|
|
Post by petrolino on Feb 25, 2017 12:10:43 GMT
Recent movement in the NFL has brought the glitz and glamour of Los Angeles, California right back into the fray. There's talk of the Raiders moving to showbiz capital Las Vegas, Nevada but I'd like to see them stay in California.
I've heard murmurings for several years about the Jaguars being top pick for London, but I hope they stay and build their legacy in Jacksonville. Even with teams in Miami and Tampa, some people maintain that Florida could handle a fourth team, perhaps in Orlando.
I'd like to see a team playing in Iowa if the league grows - I guess Des Moines. And I think Portland, Oregon could be a great base for a new team.
What do you think?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 25, 2017 12:28:39 GMT
You yanks have no sporting history, your all about franchises and not about building a team from the bottom. Whatever happened to the Brooklyn Dodgers?  ?? MLS will fail like the last league! |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 25, 2017 12:58:05 GMT
I like the idea of Jacksonville moving to London. It's the one franchise that fails to fill the seats - likely out of their own "suckiness" - in a state with two other teams already, and I like the early Sunday game (for our time zone) that a move to London would entail. Of course it sucks for the other teams to have to fly out to London every time they play a road game against them but making the NFL a bit more international might be worth the trouble, and at least for East Coast teams a flight to London is little different from a flight to the West Coast. It's a long discussion among the owners and of course they'll do what makes them the most money with little regard for the people of Jacksonville, but personally I'd welcome the move. Probably the Jaguars would make more money and have the stadium sell out more if they moved to London.
Portland, OR seems to be dominated so much by the NBA that there is doubt if they do have space for the NFL, but there is the argument "build it and they will come."
Eight out of the largest 10 cities in the US without any professional team in any of the main leagues for the four major sports whatsoever are in states that already have one or two NFL teams. Louisville, KY and Albuquerque, NM, are exceptions.
Moving out of the cities without any professional team, Salt Lake City is a major market that doesn't have an NFL team. With Las Vegas about to get one, it also includes the already quoted Portland OR, and Oklahoma City, if we discount cities in states that already have the NFL.
So, London UK, Louisville KY, Albuquerque NM, Salt Lake City UT, Portland OR, and Oklahoma City OK seem to be the logical choices.
|
|
|
|
Post by FrankSobotka1514 on Feb 25, 2017 15:47:16 GMT
Cleveland deserves a team.
|
|
Ghost
Sophomore
IMDb member since August 2005.
@ghost
Posts: 131
Likes: 33
 
|
Post by Ghost on Feb 25, 2017 16:56:59 GMT
San Antonio, TX is an obvious choice.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 25, 2017 17:13:32 GMT
San Antonio, TX is an obvious choice. I'd rather have an expansion in states that don't already have a team. People from San Antonio can choose to root for the Texans or the Cowboys. I'm sure it is a lot more fun to have a local team and just walk to the stadium or park there, especially in such a huge state like Texas, but the whole state of Utah, the whole state of Kentucky, the whole state of New Mexico do not have any team so if I were the commissioner I'd give preference to those. But I'm fully aware that they only look at the bottom line and how much money they can extract from the fan base and if San Antonio is a bigger city and would give them more ticket, merchandise sales, and TV market, they'd go for it instead of Louisville or Oklahoma City or Salt Lake City. |
|
larryv
Sophomore
@larryv
Posts: 253
Likes: 69
|
Post by larryv on Feb 25, 2017 17:15:28 GMT
Toronto please....3rd biggest market behind NY and LA.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 25, 2017 17:44:06 GMT
Toronto please....3rd biggest market behind NY and LA. Yes, good idea. And Mexico City. Although one wonders with the growing tension between Mexico and the USA, it's probably not a good idea. Financially speaking though it would be a boom, since a huge nation would get behind that team. Sure, Mexico is a soccer country but many Mexicans and especially Mexican-Americans do like American football. |
|
|
|
Post by Xcalatë on Feb 25, 2017 18:30:36 GMT
New York City should get a Team.
|
|
|
|
Post by runie on Feb 25, 2017 22:00:19 GMT
London.
|
|
SportsFan19
Junior Member
@sportsfan19
Posts: 2,849
Likes: 2,249
|
Post by SportsFan19 on Feb 25, 2017 23:59:25 GMT
Toronto
Montreal, Vancouver or Calgary would be great too, but probably not realistic.
New York City
London
If they could all get expansion franchises in the next few years, Brady could probably play another 10 years a win a few more Championships.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 26, 2017 13:25:21 GMT
New York City? This thing about the two teams that have New York in their names playing in New Jersey therefore not being New York teams is just something rivals say to taunt them a little. It's the metropolitan region and just a question of space for the stadium and parking space being easier in the suburbs across the river than in Manhattan. Studies done to get a stadium built Midtown West ended up concluding that a stadium there would be extremely expensive and disruptive. If it's in the outer boroughs, might as well just be in New Jersey across the river where the stadium already is.
|
|
|
|
Post by klawrencio79 on Feb 26, 2017 18:02:40 GMT
I like the idea of Jacksonville moving to London. It's the one franchise that fails to fill the seats - likely out of their own "suckiness" - in a state with two other teams already, and I like the early Sunday game (for our time zone) that a move to London would entail. Of course it sucks for the other teams to have to fly out to London every time they play a road game against them but making the NFL a bit more international might be worth the trouble, and at least for East Coast teams a flight to London is little different from a flight to the West Coast. It's a long discussion among the owners and of course they'll do what makes them the most money with little regard for the people of Jacksonville, but personally I'd welcome the move. Probably the Jaguars would make more money and have the stadium sell out more if they moved to London. Portland, OR seems to be dominated so much by the NBA that there is doubt if they do have space for the NFL, but there is the argument "build it and they will come." Eight out of the largest 10 cities in the US without any professional team in any of the main leagues for the four major sports whatsoever are in states that already have one or two NFL teams. Louisville, KY and Albuquerque, NM, are exceptions. Moving out of the cities without any professional team, Salt Lake City is a major market that doesn't have an NFL team. With Las Vegas about to get one, it also includes the already quoted Portland OR, and Oklahoma City, if we discount cities in states that already have the NFL. So, London UK, Louisville KY, Albuquerque NM, Salt Lake City UT, Portland OR, and Oklahoma City OK seem to be the logical choices. Conventional wisdom is that you need a large metropolitan area with a large suburban populace to support an NFL team. Otherwise, you're playing in front of empty stadiums like Jacksonville (even with a large metropolitan population) and the local TV contracts lose value. The outlier, of course, is Green Bay with a tiny population and a routinely full stadium, but I don't think the NFL would really be willing to set up an NFL team in the smaller metropolitan areas. That's why San Antonio makes sense, but places like Louisville, Salt Lake City and Albuquerque don't. It has nothing to do with "owing" to fanbases or states without teams. The NFL, for all its warts, is still a business, not a charity. |
|
|
|
Post by TheGoodMan19 on Feb 26, 2017 18:46:10 GMT
You yanks have no sporting history, your all about franchises and not about building a team from the bottom. Whatever happened to the Brooklyn Dodgers? ?? MLS will fail like the last league! Yes, we should be more like European leagues. Two or three team with a snowball's chance to win a title and the other 7,000 merely playing for the priveledge of "staying up" and getting slaughtered by the big teams next season. Brooklyn Dodgers are in Los Angeles, Slick. The "Dodgers" name should have given it away... |
|
|
|
Post by TheGoodMan19 on Feb 26, 2017 18:52:38 GMT
Toronto please....3rd biggest market behind NY and LA. I believe the NFL has a "gentleman's agreement" not to expand into Canada. The NFL doesn't want to kill the CFL. If an expansion franchise would succeed in Toronto, it would end the Argonauts and probably the entire league. If it doesn't succeed (The Bills games weren't a big hit), the league gets another black eye. There is enough teams. In every league. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 26, 2017 19:31:47 GMT
It's a long discussion among the owners and of course they'll do what makes them the most money with little regard for the people of Jacksonville, but personally I'd welcome the move. Probably the Jaguars would make more money and have the stadium sell out more if they moved to London. (...) So, London UK, Louisville KY, Albuquerque NM, Salt Lake City UT, Portland OR, and Oklahoma City OK seem to be the logical choices. Conventional wisdom is that you need a large metropolitan area with a large suburban populace to support an NFL team. Otherwise, you're playing in front of empty stadiums like Jacksonville (even with a large metropolitan population) and the local TV contracts lose value. The outlier, of course, is Green Bay with a tiny population and a routinely full stadium, but I don't think the NFL would really be willing to set up an NFL team in the smaller metropolitan areas. That's why San Antonio makes sense, but places like Louisville, Salt Lake City and Albuquerque don't. It has nothing to do with "owing" to fanbases or states without teams. The NFL, for all its warts, is still a business, not a charity. But I wasn't talking about charity, like I said when I mentioned that the owners will go where the money is. I was just thinking that beyond a single city as big as it is, awarding franchises to states that don't have a team will draw in the entire population of the state. It's not just ticket sales but also merchandise and TV markets, so if the whole state of Oklahoma for example got behind a team, it wouldn't be just the people of Oklahoma City. That's my take. |
|
|
|
Post by President Ackbar™ on Apr 2, 2017 1:04:34 GMT
San Antonio / Austin, TX
|
|
|
|
Post by nutsberryfarm 🏜 on Apr 2, 2017 18:56:42 GMT
Toronto please....3rd biggest market behind NY and LA. I believe the NFL has a "gentleman's agreement" not to expand into Canada. The NFL doesn't want to kill the CFL. If an expansion franchise would succeed in Toronto, it would end the Argonauts and probably the entire league. If it doesn't succeed (The Bills games weren't a big hit), the league gets another black eye. There is enough teams. In every league. "gentleman's agreements" are always fun. |
|
|
|
Post by bluerisk on Apr 2, 2017 22:05:57 GMT
London? I gues one had to create an entire (Western) European division.
Otherwise the travel distances would be more than a challenge.
Even in the US they have several devisions to cope with it - and there is no Atlantic ocean to overcome.
|
|
:format(jpeg):mode_rgb():quality(40)/discogs-images/R-2830459-1389050900-7779.jpeg.jpg)
