⚡DEADHEAD⚡
Footballguy
The LA thread made me wonder that cities could support an NFL team. I don't think LA could or would, but I wonder if cities like Oklahoma City, Portland, San Antonio (please not another Texas team), or maybe Omaha (???) could.
Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums
This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!
If the NFL expanded... (2 Viewers)
- Thread starter ⚡DEADHEAD⚡
- Start date
Weiner Dog
Footballguy
I would assume Columbus, OH is probably the largest city currently with no pro football, basketball or baseball team.
Beetlejuice
Footballguy
Fargo
delusional
Footballguy
* Arkansas
* Hawaii
* Kansas (The Kansas City Chiefs play in Kansas City, Missouri)
* Nebraska
* Nevada
* New Mexico
* North Dakota
* Oklahoma
* Oregon
* South Dakota
* Utah
* Hawaii
* Kansas (The Kansas City Chiefs play in Kansas City, Missouri)
* Nebraska
* Nevada
* New Mexico
* North Dakota
* Oklahoma
* Oregon
* South Dakota
* Utah
two_dollars
Footballguy
Toronto
Sleeping King
Footballguy
This is the correct way of thinking. It may not be Toronto but my best guess is the next franchise is outside the States.
fsufan
Footballguy
Das Boot
Footballguy
This may well be true, but Columbus already is surrounded by NFL teams... Browns, Bengals, Colts, Steelers. Plus to a large extent, the NFL would be knocking heads with the Buckeyes.So I'd say it's very unlikely.
The Real Hipster Doofus
Footballguy
I would agree Toronto would be good.
two_dollars
Footballguy
Mexico City (as mentioned) could be one, London may be another.
delusional
Footballguy
#### no @ London. Keep the game in North America where people actually care about the game.
Lord Lucan
Footballguy
As ignorant a post as you will ever read on here.
delusional
Footballguy
How so? Are you actually going to tell me that cities over there are demanding an NFL team? That majority of the population would be upset if they didn't recieve a team?Teams have trouble going from coast to coast in the states, I don't think traveling back and forth to london would be the smart thing to do weekly.
Last edited by a moderator:
Instinctive
Footballguy
The biggest issue with putting an NFL team in OKC or Columbus is the wild and storied success of their collegiate teams.
In the NBA, the OKC Thunder are incredibly popular for a couple reasons:
1. OU sucks at basketball. We really really suck.
2. College students thus give a great atmosphere to Thunder games.
3. No team is close that really had an established fanbase.
With an NFL team, you'd have to compete with OU football, something we definitely do not suck at. Not only that, but an NFL team is close enough to Dallas and Kansas City that going to their home games 8 times a year and tailgating is actually possible, whereas going to, for instance, a Mavs game 41 times a year is impractical - thus the success of the NBA where the NFL would flounder.
I assume the same thing would happen to a franchise attempting to set itself up in Columbus, especially with the OSU, Browns, Bengals all in state, and Indy/Pittsburgh relatively close.
I think if you were going to put an NFL team anywhere that could support it one, it would have to be Mexico City, Toronto, or Las Vegas. Personally, I think Las Vegas would be a great fit if the league could find some way to eliminate the worry of all the gambling issues they could have with a team stationed there. Maybe the solution would be a city near Vegas that would draw on the market without putting the players right on the strip...? Probably a better way out there, just not off the top of my head.
In the NBA, the OKC Thunder are incredibly popular for a couple reasons:
1. OU sucks at basketball. We really really suck.
2. College students thus give a great atmosphere to Thunder games.
3. No team is close that really had an established fanbase.
With an NFL team, you'd have to compete with OU football, something we definitely do not suck at. Not only that, but an NFL team is close enough to Dallas and Kansas City that going to their home games 8 times a year and tailgating is actually possible, whereas going to, for instance, a Mavs game 41 times a year is impractical - thus the success of the NBA where the NFL would flounder.
I assume the same thing would happen to a franchise attempting to set itself up in Columbus, especially with the OSU, Browns, Bengals all in state, and Indy/Pittsburgh relatively close.
I think if you were going to put an NFL team anywhere that could support it one, it would have to be Mexico City, Toronto, or Las Vegas. Personally, I think Las Vegas would be a great fit if the league could find some way to eliminate the worry of all the gambling issues they could have with a team stationed there. Maybe the solution would be a city near Vegas that would draw on the market without putting the players right on the strip...? Probably a better way out there, just not off the top of my head.
Instinctive
Footballguy
I agree with the travel issues. I agree that soccer rules overseas.But do you see the massive amount of tickets and popularity of the once-a-year game in London? Who knows, perhaps one team over there would be feasible.
Lord Lucan
Footballguy
No, you implied that people outside North America didn't care about the game. That was ignorant.There are numerous legitimate issues relating to the feasibility of a franchise in the UK and many people would be surprised that a lot of the most passionate NFL fans in this country have reservations about having a team over here, for various reasons, not least that many of them are already devoted fans of an existing NFL team.
Last edited by a moderator:
Austin TX is the largest city in the US without a professional sports team right now. I have only been here a short time but I don't think most residents (at least in Austin proper) really care about adding a team either.Cities I can see having a team in the future: LA, LV, Toronto, some other international city?
I was in the pool
Footballguy
Richmond, Virginia
I was in the pool
Footballguy
Eureka, CA
Trizzler
Footballguy
I've noticed that the Thunder have a huge following despite being a new team. Probably the brightest thing that's happened to the NBA in the past decade. However, going off that logic...Waco, TX should get the next team. Despite making a bowl this season, Baylor is god awful at football, yet very good at basketball. They could be the Waco Christian Extremists.
dharmapunk
Footballguy
1. Toronto
2. Los Angeles
3. Mexico City
In that order.
2. Los Angeles
3. Mexico City
In that order.
The Real Hipster Doofus
Footballguy
To expand on Toronto...
You have a city with 2.5 million people. If you include the entire metro area, it is 5.6 million. That dwarfs any other proposed areas besides LA and Mexico City (which IMO aren't feasible).
They already play football there so there is a following for the sport.
They expand the NFL to another huge market and a whole new country. I know people there that follow the NFL but it's different when you have your own team and don't have to root for the Bills.
I don't think the NFL will actually go this route, but IMO it would be the best choice if expansion were to occur.
You have a city with 2.5 million people. If you include the entire metro area, it is 5.6 million. That dwarfs any other proposed areas besides LA and Mexico City (which IMO aren't feasible).
They already play football there so there is a following for the sport.
They expand the NFL to another huge market and a whole new country. I know people there that follow the NFL but it's different when you have your own team and don't have to root for the Bills.
I don't think the NFL will actually go this route, but IMO it would be the best choice if expansion were to occur.
caglassc
President James Madison - Football Guru
The OKC metro area could not support an NFL team right now. The numbers just don't support it (population with enough disposable income, etc). There is a sizable OU and OSU basketball fan base in the area that are enthusiastic about the Thunder and the Hornets before them. Most of the OU fan base would support their football team before they would spend money on an NFL team. The OSU fan base are split between basketball, wrestling, baseball and football programs. Most adults here are either Chiefs or Cowboys fans and speaking for myself - I would find it hard to root for a local NFL team that moved in. I did not grow up an NBA fan - I rooted for college basketball (North Carolina) and thus when the Thunder moved into town I was an easy convert. However, OKC has an economy that is growing by leaps and bounds. The downtown area continues to improve with several projects underway that continue to remake the entire area. So, in the future we probably could support a team. The fans here would be tremendous if they could financially support a team!
roadkill1292
Footballguy
I was thinking more along the lines of contraction. If the NFL hasn't reached its peak of popularity, then I think it can at least see it from where it is.
captain_amazing
Footballguy
Completely agree. 28 teams: too low. 36 teams: too much. 32 teams....Just right :X 
Fensalk
Footballguy
The NFL has never been more popular than 2010. Ratings are through the roof, particularly with the 18-49 demographic. The sky is the limit for this league. There are good arguments to make as to why not to expand, but worries about the league's popularity is definitely not one of them.
Fixed
roadkill1292
Footballguy
Things change. There are definitely limits.
Honestly I can not believe they would put a team in Mexico City. Who is going to sign there as a free agent? We only had 11 players kidnapped last year and one even survived. Right.
London is just not possible unless they are going to do a whole division in Europe. The travel costs would be unreal. The scheduling would be crazy also but could work. A eam could stay for 2-4 games overseas at a time. The European teams would play all their games overseas and then all their American games. London, Paris, Madrid, and Rome (Berlin or Brussels). Try enforscing the drug policy with a team in Amsterdam or Copenhagen.
London is just not possible unless they are going to do a whole division in Europe. The travel costs would be unreal. The scheduling would be crazy also but could work. A eam could stay for 2-4 games overseas at a time. The European teams would play all their games overseas and then all their American games. London, Paris, Madrid, and Rome (Berlin or Brussels). Try enforscing the drug policy with a team in Amsterdam or Copenhagen.
QuizGuy66
Footballguy
Qatar
Of course FIFA probably was looking at the awarding of the Super Bowl to Giants Stadium in a couple years when they picked them 
-QGIf you combined these teams would you have a playoff team?how about cincinattithey could use a team
King of the Wolfies
Footballguy
i dont think there's enough quality players and coaches for the existing 32 teams. i could see mexico city, london and toronto getting existing teams.
Being from Utah, I can attest to the fact that we will never never EVER be able to support an NFL franchise. It all comes down to business decisions and making money. The NFL plays the majority of their games on Sunday. The management of any NFL team exists to get butts in seats for home games to support the bottom line.The predominant religion in this area preaches that Sunday is a day of rest and you should not perform any kind of physical activity or business on the Sabbath. This includes that you should not patronize any kind of business establishment as by doing so you make it necessary for said establishment to have employment requirements on the Sabbath. While we still do have gas stations and grocery stores and such open on Sundays I can confidently say that it is almost a guarantee to be the least lucrative day of the week to operate.
On the flip side, if I ever want to go see a movie or do my grocery shopping then Sunday is the best day of the week to do it as there are less crowds and less hassle involved.
kerpow
Footballguy
Completely agree, there is only a finite amount of talent. If guys like Jake Delhomme are still playing in a 32 team league, imagine what kind of mediocrity would play if more teams were introduced. While I'm not crazy about increasing the number of games to 18, it makes much more sense than expanding to 34 or 36 teams.King of the Wolfies said:
TheChairman
Footballguy
London would be cool. Maybe they could make a whole European conference. Kind of like have their own league. Imagine how insanely successful that would be.
dino259
Footballguy
This is also why the NFL needs to be careful how many games are shown every week. It used to be just your Sunday game plus the monday night game. Then they added sunday night, then they added the Thursday game of the first week of the season, then they added the saturday games after college football was done, then they added the 3rd Thanksgiving night game, then they added the thursday night games in the middle of the season, and then they added the double header on Monday night of opening weekend. The more times you can just randomly sit down and watch an NFL game increases the supply and thus decreases demand. People think, "I don't need to watch this game, I can just watch the next". This doesn't even take into account the Sunday ticket package or the Red Zone Channel.As other have said, the level of QB play alone may or may not be enough for 32 teams the way it is.roadkill1292 said:
tonyftony716
Footballguy
1. LA
2. Mexico City
3. Toronto (I wouldn't be surprised to see the Bills here in a few years)
4. London
5. Oklahoma City
6. San Antonio
7. Portland
That's all I can see. Las Vegas would be a great spot for a pro franchise but the NFL would never do it. Too much controversy. LA should have a team and their is no doubt they will in the next 5 years. Mexico City would be a huge market for the NFL but it would have risk involved being in Mexico. Toronto could end up with the bills in 5-10 years and London seems to be where the NFL front office wants to be down the road. 5-7 are smaller markets and longer shots. I think the NFL wants to stay in bigger markets now and not repeat some of the issues they have in Jacksonville.
2. Mexico City
3. Toronto (I wouldn't be surprised to see the Bills here in a few years)
4. London
5. Oklahoma City
6. San Antonio
7. Portland
That's all I can see. Las Vegas would be a great spot for a pro franchise but the NFL would never do it. Too much controversy. LA should have a team and their is no doubt they will in the next 5 years. Mexico City would be a huge market for the NFL but it would have risk involved being in Mexico. Toronto could end up with the bills in 5-10 years and London seems to be where the NFL front office wants to be down the road. 5-7 are smaller markets and longer shots. I think the NFL wants to stay in bigger markets now and not repeat some of the issues they have in Jacksonville.
Jeff Pasquino
Footballguy
Interesting thread.
I agree with some of the locations already mentioned (Toronto, LA, Mexico City) as realistic, but London's too far. Going outside of the US is also an economic concern (contracts in US Dollars? Pesos? Canadian Dollars?).
One thought is to look at the popularity of USFL franchises. IIRC Birmingham was extremely popular - but I don't know about the NFL competing with college football in Alabama.
I agree with some of the locations already mentioned (Toronto, LA, Mexico City) as realistic, but London's too far. Going outside of the US is also an economic concern (contracts in US Dollars? Pesos? Canadian Dollars?).
One thought is to look at the popularity of USFL franchises. IIRC Birmingham was extremely popular - but I don't know about the NFL competing with college football in Alabama.
Similar threads
