DVD Talk
Future NFL expansion,realignment ? [Archive] - DVD Talk Forum
 
Best Sellers
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
The Longest Day
Buy: $54.99 $24.99
9.
10.
DVD Blowouts
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
Alien [Blu-ray]
Buy: $19.99 $9.99
8.
9.
10.

PDA
DVD Reviews

View Full Version : Future NFL expansion,realignment ?


dvd-4-life
08-10-08, 11:15 AM
I would expand by 4 teams--Chicago,New York City,Los Angeles and San Antonio. I would add a third conference(Continental).Have three of the new teams (Chi,LA,NYC) go to the new conference(ABC would televise the conference games).No more 4 team divisions.Have 2 -6 team divisions per conference.Play 3 exhibition,18 regular season games-10 within division-4 other conference teams and 4 games against non-conference games.Have three starting times for the games-noon,3pm and 6 pm(all EST).Eliminate Sunday night and Monday night games and have a special night game here and there.Division winners and top two wild cards qualify for playoffs(1 vs 4,2 vs 3).Following week the winners play for the conference championship,The following week the team with the best record gets a bye and the other two conference winners play too see who plays the bye team for the Superbowl.

Spicollidriver1
08-10-08, 11:18 AM
Why expand in areas that already have teams? I do hate the 4 team divisions so I like that part of it. The bye week should be early not later feels cheap.

dvd-4-life
08-10-08, 11:25 AM
Why expand in areas that already have teams? I do hate the 4 team divisions so I like that part of it. The bye week should be early not later feels cheap.
Expand into Chicago and NYC for tv ratings.Since it would be an 18 game schedule there won't be room for a bye week.

Spicollidriver1
08-10-08, 11:38 AM
I meant the playoff bye it should be the first round not later

dvd-4-life
08-10-08, 11:39 AM
Here would be the conference and division line-ups---Continental Conference East Division-New York (Expansion),Balt.,Cin.,Pitts.,Cleve. and Buf. West Division-LA(Expansion),SD.,Oak.,Den.,KC. and Chicago(Expansion).American Conference East Division-Mia.,NYJ.,NE.,Wash.,Phila. and TB. West Division-Hous.,Ten.,Jax.,Dal.,Car. and NO. National Conference East Division-Mn.,Chi.,Det.,GB,Ind. and NYG. West Division-St L.,SF.,Az.,Sea.,Atl and SA(Expansion).

mcnabb
08-10-08, 11:45 AM
Definitely no more expansion in any of the major sports. It dillutes the talent, and makes for an inferior game then previous years.

Football is fine as it is right now, as long as they keep the Salary Cap(which will be a point of debate when the CBA is up in 2010). Right now you can't go out an buy a Superbowl or even a playoff spot like you can in Baseball, it keeps guys like Jerry Jones and Daniel Snyder from swapping up every great free agent.

The only thing I would eliminate is the Sunday Night game as I think it hurts the Monday Night game. I used to love the mid 80's when I would watch the 1:00 and 4:00 games, then watch the highlights at 7:00 on ESPN, and then would anxiously await the Monday Night game. The Sunday Night game sorta kept you on that football high and I would be burned out by the time the Monday Night game came on. Sometimes less is more.

dvd-4-life
08-10-08, 11:49 AM
Definitely no more expansion in any of the major sports. It dillutes the talent, and makes for an inferior game then previous years.

Football is fine as it is right now, as long as they keep the Salary Cap(which will be a point of debate when the CBA is up in 2010). Right now you can't go out an buy a Superbowl or even a playoff spot like you can in Baseball, it keeps guys like Jerry Jones and Daniel Snyder from swapping up every great free agent.

The only thing I would eliminate is the Sunday Night game as I think it hurts the Monday Night game. I used to love the mid 80's when I would watch the 1:00 and 4:00 games, then watch the highlights at 7:00 on ESPN, and then would anxiously await the Monday Night game. The Sunday Night game sorta kept you on that football high and I would be burned out by the time the Monday Night game came on. Sometimes less is more.
Yeah I get burned out too usually by the end of the doubleheader game but having a 6pm start time there would be interest if one of the teams in your division was still playing rather than waiting for the Sunday night game between 2 teams that you aren't that much interested in watching.

Red Dog
08-10-08, 11:51 AM
Surely the OP is kidding. The NFL current alignment (8 x 4) is perfect as is. Don't fuck with it.

If you want to go to 17 or 18 games, I have no problem with that. If you want more Sunday TV start windows, no problem.

dvd-4-life
08-10-08, 11:54 AM
Surely the OP is kidding. The NFL current alignment (8 x 4) is perfect as is. Don't fuck with it.

If you want to go to 17 or 18 games, I have no problem with that. If you want more Sunday TV start windows, no problem.
Its kind of silly having a league where 25 percent of the teams finish in first place.First place doesn't mean squat in that scenerio.

Red Dog
08-10-08, 11:58 AM
I don't think it's silly at all. :shrug:

Drexl
08-10-08, 12:14 PM
The only change I see coming is an existing team moving to Los Angeles, probably the Jaguars.

I'm not sure there's much realignment they can do. Considering that they want to keep Dallas in the NFC East, everything else seems to make sense (with the possible exceptions of Indianapolis and Baltimore, but maybe they figure Baltimore has some kind of rivalry with the current Browns?). I suppose the LA team could cause some changes to other divisions though.

Red Dog
08-10-08, 12:37 PM
The Ravens have solid rivalries with the Steelers and Clowns. I don't see them messing with that.

The Saints are a prime contender to move to LA too. Frankly, if it weren't for Katrina, they'd probably already be there.

WallyOPD
08-10-08, 12:44 PM
If I had complete control I would realign the divisions as such (spoilerized for length):

NFC East
Washington
NY Giants
Philadelphia
Carolina

NFC North
Detroit
Green Bay
Chicago
Minnesota

NFC South
New Orleans
Tampa Bay
Dallas
Atlanta

NFC West
Seattle
San Francisco
Oakland
San Diego

AFC East
NY Jets
Buffalo
New England
Baltimore

AFC North
Indianapolis
Pittsburgh
Cincinnati
Cleveland

AFC South
Houston
Tennessee
Jacksonville
Miami

AFC West
Arizona
Denver
Kansas City
St. Louis

I realize that wouldn't happen for any number of reasons, but that's what I would like to see.

I think it would be great to see St. Louis and Kansas City play twice a year as well as Oakland and SF.

Edit: I will say at the very least I would like to see the changes to the two West divisions. It gets the two natural rivalries I mentioned above and seems to not really negatively impact travel. The new NFC West teams could stay in the Pacific time zone for all of their division games, while the new AFC West teams are still traveling quite a bit, but less overall than the current alignment.

Red Dog
08-10-08, 12:57 PM
I'll be deep in the cold, cold ground before they move Dallas from their NFC East rivals.. ;)

Shannon Nutt
08-10-08, 12:58 PM
The NFL is fine - no need to mess with it. I still think MLB is over-expanded.

kenbuzz
08-10-08, 01:09 PM
Should change the thread title to include the words "Here's my idea for..." or some other disclaimer. This is one man's speculation, has nothing to do with any announced plans of the NFL. Right now, they're keen on playing international games, reducing preseason by 2 weeks, and rookie salaries.

Red Dog
08-10-08, 01:10 PM
reducing preseason by 2 weeks.


That's my biggest wish as a season ticket holder.

kenbuzz
08-10-08, 01:15 PM
The Ravens have solid rivalries with the Steelers and Clowns. I don't see them messing with that.

The Saints are a prime contender to move to LA too. Frankly, if it weren't for Katrina, they'd probably already be there.The Steelers and Browns are easy teams to hate. :)

Agree about the Saints. Plus, if they moved to Anaheim, you could have both the Angels and Saints in the same town. I personally don't care if the NFL expands to a market that doesn't want a team, but if they are adamant on moving a team there, there's a nice marketing tie-in just waiting to be exploited. If the Saints don't go there, the Chargers seem an obvious 2nd choice.

kenbuzz
08-10-08, 01:36 PM
The only change I see coming is an existing team moving to Los Angeles, probably the Jaguars.

I'm not sure there's much realignment they can do. Considering that they want to keep Dallas in the NFC East, everything else seems to make sense (with the possible exceptions of Indianapolis and Baltimore, but maybe they figure Baltimore has some kind of rivalry with the current Browns?). I suppose the LA team could cause some changes to other divisions though.If an existing team moves to LA, I believe the NFL will keep that team in it's current division for a season or two before even considering realignment. To move a team to LA *and* move them to the AFC/NFC West would require at least one other team moving OUT of that division to make room. I really don't see the NFL messing with the NFC East, NFC North or AFC West. So any team relocating to LA would either keep their current division assignment *or* would likely be realigned to the NFC West. This would bump someone out, and I'm thinking St Louis is the best geographical choice.

Drexl
08-10-08, 01:41 PM
If an existing team moves to LA, I believe the NFL will keep that team in it's current division for a season or two before even considering realignment. To move a team to LA *and* move them to the AFC/NFC West would require at least one other team moving OUT of that division to make room. I really don't see the NFL messing with the NFC East, NFC North or AFC West. So any team relocating to LA would either keep their current division assignment *or* would likely be realigned to the NFC West. This would bump someone out, and I'm thinking St Louis is the best geographical choice.

Yeah, they could just swap St. Louis with either Jacksonville or New Orleans. I'd miss the 49ers being the same division as the Rams though.

Then again, if it's San Diego that moves, no changes would be necessary.

mcnabb
08-10-08, 02:09 PM
That's my biggest wish as a season ticket holder.

This is my biggest beef with Football, is they have the balls to charge for Preseason Tickets, yet we all know the regulars play one quarter, and in the final preseason game, they usually sit the whole game.

Unfortunately, there is nothing the consumer can do, cause what can we do give up our tickets to make a statement? They have 20 years waiting lists in places like Washington & Greenbay, they got us by the balls.

WCChiCubsFan
08-10-08, 02:22 PM
Oh come on one of the posts suggests that the Raiders should move to the NFC West and then you would have two teams (Oakland and San Francisco) in the same division that are right next to each other.

That is just silly.

In fact his entire AFC West is a joke. It doesn’t have one team that is actually on the West coast and two teams that are in Missouri.

WallyOPD
08-10-08, 05:17 PM
Oh come on one of the posts suggests that the Raiders should move to the NFC West and then you would have two teams (Oakland and San Francisco) in the same division that are right next to each other.

That is just silly.

In fact his entire AFC West is a joke. It doesn’t have one team that is actually on the West coast and two teams that are in Missouri.

Why is it silly to have two teams geographically close in the same division? And you're mocking the name of the West just because nobody is on the coast? I didn't realize it was the West Coast division. Also both Missouri teams are currently in "West" divisions, but suddenly it's a joke if they're in the same one? If it's that big a deal just change the name to something else.

Calculon
08-10-08, 06:33 PM
When the Bills move to Toronto will they have to rename it the IFL?

vaporware
08-10-08, 10:11 PM
This is my biggest beef with Football, is they have the balls to charge for Preseason Tickets, yet we all know the regulars play one quarter, and in the final preseason game, they usually sit the whole game.

Unfortunately, there is nothing the consumer can do, cause what can we do give up our tickets to make a statement? They have 20 years waiting lists in places like Washington & Greenbay, they got us by the balls.

Yeah, it's bullshit. I couldn't make it this Saturday to the Titans game so I ate $94 in tickets to a game no one wanted to buy. Looks like the same thing will happen this Friday.

lordwow
08-10-08, 10:48 PM
I think the NFL could expand, but I think it needs to happen a couple of years down the road, and probably 2, not 4 teams.

LorenzoL
08-11-08, 06:31 AM
When the Bills move to Toronto will they have to rename it the IFL?
If they ever come to Canada, they need to build a new stadium because the prices that they are charging for their Rogers Centre games this year are ridiculous.

I could go to Buffalo or Detroit for half of the money that they are charging for one ticket.

Qui Gon Jim
08-11-08, 06:43 AM
Definitely no more expansion in any of the major sports. It dillutes the talent, and makes for an inferior game then previous years.

Football is fine as it is right now, as long as they keep the Salary Cap(which will be a point of debate when the CBA is up in 2010). Right now you can't go out an buy a Superbowl or even a playoff spot like you can in Baseball, it keeps guys like Jerry Jones and Daniel Snyder from swapping up every great free agent.

Quoted for truth.

Additonally, NY does not need a third NFL franchise. If they are to expand, it should be into new markets, not existing ones. I would even argue that Chicago does not need a second franchise. Some would say they are one MLB team too heavy.

If the NFL is smart (and we have no reason to question them, they are doing an incredible job) they won't tinker with ANYTHING until ratings nosedive for some reason, or something happens in the CBA.

starman9000
08-11-08, 07:12 AM
When the Bills move to Toronto will they have to rename it the IFL?


Yep, just like the NHL and NBA.

VinVega
08-11-08, 07:35 AM
I don't know about 4 more teams, but LA needs at least one team, if not 2. It's the second largest media market in the country.

Coral
08-11-08, 08:07 AM
If they ever come to Canada, they need to build a new stadium because the prices that they are charging for their Rogers Centre games this year are ridiculous.

I could go to Buffalo or Detroit for half of the money that they are charging for one ticket.

At those high prices they'd still sell out when Toronto officially gets their team. It'll be like the Leafs, no matter how bad they are - they still fill the seats.

LorenzoL
08-11-08, 08:13 AM
At those high prices they'd still sell out when Toronto officially gets their team. It'll be like the Leafs, no matter how bad they are - they still fill the seats.
You have to remember that it's hockey and the Leafs are the only Toronto team that can do that and still be profitable. Try telling that to the Blue Jays and Raptors. It will be the same thing to the NFL team (if we ever get one) once it loses its luster.

They seriously need to build a new stadium with bigger capacity and thus reduce the ticket prices.

Red Dog
08-11-08, 08:25 AM
I don't know about 4 more teams, but LA needs at least one team, if not 2. It's the second largest media market in the country.


A lot of people in L.A. don't want a team, and I bet almost all would not want 2. As it stands now, they get 3 games every Sunday afternoon and usually 2 of those are games of national importance. Plus I'm sure a lot of people aren't crazy of the idea of spending at least a cool billion to build a new stadium.

VinVega
08-11-08, 10:25 AM
A lot of people in L.A. don't want a team, and I bet almost all would not want 2. As it stands now, they get 3 games every Sunday afternoon and usually 2 of those are games of national importance. Plus I'm sure a lot of people aren't crazy of the idea of spending at least a cool billion to build a new stadium.
Well maybe not now since CA is in financial crisis, but it's L freakin' A, they need a team because they're a huge city.

Red Dog
08-11-08, 10:43 AM
I don't see a 'need.' I don't see Los Angelenos banging on the NFL's door like I saw with Baltimore and Cleveland when they lost franchises. The NFL seems to be turning a helluva profit w/o a L.A. team so I also don't see a 'need' on that front. Plus having L.A. out there w/o a franchise serves as great leverage for the NFL as teams can use it to leverage better deals from their existing cities. I also think FOX/CBS love having L.A. vacant because it allows them to offer the full complement of games every Sunday.

Coral
08-11-08, 11:21 AM
You have to remember that it's hockey and the Leafs are the only Toronto team that can do that and still be profitable. Try telling that to the Blue Jays and Raptors. It will be the same thing to the NFL team (if we ever get one) once it loses its luster.

They seriously need to build a new stadium with bigger capacity and thus reduce the ticket prices.

I dunno... an NFL team in TO isn't like the Jays or Raptors. They play only 8 home games - basically every second week, so it won't be that tough for people to dish out that kind of money since it's not often. There are a buttload of NFL fans in Southern Ontario - there always has been... so it's not like they have to sell the game here first. Plus they'll probably get a few thousand from just over the border to see games as well.
I really don't think it'll be tough to sell out even at high prices. In fact I believe an NFL will cut into the Leafs profits, obviously not in attendance as the Leafs will always sell out, but definitely in merchandising.

I can see them making a new stadium that holds more but keeping the prices the same due to the high demand.

In any case, an NFL team in Toronto is long overdue.

mgbfan
08-11-08, 11:53 AM
Yeah, it's bullshit. I couldn't make it this Saturday to the Titans game so I ate $94 in tickets to a game no one wanted to buy. Looks like the same thing will happen this Friday.
Donate them to your local Big Brothers/Big Sisters chapter. They'll get used and you get the pleasure of knowing you helped to make a kid's day.

fumanstan
08-11-08, 12:02 PM
A lot of people in L.A. don't want a team, and I bet almost all would not want 2. As it stands now, they get 3 games every Sunday afternoon and usually 2 of those are games of national importance. Plus I'm sure a lot of people aren't crazy of the idea of spending at least a cool billion to build a new stadium.

Really? I can't imagine people here not wanting a team; although some (most :p) are just indifferent.

Red Dog
08-11-08, 12:39 PM
Yeah, it's bullshit. I couldn't make it this Saturday to the Titans game so I ate $94 in tickets to a game no one wanted to buy. Looks like the same thing will happen this Friday.


I ate $218 in (2) tickets, and those ain't club level. Lower end zone seats at FedEx are $109 apiece.

I usually give my preseason tickets away because they have very little resale value but I couldn't find anyone who wanted them for free. :lol:

Red Dog
08-11-08, 12:41 PM
Donate them to your local Big Brothers/Big Sisters chapter. They'll get used and you get the pleasure of knowing you helped to make a kid's day.


Hmmm. I should look into that. I assume you can claim a charitable deduction on it, right?

BKenn01
08-11-08, 07:31 PM
As far as expansion, it aint broke, dont fix it. I would like to see the season expanded, basically because I love the NFL. It is by far the best pro sport IMHO.

drmoze
08-11-08, 09:28 PM
New York does not need another friggin' football team. They have 2 already. And no stadium for a 3rd team to play in (with Jets/Giants splitting the Meadowlands). Won't happen, and shouldn't happen.

LA should get a team though. Although they keep losing them...

matta
08-11-08, 09:39 PM
The NFL is fine - no need to mess with it. I still think MLB is over-expanded.
Agreed. MLB needs to contract by 4 teams: Yankees, RedSox, Cubs, Mets. That's the best thing the sport can do.

kenbuzz
08-11-08, 09:51 PM
In fact his entire AFC West is a joke. It doesn’t have one team that is actually on the West coast and two teams that are in Missouri.I'm thinking that's gonna be news to fans in Denver, Oakland and San Diego.... someone's gonna have a r-e-a-l-l-y long drive on game day.

kenbuzz
08-11-08, 10:11 PM
New York does not need another friggin' football team. They have 2 already. And no stadium for a 3rd team to play in (with Jets/Giants splitting the Meadowlands). Won't happen, and shouldn't happen.

LA should get a team though. Although they keep losing them...They've had lots of chances...

1946 - LA entices the Cleveland Rams to move to town after being granted a franchise in the AAFC in the LA Dons
1950 - The AAFC merges with the NFL, the LA Dons are not invited to join and are disbanded
1960 - The AFL expands into LA with the Chargers
1961 - The Chargers leave for San Diego
1974 - The WFL is born, and the Southern California Sun are born
1975 - The Sun sets on LA
1981 - LA makes Al Davis a deal, and the Oakland Raiders move in
1983 - The USFL is born, say hello to the LA Express
1985 - The USFL folds, say goodbye to the LA Express (though Steve Young is still being paid to this day!)
1995 - The Rams leave for St Louis, the Raiders go back to Oakland
2001 - Pro football returns to LA, sort of, when the XFL's LA Xtreme debuts, wins the championship, and folds, all in the same season.

Then there are other teams like the Avengers, Dragons, Cobras, Admirals, Wolves, Wildcats, Rangers, Bears, Bulldogs (twice), Stars, Cubs, Maroons, Shamrocks, Wildcats again, and Buccaneers. All of the folded, moved, or died with their leagues.

The only professional football in Los Angeles today are the California Quake of the Independent Women's Football League, and the Los Angeles Amazons of the National Women's Football Association. That's right, gentlemen, the only football supported in LA in the 21st century is Women's football.

There are plenty of TVs in LA... please don't black them all out by moving an NFL team there. They can all get Sunday Ticket and act like Kings fans - rooting for the team from their original home town and ignoring the local squad.

The Cow
08-11-08, 10:28 PM
LA Avengers are gone? :hscratch:

kenbuzz
08-11-08, 10:45 PM
Sorry, you're right. I must've been confused by WCChiCubsFan and thought that they too had moved to Missouri.

WallyOPD
08-11-08, 10:56 PM
Sorry, you're right. I must've been confused by WCChiCubsFan and thought that they too had moved to Missouri.
Who did he say moved to Missouri? The Chiefs already play there.

kenbuzz
08-11-08, 11:02 PM
I ate $218 in (2) tickets, and those ain't club level. Lower end zone seats at FedEx are $109 apiece.But look at how much you saved by not having to take Mr. Snyder's beltway exit! :up:

kenbuzz
08-11-08, 11:05 PM
Who did he say moved to Missouri? The Chiefs already play there.In fact his entire AFC West is a joke. It doesn’t have one team that is actually on the West coast and two teams that are in Missouri.:shrug:

WallyOPD
08-11-08, 11:08 PM
:shrug:

He was talking about my re-organized AFC West, which would have Arizona, Denver, St. Louis, and Kansas City.

kenbuzz
08-12-08, 09:28 AM
Well then, you're BOTH being just plain silly. :)

mgbfan
08-12-08, 03:19 PM
Hmmm. I should look into that. I assume you can claim a charitable deduction on it, right?
I would think you could claim face value. Not sure though - I'm usually on the other end of it (as a Big Brother).

rocketsauce
08-12-08, 03:50 PM
Not sure another team in Chicago would work to tell you the truth. I understand the reasoning behind it big market, high population, absolutely rabid football fans... but honestly I don't think another team could survive here.

The Bears are already so beloved by the entire city and surrounding area and are so entrenched in history that I think it's too much for another team here to overcome. I cannot fathom enough Bears fans just giving up on the Bears to support another team because that team is say located on the north side instead of south.

The only reason it works with baseball is because the two teams were around the same time before the MLB is what we see today, and this was over a hundred years ago. They were in literally two separate autonomous leagues before they combined.

No way another team in Chicago will make it. In today's sports culture the time it would take to be successful is way too long for owners to invest.

E.g. Los Angeles

Ginwen
08-12-08, 06:54 PM
NFL doesn't need to expand it's good now.

I don't really see a team in LA anytime soon. The NFL I would assume wants one but since LA doesn't seem to be clamoring for a team, they aren't going to be able to hold the city hostage to build them a stadium so the team/league would probably end up paying more than they like, which would have ramifications in other large markets.

TheKobra
08-12-08, 07:23 PM
Don't mess with a good thing. The NFL is the best run sport and we don't need another NBA or NLB.

Drexl
08-12-08, 08:21 PM
Not sure another team in Chicago would work to tell you the truth. I understand the reasoning behind it big market, high population, absolutely rabid football fans... but honestly I don't think another team could survive here.

The Bears are already so beloved by the entire city and surrounding area and are so entrenched in history that I think it's too much for another team here to overcome. I cannot fathom enough Bears fans just giving up on the Bears to support another team because that team is say located on the north side instead of south.

The only reason it works with baseball is because the two teams were around the same time before the MLB is what we see today, and this was over a hundred years ago. They were in literally two separate autonomous leagues before they combined.

No way another team in Chicago will make it. In today's sports culture the time it would take to be successful is way too long for owners to invest.

E.g. Los Angeles

I agree, and also remember that back then, there were no teams in the western part of the country, so having two teams in Chicago made more sense. There are just so many more markets now.

kenbuzz
08-13-08, 10:50 AM
Well, if we're picking cities for expansion, and we're excluding those already with teams, here's the list of the top TV markets in the US:
(link: http://www.digitalsyndicate.tv/markets.html)

1. New York, NY
2. Los Angeles, CA
3. Chicago, IL
4. Philadelphia, PA
5. San Francisco-Oakland-San Jose, CA
6. Dallas-Fort Worth, TX
7. Boston, MA (Manchester, NH)
8. Washington, DC (Hagerstown, MD)
9. Atlanta, GA
10. Houston, TX
11. Detroit, MI
12. Tampa-St. Petersburg , FL (Sarasota, FL)
13. Phoenix, AZ
14. Seattle-Tacoma, WA
15. Minneapolis-St. Paul, MN
16. Miami-Ft. Lauderdale, FL
17. Cleveland, OH
18. Denver, CO
19. Orlando-Daytona Beach-Melbourne, FL
20. Sacramento-Stockton-Modesto, CA
21. St. Louis, MO
22. Pittsburgh, PA
23. Portland, OR
24. Baltimore, MD
25. Indianapolis, IN
26. Charlotte, NC
27. San Diego, CA
28. Hartford-New Haven, CT

4 teams would expand into Orlando, Sacramento and Portland, plus either Hartford or LA, if one wanted to stick just to the largest untapped media markets. I beleive the list would be signficantly different if we used 90-minute markets instead of DMA markets, but I can't seem to find the 90-minute market list.

(Edited to add link)

Red Dog
08-13-08, 11:01 AM
I thought San Antonio was a top-25 market? Or is your list a DMA list?

kenbuzz
08-13-08, 11:06 AM
Same ranking, using 2007 MSA populations:
(link: http://proximityone.com/msa07rnk.htm)

1. New York-Northern New Jersey-Long Island, NY-NJ-PA
2. Los Angeles-Long Beach-Santa Ana, CA
3. Chicago-Naperville-Joliet, IL-IN-WI
4. Dallas-Fort Worth-Arlington, TX
5. Philadelphia-Camden-Wilmington, PA-NJ-DE-MD
6. Houston-Sugar Land-Baytown, TX
7. Miami-Fort Lauderdale-Miami Beach, FL
8. Washington-Arlington-Alexandria, DC-VA-MD-WV
9. Atlanta-Sandy Springs, GA
10. Boston-Cambridge-Quincy, MA-NH
11. Detroit-Warren-Livonia, MI
12. San Francisco-Oakland-Fremont, CA
13. Phoenix-Mesa-Scottsdale, AZ
14. Riverside-San Bernardino-Ontario, CA
15. Seattle-Tacoma-Bellevue, WA
16. Minneapolis-St. Paul-Bloomington, MN-WI
17. San Diego-Carlsbad-San Marcos, CA
18. St Louis, MO-IL
19. Tampa-St. Petersburg-Clearwater, FL
20. Baltimore-Towson, MD
21. Denver-Aurora, CO
22. Pittsburgh, PA
23. Portland-Vanvouver-Beaverton, OR-WA
24. Cincinnati-Middletown, OH-KY-IN
25. Cleveland-Elyria-Wooster, OH
26. Sacramento--Arden-Arcade--Roseville, CA
27. Orlando-Kissimmee, FL
28. San Antonio, TX

Again, Orlando, Sacramento and Portland are in the top 4, regardless of whether you include LA (and in this case, Riverside) or not. If you do not, San Antonio is the 4th.

(Edited to add link and full MSA market names)

kenbuzz
08-13-08, 11:09 AM
Red Dog: I think I answered your question before I saw it. The first list was DMA (media markets). The second is MSA population.

Red Dog
08-13-08, 11:15 AM
The problem is that there are very few markets left that aren't really married to a team. Expansion worked in a place like Charlotte because while it had a fair share of Redskins fans, the devotion wasn't all that pervasive. It's also why the empty Baltimore, St. Louis, and Cleveland markets were so attractive after the original teams left. They never flocked to another team.

How many such markets, that are big enough, are really left besides the obvious L.A., which we've already discussed? How devoted are Portlanders to the Seahawks? San Antonio probably has a huge Cowboys following, so that probably won't work well. A deep South team (like in Birmingham) could probably work because it's college oriented and doesn't fall under another single NFL team's umbrella. I think Florida is pretty well saturated, so no Orlando.

kenbuzz
08-13-08, 11:20 AM
The last time the NFL tested the expansion waters, they did it two different ways:

First - When they announced they were expanding, they narrowed the field to five cities. Two of them got teams, the other three landed relocated teams within the decade. (Jacksonville and Carolina were the former, St Louis, Memphis, and Baltimore were the latter.)

Second - In 1991-92, the NFL's wholly-owned World League of American Football (WLAF) came into being. The US cities the NFL put franchises in were:

Sacramento (Surge) 91-92
San Antonio (Riders) 91-92
Birmingham (Fire) 91-92
Orlando (Thunder) 91-92
NY/NJ (Knights) 91-92
Raleigh-Durham (Skyhawks) 91 only
Columbus (Ohio Glory) 92 only

The 4 non-US teams were in Montreal (Mahcine), London (Monarchs), Frankfurt (Galaxy) and Barcelona (Dragons).

Red Dog
08-13-08, 11:29 AM
They should have never gone to Jacksonville in the first place. Jack Kent Cooke and Tagliabue basically sandbagged Baltimore, who's expansion platform and profile was superior across the board. That decision coupled with the implosion of Cooke's plan to build his stadium in Laurel, MD (halfway btwn Balt and Wash) begged for an owner to jump at the Baltimore plan (appropriations were due to expire in 1995), and Modell did just that. That ill-advised Jacksonville decision set off a chain reaction of franchise movement.

Red Dog
08-13-08, 11:37 AM
(Jacksonville and Carolina were the former, St Louis, Memphis, and Baltimore were the latter.)



It was actually Nashville. The Oilers moved to Nashville, but had to play a season in the Liberty Bowl in Memphis while Nashville built the stadium. They were originally supposed to play 2 seasons in the Liberty Bowl but Memphis folks were pretty bitter that it was going to be a Nashville-based team (since Memphis had tried on numerous occasions to land an expansion franchise) that attendance was poor. They ended up playing their 2nd season in TN in Vanderbilt's stadium.

Drexl
08-14-08, 06:54 AM
The expansion team would have been awarded to Memphis, but yes the Oilers did move to Nashville. I remember the expansion process because it was thought that St. Louis would get one of the new teams (which would have been called the Stallions - they had to destroy the T-shirts that were printed).

Someone wrote a letter to the Post-Dispatch with an opinion on why the NFL did this, and I think he may have been right. He said they were sending a message that if you (a city) have a team, you had better do everything you can to keep it, because people could say "look what happened to Baltimore and St. Louis." The idea was that if a city let a team go, they could not count on an expansion franchise the next time around.

kenbuzz
08-14-08, 02:15 PM
It was actually Nashville. The Oilers moved to Nashville, but had to play a season in the Liberty Bowl in Memphis while Nashville built the stadium. They were originally supposed to play 2 seasons in the Liberty Bowl but Memphis folks were pretty bitter that it was going to be a Nashville-based team (since Memphis had tried on numerous occasions to land an expansion franchise) that attendance was poor. They ended up playing their 2nd season in TN in Vanderbilt's stadium.You're right, the Oilers ended up in Nashville, but the expansion round that saw Carolina and Jacksonville join the league also saw Memphis as one of the 5 finalists. I knew that was going to be confusing when I typed it, sorry I wasn't clearer.

Linky: http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9F0CE1DB1130F932A35751C1A965958260&sec=&spon=&pagewanted=all

The proposed expansion team names were:
St Louis Stallions
Baltimore Rhinos
Charlotte Raes
Jacksonville Five
Memphis Stopheles

(okay, I made up those last 3)

Red Dog
08-14-08, 02:26 PM
The expansion team would have been awarded to Memphis, but yes the Oilers did move to Nashville. I remember the expansion process because it was thought that St. Louis would get one of the new teams (which would have been called the Stallions - they had to destroy the T-shirts that were printed).

Someone wrote a letter to the Post-Dispatch with an opinion on why the NFL did this, and I think he may have been right. He said they were sending a message that if you (a city) have a team, you had better do everything you can to keep it, because people could say "look what happened to Baltimore and St. Louis." The idea was that if a city let a team go, they could not count on an expansion franchise the next time around.


An idea that the NFL quickly dumped after seeing good markets with bad ownership being vacated in Cleveland and Houston.

aintnosin
08-15-08, 11:11 AM
I would expand by 4 teams--Chicago,New York City,Los Angeles and San Antonio.

New York doesn't need a third team and neither does Texas. A second Chicago team would always be a poor relative to Da Bears. Los Angeles will only get a team if they can find an owner who doesn't want the city to pay for his stadium.

dvd-4-life
08-15-08, 11:23 AM
New York doesn't need a third team and neither does Texas. A second Chicago team would always be a poor relative to Da Bears. Los Angeles will only get a team if they can find an owner who doesn't want the city to pay for his stadium.
Both the Giants and Jets play in New Jersey so in reality they aren't in the Big Apple just like the LA Angels aren't in LA.If they are considered New York teams then the Nets and Devils should be considered also.If there was a third conference having teams in the three biggest markets would be a must.If the CFL expanded into the US again I would avoid those cities.Likewise if a new league were to start those cities should be avoided.San Antonio could be replaced by Birmingham or Toronto.I think the CFL would work in the US especially Detroit,Syracuse NY,Portland OR,Columbus,OH,Memphis,Las Vegas,San Jose,Sacramento,Hawaii,Hartford ,Louisville,Milwaukee,Salt Lake City and Greensboro,NC.