colortv Posted September 8, 2014 Share Posted September 8, 2014 You look at the rest of the big 4(NBA, NHL, MLB) and all have enough existing problems(talent pool stretched thin, teams with bad ratings/attendance, potential markets where the demographics/finances won't work etc.)On the other hand the NFL is thriving. Even teams that are perennial losers do well because of the culture surrounding football/the NFL. Seems like they could support 10 more teams if they wanted.So how many more teams could the NFL add keeping in mind:Number of markets without an NFL team where the finances, fan demos, and not hurting the talent pool too drastically by expanding would work(and anything else I am forgetting)? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PhantomDreamer Posted September 8, 2014 Share Posted September 8, 2014 32 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cosmic Posted September 8, 2014 Share Posted September 8, 2014 Either 32 or 34. 34 seems like it would be hell on divisional alignment, though.You could get other cities to build stadiums and buy merchandise, but there's already a shortage of good QBs. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JayMac Posted September 8, 2014 Share Posted September 8, 2014 Economically, they can probably have 32 to 34. With the current talent pool, you can argue that 32 is too many. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gothamite Posted September 8, 2014 Share Posted September 8, 2014 32. I'm not sure they have 32 markets that can support teams right now, much less adding new ones. The Green Bay Packers Uniform Database! Now in a handy blog. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DS729 Posted September 8, 2014 Share Posted September 8, 2014 Economically, the NFL could probably handle another 2-4 teams without any trouble, but when Brady Quinn still has a backup job, the talent pool really has to improve in this area a lot. They should stay pat at 32, and just use places like LA and San Antonio as leverage for potential teams to relocate to. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BBTV Posted September 8, 2014 Share Posted September 8, 2014 As has been said, 32 might be too much. There are unsettled situations as it is, and really only one viable market that is untapped (LA). "The views expressed here are mine and do not reflect the official opinion of my employer or the organization through which the Internet was accessed." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kewp80 Posted September 8, 2014 Share Posted September 8, 2014 And they can't get a stadium deal done and finalized. Cardinals -- Rams -- Blues -- Tigers -- Liverpool Check out my music! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nuordr Posted September 8, 2014 Share Posted September 8, 2014 I believe if you add any more teams at this point, the on the field product would be watered down due to less quality players in the league. Therefore, I would like the league to remain at 32 from this point forward. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alex Houston Posted September 8, 2014 Share Posted September 8, 2014 I don't know. I could see a 36 team format sneaking in there. Maybe a Portland/San Antonio/Columbus/Toronto expansion deal. "And then I remember to relax, and stop trying to hold on to it, and then it flows through me like rain and I can't feel anything but gratitude for every single moment of my stupid little life... You have no idea what I'm talking about, I'm sure. But don't worry... you will someday." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BBTV Posted September 8, 2014 Share Posted September 8, 2014 And I'm sure you've done your research to show that would be an economically viable plan. "The views expressed here are mine and do not reflect the official opinion of my employer or the organization through which the Internet was accessed." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PhantomDreamer Posted September 8, 2014 Share Posted September 8, 2014 Plus, why would the other owners want to dilute the tv money? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BBTV Posted September 9, 2014 Share Posted September 9, 2014 Plus, why would the other owners want to dilute the tv money?I don't think that's an issue - they could most likely charge more for the contract, since there would presumably be more top markets with home teams.Additionally, more teams gives them more options for splitting up the package. Imagine four conferences, with a network per, and a "final four" type scenario prior to the SB. "The views expressed here are mine and do not reflect the official opinion of my employer or the organization through which the Internet was accessed." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alex Houston Posted September 9, 2014 Share Posted September 9, 2014 And I'm sure you've done your research to show that would be an economically viable plan.Indeed. Just wait for my case for teams in Mexico City, Rio, London and the Moon. "And then I remember to relax, and stop trying to hold on to it, and then it flows through me like rain and I can't feel anything but gratitude for every single moment of my stupid little life... You have no idea what I'm talking about, I'm sure. But don't worry... you will someday." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BBTV Posted September 9, 2014 Share Posted September 9, 2014 And I'm sure you've done your research to show that would be an economically viable plan.Indeed. Just wait for my case for teams in Mexico City, Rio, London and the Moon. I really want to see the revenue model for the team on the moon, especially the projections for the local radio rights deal, parking, and suites.Also, have you even thought about teams having to make that road trip? I didn't think so. Also, what about alignment - would the moon be in the north? "The views expressed here are mine and do not reflect the official opinion of my employer or the organization through which the Internet was accessed." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Coast2CoastAM2006 Posted September 9, 2014 Share Posted September 9, 2014 And I'm sure you've done your research to show that would be an economically viable plan.Indeed. Just wait for my case for teams in Mexico City, Rio, London and the Moon. I really want to see the revenue model for the team on the moon, especially the projections for the local radio rights deal, parking, and suites.Also, have you even thought about teams having to make that road trip? I didn't think so. Also, what about alignment - would the moon be in the north?No the NFC south. Plus the Moonites are quite content playing in the Solar Football League. Sure they might want to get away from getting stomped on a yearly basis by the Mars Ice Warriors but it might be risky moving to the NFL especially when the Luna Moonites account for 65% of all Mercury Mets sales when they come to town. Doesn't seem viable to me. Spoilers! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BBTV Posted September 9, 2014 Share Posted September 9, 2014 And I'm sure you've done your research to show that would be an economically viable plan.Indeed. Just wait for my case for teams in Mexico City, Rio, London and the Moon. I really want to see the revenue model for the team on the moon, especially the projections for the local radio rights deal, parking, and suites.Also, have you even thought about teams having to make that road trip? I didn't think so. Also, what about alignment - would the moon be in the north?No the NFC south. Plus the Moonites are quite content playing in the Solar Football League. Sure they might want to get away from getting stomped on a yearly basis by the Mars Ice Warriors but it might be risky moving to the NFL especially when the Luna Moonites account for 65% of all Mercury Mets sales when they come to town. Doesn't seem viable to me. Um if you don't mind we were trying to have a serious discussion regarding epanding to the moon. Please start your own thread to discuss this nonsense fantasy league of yours. "The views expressed here are mine and do not reflect the official opinion of my employer or the organization through which the Internet was accessed." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cosmic Posted September 9, 2014 Share Posted September 9, 2014 It costs $10,000 per pound just to put something into orbit around the Earth, so keep that in mind, guys. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alex Houston Posted September 9, 2014 Share Posted September 9, 2014 The main odd thing about the Moon expansion? Ownership insisted on an outdoor stadium. Punters love it. Quarterbacks, not so much. "And then I remember to relax, and stop trying to hold on to it, and then it flows through me like rain and I can't feel anything but gratitude for every single moment of my stupid little life... You have no idea what I'm talking about, I'm sure. But don't worry... you will someday." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BBTV Posted September 9, 2014 Share Posted September 9, 2014 It costs $10,000 per pound just to put something into orbit around the Earth, so keep that in mind, guys.See that's what I'm talking about. Hell - it'd cost $3,600,000 just to launch some fat ass offensive tackle in to space - just think about how much a whole team weighs. Also, there's the whole LACK OF FREAKING OXYGEN issue to overcome. I mean high altitude like Denver is one thing, no air at all is a whole other thing. There's at least 5 or 6 other reasons it wouldn't work. That's why people need to think before spouting off expansion ideas. Still, it'd work better than London. "The views expressed here are mine and do not reflect the official opinion of my employer or the organization through which the Internet was accessed." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.