Veras

History of a Fictional Football League (1989 – 44th Victory Bowl)

Recommended Posts

I know voting closes this afternoon, but do you have a set time for when voting ends? I'm anxiously waiting for the official announcement for Kansas City and Tampa.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
40 minutes ago, ChicagoOakland said:

 

I'm not sure I should trust a map that can't spell Illinois correctly lol.

In all seriousness, that's not a bad idea either.

That's what I get for using a map made by the University of Alabama's Geography Department.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I know achieving evenly-distributed divisions is the goal here, but the league has used odd distributions in the past. Just for comparison's sake, I'll throw a regional odd-numbered alignment out there. Three divisions of 6 and two of 5.

 

West Coast: Seattle, Portland, California, Los Angeles, San Diego, Arizona

 

Mid West: Colorado, Minnesota, Houston, Texas, Kansas City, St. Louis

 

Great Lakes: Milwaukee, Chicago, Detroit, Cleveland, Cincinnati

 

East Coast: Miami, Tampa, New Orleans, Atlanta, Washington, Baltimore

 

North East: Pittsburgh, Philadelphia, New York, Boston, Buffalo

 

 

Obviously divisional play is a staple of pro football, but with 28 teams, going NBA style where two conference overall standings determine playoff seeding could be an option. 14 teams for each conference, two divisions each. The downside there is the some of the heated divisional rivalry is lost, but with RBronish's alignment above, the matchups aren't completely forsaken.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
43 minutes ago, RBronish said:

Would I be out of bounds to suggest a 4x7 alignment?

Picture2.png

 

I won't think it would be out of bounds, but it does make scheduling more of task. if you play each team in your division twice, you have 12 of your 14 games right there.

 

The 4 team divisions give a nice schedule of 6 divisional games and 8 interdivisional games playing 2 full divisions. At least that I what I had gotten from Veras about how he is doing the scheduling.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Liking the idea of a 4 x 7 alignment. You could have 4 conferences and rotate which conferences play in the playoffs, similar to how the NCAA bracket works. That would keep rivalries intact, while keeping playoff matchups organic.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, MBurmy said:

So I guess Comets-Destroyers and Hurricanes-Stallions aren't really "important rivalries"?

 

Keep in mind here that I don't really like 4x7, I was just posting a version that I thought would work.

 

The problem here is that The Dragons and Grizzles are two of the most isolated teams in the league, and they should be going out to the teams closest to them, The Whales and Comets. Yes, some teams lose because of this, but this is the best one that I could think of.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

On realignment, I'll begin by stating that the reason why I'm moving to seven divisions of four is that it will make the rotation for the schedule cleaner and easier.  What the NFL did at 28 teams wasn't bad, though it would require me to either create permanent conferences (which I've tried to avoid doing) or set up some kind of rotation to effectively create temporary ones.  If I don't go with the 7 division plan, then I would just add Tampa Bay to the Southeast, Kansas City to the Central, and follow the NFL's algorithm.  My biggest complaint with this is that I dislike having a schedule in which teams have varying numbers of divisional/nondivisional games.  Those are used as tiebreakers, and I don't like that one team having a good or a bad day against the wrong opponent can matter more or less depending on the number of teams in their division.

 

As for the individual suggestions, many of them look pretty similar to what I was doing, though again, I haven't settled on anything yet.  Basically, I am looking to go somewhere in between @FDW's approach of putting traditional rivalries first (though I question the weight that he gives to some rivalries rather over others), and @eick74's more purely geographic approach.

 

But that's a question for next offseason.  The new teams won't join the league until 1981, so this year will operate under the same rules as last year.

 

2 hours ago, Uglybus said:

I know voting closes this afternoon, but do you have a set time for when voting ends? I'm anxiously waiting for the official announcement for Kansas City and Tampa.  

Voting is now closed.  I didn't set a time because I wasn't sure when I would get home from work and have time to be at my computer, but apparently, that is now.  Kansas City and Tampa Bay will both have teams beginning in 1981.  I'm open to suggestions for nicknames.

 

16 hours ago, Darknes said:

Another thing on the side, is Houston up for an update? I mean they've practically used the same look since they joined the league.

I've been trying to come up with an updated logo for them for years, but I've never had one that I've liked more than what they currently have without being too modern.  They'll update at some point, but I don't know when.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

For Tampa Bay, maybe keeping up with the Animal name scheme of the owner, go with Sharks maybe?

 

Kansas City, I'm personally stumped. Maybe go Riders, in reference to the Horseman of the Great Plains?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Congrats to Tampa Bay and Kansas City!

 

My suggestions for nicknames:

 

Tampa Bay:

  • Sharks (the obvious choice, but also a logical one. The Bay is known for its vast quantity and variety of shark species)
  • Marauders
  • Pirates
  • Cyclones (though with the Hurricanes in Houston, this is probably out)
  • Bandits (name of the fairly successful USFL franchise in the area in the late 80's)

Kansas City:

  • Outlaws
  • Mustangs
  • Scouts
  • Pioneers
  • Explorers

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I have a few suggestions for Tampa Bay, You can do the Tampa Bay Sharks, Pirates (Based off of the pirate legends prevalent in Southwestern Florida, and the real world Buccaneers), or Bombers  (based off of nearby MacDill AFB)

As for KC, well I have a suggestion, Bulls (referencing KC's status as a meat packing center, like Chicago's butchers), 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Tampa Bay- I'd go with something fire-based, because Tampa might mean "sticks of fire" in Calusa, a tribe that lived in the area. 

 

Kansas City- Something livestock related (Mustangs, Bulls) from the locally famous American Royal livestock show.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 minutes ago, Mercy_King said:

Tampa Bay- I'd go with something fire-based, because Tampa might mean "sticks of fire" in Calusa, a tribe that lived in the area. 

 

Kansas City- Something livestock related (Mustangs, Bulls) from the locally famous American Royal livestock show.

 

I second the fire theme for Tampa Bay

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

First off, congratulations to Kansas City and Tampa Bay in getting their franchises for the 1981 season. For KC, I'm sure that it's probably been a long time coming.

 

Okay! Names, right?

 

For Tampa Bay, I agree with a few others that the Sharks nickname would be great. It could create a Michigan Panthers-like helmet logo as well as have black, white and a cobalt blue as a color combination. That might be pretty neat, plus... there's not enough animal mascots in the AFA.

 

Kansas City has a ton of possibilities. Mustangs or Outlaws would be great. I think that the Tornadoes nickname is alright too, considering that KC and the surrounding areas is a portion of Tornado Alley. Not as much as Oklahoma City, Wichita or Omaha, but a hardly used nickname in sports nonetheless.

 

However, I really do like the name Kansas City Outlaws. It has a great ring to it. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

For some reason, I'm drawn to explorer-themed names for each of the cities.

I really like the Kansas City Pioneers as a suggestion. Independence, MO is right nearby, and that town is famously the starting point for the Oregon Trail. Also, there's an actual Pioneer Square monument in KC.

 

As for Tampa, I'm thinking the Tampa Bay Conquistadors. They have a large Latin American population and a Spanish conquistador was the first to try and establish Tampa.

 

Maybe Tampa could be the Pumas/Cougars instead? The owner can go from a big dog (Wolves) to big cats (Cougars/Pumas). I like the Sharks as a possibility too.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
26 minutes ago, Veras said:

On realignment, I'll begin by stating that the reason why I'm moving to seven divisions of four is that it will make the rotation for the schedule cleaner and easier.  What the NFL did at 28 teams wasn't bad, though it would require me to either create permanent conferences (which I've tried to avoid doing) or set up some kind of rotation to effectively create temporary ones.  If I don't go with the 7 division plan, then I would just add Tampa Bay to the Southeast, Kansas City to the Central, and follow the NFL's algorithm.  My biggest complaint with this is that I dislike having a schedule in which teams have varying numbers of divisional/nondivisional games.  Those are used as tiebreakers, and I don't like that one team having a good or a bad day against the wrong opponent can matter more or less depending on the number of teams in their division.

 

As for the individual suggestions, many of them look pretty similar to what I was doing, though again, I haven't settled on anything yet.  Basically, I am looking to go somewhere in between @FDW's approach of putting traditional rivalries first (though I question the weight that he gives to some rivalries rather over others), and @eick74's more purely geographic approach.

 

But that's a question for next offseason.  The new teams won't join the league until 1981, so this year will operate under the same rules as last year.

 

Voting is now closed.  I didn't set a time because I wasn't sure when I would get home from work and have time to be at my computer, but apparently, that is now.  Kansas City and Tampa Bay will both have teams beginning in 1981.  I'm open to suggestions for nicknames.

 

I've been trying to come up with an updated logo for them for years, but I've never had one that I've liked more than what they currently have without being too modern.  They'll update at some point, but I don't know when.

 

To give my justification for the three big losers of this realignment:

 

Stampeders: This is a team that's already moved divisions twice in its 20 year history, what's one more at this point?

 

Stallions: I justified this on two grounds. One, The Stallions just haven't been good until this year. Two, I see The Hurricanes looking far more to The Krewe as their biggest rival, rather than The Stallions.

 

Destroyers: I based this largely on their long hiatus.

 

As for Houston's uniform, they might be the team that never changes their look ever. I mean, we're already at a point in history where 50's nostalgia is a thing.

 

And for name suggestions, I propose the names Fighters and Wranglers for Kansas City FT. For Tampa FT, I propose the names Torpedos and Voyagers.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

1. Revive the Kansas City Hawks nickname...associated with widespread fan support, would bring the ol' fans back to talk about memories.

2. Either Tampa Bay Sharks or Tampa Bay Thunder...one would be an easy logo, another would be a name which rolls off the tongue.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now