some sort of contract CFL has with Canada or something? I would think that’s the first place they would want to try and expand to when looking at places outside of the US. I think it could be huge. I could be totally off on this though too obviously, as maybe they have played a game in Canada which I don’t recall and it wasn’t a big draw so not worth the investment or maybe the CFL isn’t a big draw and that’s what they are going off of. 

The Bills played one home game in Toronto every season for about 4-5 years not long ago.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
57 minutes ago, Dr. Dan said:

With less and less kids playing football, there will be a lesser quality pool of athletes to choose from. A dilution of talent by expanding the league will even make this worse.

IMO the NFL realizes this. So instead of expanding teams and increasing profits that way, they are looking to take the crop of players they have now and get a little more out of them.

This 17th game only contributes to the slow bleed out of the NFL...

As a coach of 9 years(College and HS), you're being dramatic about the amount of kids playing football. Is it less than 20 years ago? Yes. Wouldn't we have already seen the effects from this then in college?

The NFL is the #1 sport in the US generating a huge amount of money. I've seen ppl discuss the level of QB play as a reason not to add teams. I'll pivot to team implementing different strategies to win. Lamar Jackson, Josh Allen, Colin Kaepernick.....Tennessee/49ers and other teams have made huge runs by pivoting to a run based approach with PA passes. Other teams have done well with great defenses. You can't keep playing the game like everyone else. 

Even if we play the diluted talent angle....that means increased strategy. Ever play FF with 14+ teams...more skill, less luck is required.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

An interesting market that I mentioned which might get an NFL expansion franchise is Oklahoma City.  One of the arguments that could be made against OKC is the fact that they might have to share a stadium with the University of Oklahoma, but other than that, I see no reason why the NFL can't put an expansion team there.  But i guess it depends on which end of I-44 you want to put a team in: STL or OKC?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 3/15/2020 at 4:06 PM, whole-show said:

Interesting topic and I’ve always wondered, they always talk about places like London, but my thought that I‘ve personally never heard until this thread and do see that Catbird mentioned one of the places where I’ve always thought about by naming Toronto. But why do you not hear about Canada? Also why have they not played a game there? Is it because of the CFL due to some sort of contract CFL has with Canada or something? I would think that’s the first place they would want to try and expand to when looking at places outside of the US. I think it could be huge. I could be totally off on this though too obviously, as maybe they have played a game in Canada which I don’t recall and it wasn’t a big draw so not worth the investment or maybe the CFL isn’t a big draw and that’s what they are going off of. 

As a Torontonian, I can tell you the effort and thought behind bringing an NFL team to the city has been a topic since I lived there as a kid. @Dr. Octopus has it right about Bills preseason and regular season games being held in Toronto, and there is still a big contingent that travels an hour and a half to Buffalo to catch games (something I would do with my Dad once a season growing up).

There are some huge plusses -- it's a huge city (4th biggest in North America, and the largest market in the United States or Canada without an NFL team) with an incredibly diverse population -- no question it could support a team financially and in terms of interest. 

Drawbacks and roadblocks haven't changed, which include:

  • Financing of a new stadium, which the City of Toronto through a string of different mayors has opposed funding for
  • Paying athletes in Canadian dollars and the FX risk that incurs both ways. Toronto has major sports franchises in the NBA, NHL, MLB, and other professional sports so this is a surmountable hurdle in theory -- but this is a factor that provides owners and players a similar risk profile, coupled with Toronto (and Ontario/Canada in general) also having a high tax rates.
  • Impact on competition -- both in terms of impinging on both the Bills and Toronto's CFL team, the Argonauts. I think they can all co-exist but no question that the Bills draw a lot of support from Southern Ontario (Buffalo's US TV affiliates are broadcast through Southern Ontario) and without question would mean significant impact to both the Argos and the nearby Hamilton Tiger Cats. 
  • Impact on revenue streams -- much of NFL's revenue, and subsequent financial leverage -- comes from TV licenses. At the end of the day, the goal is to build lucrative value for TV broadcast companies for ad and broadcast revenue. A team in Canada isn't increasing the US tv viewing base. This cuts both ways as some major telecoms in Canada have a stake in MLSE which owns the Leafs, Argos and Toronto FC; Rogers owns the Jays. Even if they gained by going in on an venture with MLSE or another partner to bring an NFL team in, it would likely cannibalize broadcast and ad revenue from other sports that run concurrently with the NFL season.

There are probably more reasons than just these, and likely more intricacies and shades of gray in the examples I did provide for both sides of the argument.

I think given the NFL's aims, if they did expand, I can see them doing it internationally given all the investment they've made over the last years -- so Toronto and Mexico City make sense given accessibility, size, and past involvement; London seems like good bet as well given the NFL's continued push for visibility there, and I can also see them considering a German city, where NFL EU made a splash (so maybe Frankfurt). Other major markets in the US without a team like San Antonio also make sense.

Portland seems like less of an attractive location -- from a market/population size -- than looking to expand into Austin or other international areas that are much bigger (Ottawa, Calgary, Montreal, Guadalajara. Juarez, San Jose, Columbus).

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
20 hours ago, Stompin' Tom Connors said:

As a Torontonian, I can tell you the effort and thought behind bringing an NFL team to the city has been a topic since I lived there as a kid. @Dr. Octopus has it right about Bills preseason and regular season games being held in Toronto, and there is still a big contingent that travels an hour and a half to Buffalo to catch games (something I would do with my Dad once a season growing up).

There are some huge plusses -- it's a huge city (4th biggest in North America, and the largest market in the United States or Canada without an NFL team) with an incredibly diverse population -- no question it could support a team financially and in terms of interest. 

Drawbacks and roadblocks haven't changed, which include:

  • Financing of a new stadium, which the City of Toronto through a string of different mayors has opposed funding for
  • Paying athletes in Canadian dollars and the FX risk that incurs both ways. Toronto has major sports franchises in the NBA, NHL, MLB, and other professional sports so this is a surmountable hurdle in theory -- but this is a factor that provides owners and players a similar risk profile, coupled with Toronto (and Ontario/Canada in general) also having a high tax rates.
  • Impact on competition -- both in terms of impinging on both the Bills and Toronto's CFL team, the Argonauts. I think they can all co-exist but no question that the Bills draw a lot of support from Southern Ontario (Buffalo's US TV affiliates are broadcast through Southern Ontario) and without question would mean significant impact to both the Argos and the nearby Hamilton Tiger Cats. 
  • Impact on revenue streams -- much of NFL's revenue, and subsequent financial leverage -- comes from TV licenses. At the end of the day, the goal is to build lucrative value for TV broadcast companies for ad and broadcast revenue. A team in Canada isn't increasing the US tv viewing base. This cuts both ways as some major telecoms in Canada have a stake in MLSE which owns the Leafs, Argos and Toronto FC; Rogers owns the Jays. Even if they gained by going in on an venture with MLSE or another partner to bring an NFL team in, it would likely cannibalize broadcast and ad revenue from other sports that run concurrently with the NFL season.

There are probably more reasons than just these, and likely more intricacies and shades of gray in the examples I did provide for both sides of the argument.

I think given the NFL's aims, if they did expand, I can see them doing it internationally given all the investment they've made over the last years -- so Toronto and Mexico City make sense given accessibility, size, and past involvement; London seems like good bet as well given the NFL's continued push for visibility there, and I can also see them considering a German city, where NFL EU made a splash (so maybe Frankfurt). Other major markets in the US without a team like San Antonio also make sense.

Portland seems like less of an attractive location -- from a market/population size -- than looking to expand into Austin or other international areas that are much bigger (Ottawa, Calgary, Montreal, Guadalajara. Juarez, San Jose, Columbus).

Ottawa and Calgary?!  C'mon man.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There's a reason why the sport is listed on Wikipedia as American football.  They should keep the sport in the U.S.

Besides, there's no way the NFL would have teams in two markets that are within 25 miles of each other.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The only places the NFL would expand to are Mexico or London. Why else have those international games?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 hours ago, Yogibear said:

There's a reason why the sport is listed on Wikipedia as American football.  They should keep the sport in the U.S.

That’s not the reason. 🤣

  • Laughing 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Do NOT expand the league.

If everything was/is equal it means that an AVERAGE NFL fan can expect a Super Bowl winning team every 32 GD years right now.  That equals to two times during an average lifespan. 

If your team wins when you are below the age of 12 and they don't win again till you are 85 then your winning experiences likely will take place when you are in diapers of one sort or another.  

The NFL experience sucks for the average fan who wants to see a SB win because 31 teams will lose right now.  That is a lot of unsatisfied/upset/unhappy fans.  

Why the hell would an NFL want expansion?  So the 'bastage' owners can rape metropolitan areas of tax money and the rest of get a pile of #### expansion team that nobody cares about which waters down the experience for everyone who has vested decades rooting for a team who 'likely' is never going to win a Super Bowl in their lifetime where they can enjoy it?

#### expansion.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Bracie Smathers said:

Do NOT expand the league.

If everything was/is equal it means that an AVERAGE NFL fan can expect a Super Bowl winning team every 32 GD years right now.  That equals to two times during an average lifespan. 

If your team wins when you are below the age of 12 and they don't win again till you are 85 then your winning experiences likely will take place when you are in diapers of one sort or another.  

The NFL experience sucks for the average fan who wants to see a SB win because 31 teams will lose right now.  That is a lot of unsatisfied/upset/unhappy fans.  

Why the hell would an NFL want expansion?  So the 'bastage' owners can rape metropolitan areas of tax money and the rest of get a pile of #### expansion team that nobody cares about which waters down the experience for everyone who has vested decades rooting for a team who 'likely' is never going to win a Super Bowl in their lifetime where they can enjoy it?

#### expansion.

... You mean the owners only care about making more money?  Gasp!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
20 hours ago, Deamon said:

Ottawa and Calgary?!  C'mon man.

Not sure those are viable NFL cities, but realistically, from a fanbase perspective, the population (from last census 2015) of Calgary is larger than San Jose, and Ottawa is larger than Austin, Jacksonville, San Fran, Indianapolis, Charlotte, Seattle, Denver, Detroit, DC, Portland, OK City, LV, and Baltimore.

This data does not take into account greater metropolitan areas, which is more fluid and helps inflate the market size, and would likely rank those two cities amid or lower than others listed above. They at least have CFL support and could likely support another pro franchise based on urban population alone.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
19 hours ago, Yogibear said:

There's a reason why the sport is listed on Wikipedia as American football.  They should keep the sport in the U.S.

Besides, there's no way the NFL would have teams in two markets that are within 25 miles of each other.

Baltimore and DC are like 30 miles away and Canada is in North America.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, jasvic said:

Baltimore and DC are like 30 miles away and Canada is in North America.

And the Jets and Giants play in the same Stadium. 
Philly and Baltimore are also pretty close.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 minutes ago, Dr. Octopus said:

And the Jets and Giants play in the same Stadium. 
Philly and Baltimore are also pretty close.

Washington DC is even closer

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, jasvic said:

Baltimore and DC are like 30 miles away and Canada is in North America.

 

3 hours ago, Dr. Octopus said:

And the Jets and Giants play in the same Stadium. 
Philly and Baltimore are also pretty close.

 

3 hours ago, Wise Old Owl said:

Washington DC is even closer

The distance from Baltimore to DC according to Mapquest is 38.6 miles.  The Jets and the Giants are an exception because they're both in New York, but they're in different conferences.  The distance between Philly and Baltimore according to Mapquest is 102.5 miles.  And, for the record, the distance between Philly and DC is 144 miles, according to Mapquest.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

Unfortunately the 17 game season and the deals with Tottenham and Wembley make it seem like London is a planned, conscious and forced choice they have been working for for some time. It's too bad IMO, as is the 17 game season. They'll pick some other random city for the other location, though the NFL played with 31 for a while so no doubt they could just go with 33.

Mex City has had problems with altitude & conditioning and also the field, and the exchange rate must truly suck for the NFLPA, so I'm thinking Orlando, St Louis or anywhere that will build a stadium really.

Edited by SaintsInDome2006

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Yogibear said:

 

 

The distance from Baltimore to DC according to Mapquest is 38.6 miles.  The Jets and the Giants are an exception because they're both in New York, but they're in different conferences.  The distance between Philly and Baltimore according to Mapquest is 102.5 miles.  And, for the record, the distance between Philly and DC is 144 miles, according to Mapquest.

I was just pointing out someone using Baltimore and Philly being an example of close cities when Phily isn't even the closest NFL team to Baltimore. They do feel like very different markets though.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 4/1/2020 at 10:03 AM, Stompin' Tom Connors said:

Not sure those are viable NFL cities, but realistically, from a fanbase perspective, the population (from last census 2015) of Calgary is larger than San Jose, and Ottawa is larger than Austin, Jacksonville, San Fran, Indianapolis, Charlotte, Seattle, Denver, Detroit, DC, Portland, OK City, LV, and Baltimore.

This data does not take into account greater metropolitan areas, which is more fluid and helps inflate the market size, and would likely rank those two cities amid or lower than others listed above. They at least have CFL support and could likely support another pro franchise based on urban population alone.

No chance would either of those two cities support and NFL team.  CFL is a totally different sport, with cheaper tickets, a way different fan base, etc.  Not to mention the lack of a stadium, very cold weather, and a million other reasons.  Toronto is the only viable Canadian city for an NFL team due to their population.  A Canadian city like Calgary or Ottawa with 1 million people, would never ever work.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 4/1/2020 at 7:19 AM, Bracie Smathers said:

 

If your team wins when you are below the age of 12 and they don't win again till you are 85 then your winning experiences likely will take place when you are in diapers of one sort or another.  

 

How long did you wear diapers? 

  • Laughing 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 4/3/2020 at 4:43 AM, Deamon said:

Toronto is the only viable Canadian city for an NFL team due to their population.  A Canadian city like Calgary or Ottawa with 1 million people, would never ever work.

The Argonauts drew less than 150,000 fans for their entire season last year.  I posted in a different 'expansion' thread and it was around 125,000 if that.

The entire CFL  attendance was down last year but Toronto was terrible.

CFL attendance down 6.5 per cent from 2018

Talk of expansion and of lengthening the NFL season seems madness in the midst of  the Covid19 situation.  I doubt people will be flocking to fill stadiums unless the coast is crystal clear and even then I think risk assessment will hinder stadium events for years.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 4/3/2020 at 1:43 AM, Deamon said:

No chance would either of those two cities support and NFL team.  CFL is a totally different sport, with cheaper tickets, a way different fan base, etc.  Not to mention the lack of a stadium, very cold weather, and a million other reasons.  Toronto is the only viable Canadian city for an NFL team due to their population.  A Canadian city like Calgary or Ottawa with 1 million people, would never ever work.

Montreal and Vancouver are large enough to support a team based on population.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, Stompin' Tom Connors said:

Montreal and Vancouver are large enough to support a team based on population.

Don't agree.  In Canada you  would need a significantly higher population for a host city than vs its American counterpart.  San Antonio and Calgary have roughly the same population but I guarantee you the following in San Antonio would be astronomically higher.  And that doesn't even take into account temperatures, sponsorship, stadium, investments, endorsements, etc. etc.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16 minutes ago, Deamon said:

Don't agree.  In Canada you  would need a significantly higher population for a host city than vs its American counterpart.  San Antonio and Calgary have roughly the same population but I guarantee you the following in San Antonio would be astronomically higher.  And that doesn't even take into account temperatures, sponsorship, stadium, investments, endorsements, etc. etc.

Sorry, you keep disagreeing but not clear what you are disagreeing about here as you keep coming back to Calgary.

Montreal and Vancouver are both big enough and have and had hosted major league franchises. So the argument that you need more Canadian fans to make it work is false both from a market size (both these cities are bigger than most US cities with similar franchises) and interest/history (both these cities have hosted MLB and NBA franchises, as well as NHL clubs).

I'm not denying there are hurdles with a team in Canada -- I listed some extensive reasons why the NFL coming to Canada is a longshot in my post. But if your reason for thinking this is an impossibility is simply because Canadians aren't as interested or because of the weather, will happily agree to disagree and leave it be.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Stompin' Tom Connors said:

Sorry, you keep disagreeing but not clear what you are disagreeing about here as you keep coming back to Calgary.

Montreal and Vancouver are both big enough and have and had hosted major league franchises. So the argument that you need more Canadian fans to make it work is false both from a market size (both these cities are bigger than most US cities with similar franchises) and interest/history (both these cities have hosted MLB and NBA franchises, as well as NHL clubs).

I'm not denying there are hurdles with a team in Canada -- I listed some extensive reasons why the NFL coming to Canada is a longshot in my post. But if your reason for thinking this is an impossibility is simply because Canadians aren't as interested or because of the weather, will happily agree to disagree and leave it be.

Came back to Calgary as I was making a comparison to a Canadian vs American town of the same population... in order to point out that you need more Canadian population vs an American counterpart.

Montreal DID have an MLB Franchise (that failed) but never NBA.  Vancouver DID have an NBA Franchise (that failed) but never MLB.

Yes they aren't as invested in the sports.  Lots of NFL fans for sure, but selling season tickets for decades is a lot different.  Most of the CFL fans are an older demographic or people who don't follow the NFL.  I've lived here my entire life and feel I have a pretty good grasp on the possibility of an NFL Franchise in Vancouver, Calgary, Ottawa, or Montreal.
 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Deamon said:

Came back to Calgary as I was making a comparison to a Canadian vs American town of the same population... in order to point out that you need more Canadian population vs an American counterpart.

Montreal DID have an MLB Franchise (that failed) but never NBA.  Vancouver DID have an NBA Franchise (that failed) but never MLB.

Yes they aren't as invested in the sports.  Lots of NFL fans for sure, but selling season tickets for decades is a lot different.  Most of the CFL fans are an older demographic or people who don't follow the NFL.  I've lived here my entire life and feel I have a pretty good grasp on the possibility of an NFL Franchise in Vancouver, Calgary, Ottawa, or Montreal.
 

I get that you were trying to say you need more Canadian population than a US counterpart -- I just find it a bit of a ridiculous suggestion when there is existing evidence of major league teams thriving in these cities, and just as many "failures" of teams folding in US cities. I don't know what quantifiable evidence there is of Canadians not being interested enough in pro football or sports to make such an assertion.

I mean, their USED to be team in St. Louis. And San Diego. And Akron, Canton, Frankford, Providence, and Pottsville. I don't think you can universally say that they folded just because of non-investment in the sport as you casually suggest would happen in Canada.

I think the reasons the NFL doesn't have a foothold north of the border are myriad and diverse, the very least of which is that world-class cities like Vancouver, Montreal, or Toronto don't have enough fans who would support it. I am hesitating to call Calgary a world class city only because I've only been there once when I was 12.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Stompin' Tom Connors said:

I get that you were trying to say you need more Canadian population than a US counterpart -- I just find it a bit of a ridiculous suggestion when there is existing evidence of major league teams thriving in these cities, and just as many "failures" of teams folding in US cities. I don't know what quantifiable evidence there is of Canadians not being interested enough in pro football or sports to make such an assertion.

I mean, their USED to be team in St. Louis. And San Diego. And Akron, Canton, Frankford, Providence, and Pottsville. I don't think you can universally say that they folded just because of non-investment in the sport as you casually suggest would happen in Canada.

I think the reasons the NFL doesn't have a foothold north of the border are myriad and diverse, the very least of which is that world-class cities like Vancouver, Montreal, or Toronto don't have enough fans who would support it. I am hesitating to call Calgary a world class city only because I've only been there once when I was 12.

Ouch. Well we're hosted the Olympics here so I'd say it's a world class city.  Regardless, yes when 100 percent of the pro sports teams (obviously hockey is not included here as there's massive following) in Vancouver and Montreal fail because of low fan numbers, then that's a massive concern you're ignoring.  Again you're backpedaling on Calgary and Ottawa but youre the one who brought them up as potential spots. Not sure how long you have lived in Canada or if you even do, but there's no way Vancouver or Montreal would support the fan base for an NFL team. Toronto would have a shot based on their population, the corporate seat sales needed, etc. But they are the only Canadian city that would ever be considered. 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
30 minutes ago, Deamon said:

Ouch. Well we're hosted the Olympics here so I'd say it's a world class city.  Regardless, yes when 100 percent of the pro sports teams (obviously hockey is not included here as there's massive following) in Vancouver and Montreal fail because of low fan numbers, then that's a massive concern you're ignoring.  Again you're backpedaling on Calgary and Ottawa but youre the one who brought them up as potential spots. Not sure how long you have lived in Canada or if you even do, but there's no way Vancouver or Montreal would support the fan base for an NFL team. Toronto would have a shot based on their population, the corporate seat sales needed, etc. But they are the only Canadian city that would ever be considered. 

No slight on Calgary intended -- I can't call it a world class city as I was there over three decades ago or more, and not sure an impression through a pre-teen's eyes is the best one to use. 

I think you are washing over a heck of a lot with broad sweeping generalizations. Vancouver Grizzlies had median attendance numbers their first three seasons. They had a fairly poor team after that, and attendance fell -- which is not endemic to Canadian cities or fans. The fact that they relocated had as much to do with a weak CAD, harder to attract talent to Canada given tax and FX implications, a lockout during the team's tenure, and that the team was owned by non-local interests as much as a poor team/attendance. 

A strike also exacerbated the downfall of the Expos -- after the general walkout in 1994, the team sold off some of its most endeared players -- Grissom, Walker, Hill, Wetteland, Alou, Martinez, and Rojas -- the core of a team that had multiple all-stars and playoff appearances -- all were sold, traded, or allowed to walk in FA so they were off the books before arbitration. Fans were furious at the front office, and voted with their feet. The team's attendance never recovered.

So to recap, both these cities have supported major league franchises and could support an NFL franchise. Whether they want to or not is up in the air, as it has been in US cities (my Raiders, for one, just moved from Oakland as the city of Oakland didn't want to choose funding a new stadium among other factors).

But rather than saying these teams won't support a franchise, you seem to be saying they inherently can't. Those are two different things and I disagree entirely.

Let's leave it there, I don't think we're getting anywhere with each other, and at this point, it's not worth continuing.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Stompin' Tom Connors said:

No slight on Calgary intended -- I can't call it a world class city as I was there over three decades ago or more, and not sure an impression through a pre-teen's eyes is the best one to use. 

I think you are washing over a heck of a lot with broad sweeping generalizations. Vancouver Grizzlies had median attendance numbers their first three seasons. They had a fairly poor team after that, and attendance fell -- which is not endemic to Canadian cities or fans. The fact that they relocated had as much to do with a weak CAD, harder to attract talent to Canada given tax and FX implications, a lockout during the team's tenure, and that the team was owned by non-local interests as much as a poor team/attendance. 

A strike also exacerbated the downfall of the Expos -- after the general walkout in 1994, the team sold off some of its most endeared players -- Grissom, Walker, Hill, Wetteland, Alou, Martinez, and Rojas -- the core of a team that had multiple all-stars and playoff appearances -- all were sold, traded, or allowed to walk in FA so they were off the books before arbitration. Fans were furious at the front office, and voted with their feet. The team's attendance never recovered.

So to recap, both these cities have supported major league franchises and could support an NFL franchise. Whether they want to or not is up in the air, as it has been in US cities (my Raiders, for one, just moved from Oakland as the city of Oakland didn't want to choose funding a new stadium among other factors).

But rather than saying these teams won't support a franchise, you seem to be saying they inherently can't. Those are two different things and I disagree entirely.

Let's leave it there, I don't think we're getting anywhere with each other, and at this point, it's not worth continuing.

I'm fairly confident they can't.  WOuld be shocking if Toronto could and they have far higher of a chance.  I also believe NFL football would need a stronger fan base than a basketball team in Vancouver.  Your facts on those teams leaving are quite off but we don't need to go there now.  If you've been to CFL games up here, they have a pretty good following but those fans are usually not NFL fans.  Both simply would not work and yes, you need a much higher population in a country that doesn't support the sport as much.  Anyways, those two cities are never going to happen so no point in discussing it. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I just watched a YouTube video from TPS called "10 cities that deserve an NFL franchise".  Here's the list:

10. Omaha

9. Orlando

8. Birmingham

7. Honolulu

6. Portland

5. St. Louis

4. Louisville

3. San Antonio

2. San Diego

1. Austin

The one that sticks out at me is Honolulu.  I know they used to host the Pro Bowl before it went to Orlando, but how would the NFL handle a franchise that's not part of the greater U.S.?  What I'm asking is would the NFL benefit from having a team in Hawaii?  I want to hear from people in the Aloha State on this!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

We won't see full stadiums for years.  👉 >>  Report: NFL’s contingency plans include shortened season, empty stadiums

During a time of a killer virus construction workers have been deemed essential building stadiums to nowhere.

The NFL isn't putting up the money to build new stadiums, taxpayers are paying for the stadiums to nowhere.

Talking Heads Road To Nowhere

We're on a road  (stadium) to nowhere

Come on inside

Takin' that ride to nowhere

We'll take that ride

Edited by Bracie Smathers

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Yogibear said:

I just watched a YouTube video from TPS called "10 cities that deserve an NFL franchise".  Here's the list:

10. Omaha

9. Orlando

8. Birmingham

7. Honolulu

6. Portland

5. St. Louis

4. Louisville

3. San Antonio

2. San Diego

1. Austin

The one that sticks out at me is Honolulu.  I know they used to host the Pro Bowl before it went to Orlando, but how would the NFL handle a franchise that's not part of the greater U.S.?  What I'm asking is would the NFL benefit from having a team in Hawaii?  I want to hear from people in the Aloha State on this!

No East Coast team is going to want to fly to Honolulu - and vice versa.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
54 minutes ago, Bracie Smathers said:

We won't see full stadiums for years

Years? It's possible for this season - very little chance there's no crowds in 2021 imo. Even if there is no vaccine, herd immunity would take over by then.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, Dr. Octopus said:

Years? It's possible for this season - very little chance there's no crowds in 2021 imo. Even if there is no vaccine, herd immunity would take over by then.

Its called COVID19 for a reason.  They are still uncovering different strains.  >>  8 strains of the coronavirus are circling the globe. Here's what clues they're giving scientists.  

Quote

– At least eight strains ...

We're dealing with the 2019 Coronavirus right now and that has at-least 8 different strains.  

We have yet to get hit with COVID20 which will 'likely' take place during the cold-and-flu season which hits during late fall. 

Distancing works, gathering in large stadium capacity groups?  Probably not a good idea but then again I don't think stadium construction workers are essential and I see no need for taxpayers to foot the bill for stadiums that won't see full capacity anytime soon if they ever will.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
10 minutes ago, Bracie Smathers said:

Its called COVID19 for a reason. 

Yes, because it started in the year 2019. 

 

Quote

OVID-19 is the name given by the World Health Organization (WHO) on February 11, 2020  for the disease caused by the novel coronavirus SARS-CoV-2. It started in Wuhan, China in late 2019 and has since spread worldwide. COVID-19 is an acronym that stands for coronavirus disease of 2019.

https://www.goodrx.com/blog/what-does-covid-19-mean-who-named-it/

Edited by Dr. Octopus

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Dr. Octopus said:

Yes, because it started in the year 2019. 

Lil more complicated than that...

Science Daily Science News from research organizations COVID-19 coronavirus epidemic has a natural origin

Quote

 

...Coronaviruses are a large family of viruses that can cause illnesses ranging widely in severity. The first known severe illness caused by a coronavirus emerged with the 2003 Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome (SARS) epidemic in China. A second outbreak of severe illness began in 2012 in Saudi Arabia with the Middle East Respiratory Syndrome (MERS).

On December 31 of last year, Chinese authorities alerted the World Health Organization of an outbreak of a novel strain of coronavirus ...

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Restore formatting

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Sign in to follow this  

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.