The 50 team League

[B-Rich]

The  thread " how many teams can Las Vegas support" got me thinking about an old subject I have bounced around in my head over the years.  That being,  with league expansion, how big can a league get?  Can and will a league get to 50 teams, and if so, when will it happen? What are the limits and problems with such expansion?  

 

One's first inclination in answering is a simple "NO WAY!", but let's look at it with a little bit of an open mind.  Let's go back to 1959, the last year before the AFL began and expansion began happening on a larger scale.  Back then, the leagues looked like this:

• NFL: 12 teams

• NHL: 6 teams
• NBA: 8 teams
• MLB: 16 teams

 

Pretty small compared to today. Let's look at that change and comparison using  each leagues last year of expansion:

• NFL: 1959 season - 12 teams; by 2002 season - 32 teams; an addition of 20 teams over 43 years.  2 2/3 times as many teams as there were in 1959.
• NHL: 1959-60 season - 6 teams; by 2000-01 season - 30 teams; an addition of 24 teams over 40 years. 5 times as many teams as their were in 1959.
• NBA: 1959-60 season - 8 teams; by 2004- 05 season - 30 teams; an addition of 22 teams over 44 years.   2 2/3 times as many teams as their were in 1959.
• MLB: 1959 season - 16 teams; by 1998 - 30 teams, an addition of 14 teams, not quite doubled in less than 40 years.

 

Now, a lot of that expansion came early:

• For football, the creation of the AFL and its eventual merger resulted in the NFL essentially doubling in size by the end of the 1960s.
• For baseball, a major expansion push resulted in the sport going from 16 teams in 1959 to 26 by 1976.
• The NHL doubled in size in 1967, going from the original six to 12 teams.  Later expansions and absorption of 4 teams from the WHA resulted in the league going to 21 teams by 1979.
• The NBA went from 8 to 22 teams by the 1976 season, via expansion and absorption of 4 teams from the ABA.

 

The leagues have expanded more since, but the trend is towards a slower pace of expansion.  Still, if you look back over the 56 years since 1959, and compare that to today, if the NFL added as many teams in the next 56 years as it did in the last 56, it would be at 52 teams by the year 2062.  By the same measure, the NHL would be at 61 teams (including Las Vegas) and the NBA would be at 52 teams. Baseball, however, would only be at 44.

 

Another factor to consider-- markets.  Where would these new teams go? Across the four main leagues, with the addition of Las Vegas, there are already 48 distinct markets covered in the US and Canada:

 

	City or Metro Area
1	Atlanta
2	Baltimore
3	Boston / New England
4	Buffalo
5	Calgary
6	Charlotte / Carolina
7	Chicago
8	Cincinnati
9	Cleveland
10	Columbus
11	Dallas / Texas
12	Denver / Colorado
13	Detroit
14	Edmonton
15	Houston
16	Indianapolis / Indiana
17	Jacksonville
18	Kansas City
19	Las Vegas
20	Los Angeles/Anaheim
21	Memphis
22	Miami / Florida
23	Milwaukee / Green Bay
24	Minnesota
25	Montreal
26	Nashville / Tennessee
27	New Orleans
28	New York/ New Jersey
29	Oklahoma City
30	Orlando
31	Ottawa
32	Philadelphia
33	Phoenix / Arizona
34	Pittsburgh
35	Portland, Or.
36	Raleigh-Durham (Carolina)
37	Sacramento
38	Salt Lake City / Utah
39	San Antonio
40	San Diego
41	San Francisco/Oakland/San Jose
42	Seattle
43	St. Louis
44	Tampa Bay
45	Toronto
46	Vancouver
47	Washington, DC
48	Winnipeg

 

Two markets have in fact dropped out of the "major league" ranks (Quebec City and Hartford, CT).  There are also two CFL team markets not listed above (Hamilton, Saskatchewan), as well as other markets that have been discussed as possible big league markets-- most notably, Louisville, KY and the Hampton Roads area of Virginia.

 

Of course, as was being discussed in the Las Vegas thread, each area can only support so many teams.  What may eventually happen, as put forth by Goodell with London recently, and which was put forth by Stern for the NBA in the late 1980s/early 1990s, is the possibility of true international, intercontinental expansion.  Somehow, I see that as problematic for several reasons, but that may be the way to get to 50.

 

There are also a couple of other issues particular to football/ the NFL:

• Number/quality of players available to play in a 50 team league.  To some degree, I think this is relative-- while anyone can watch a pee-wee or high school game and note how bad, undisciplined or unpolished the play is, does the average fan watch a college game and think it is less entertaining or polished than an NFL game? I think not, and there are 128 teams in the Division 1 Football Bowl Subdivision.
• Team scheduling.  This is really only particular to the NFL, which plays half the number of games (16) as teams in the league.  Right now, it is a pretty good system where you play everyone else in the league within a span of four years, but that would be a little more problematic with a 50 team league playing the same number of games...

 

My own personal thoughts?  I would think that you may see a 50 team NFL by say, the year 2075.  The experience with WLAF/NFL Europe, IMHO has shown that intercontinental football may not be a thing that will work.  Without supersonic travel or "space planes", the travel times  and jet lag are too long, as is the time differences.  We saw with Brexit that this "globalization" thing may be on the wane... Yet I think in our own continent there are ample opportunities for expansion.  I know the Canadian game is different culturally, season-wise, and rule-wise, but if a buyout or merger of sorts between the NFL and the CFL came about, that would add nine teams and get the league to 41.  There are several cities in Mexico that may support teams in the FAR future, and the remainder may be untapped US markets (Las Vegas, Sacramento, Portland, Hartford, St. Louis,  etc.).

 

As Linda Richman said, "I've given you a topic-- DISCUSS!!"

[dont care]

No way it happens, atleast not in my life time. All the leagues are pretty close to the highest they can go. They can add more than accouple teams and not risk teams cannibalizing others markets. You also have to think of the talent pool would be spread that much more thin, thinner than teams could fill competitive teams. Parity would be non existent 

[Cosmic]

The difference between 1967 and now for the NHL is that a place like LA was probably a top 5 media market at the time. There are no more top five markets out there, now or for the foreseeable future. As you expand, especially into marginal markets, the incentive to expand further goes down.  Not only are you splitting the expansion fee into more and more pieces, it's less and less likely that increasingly smaller markets will "earn" their piece of the pie in tv contracts, merchandise sales, sponsorships, etc.. I already don't think it's a great deal for the other owners to expand to Las Vegas... I can't even imagine what the return will be on Team 39.

[~Bear]

I don't doubt that by 2100 leagues will be bigger. More people means more fans willing to support. More people also means more players of the sport and more athletes. The world is gaining people, so I don't see why the future (with faster travel, of course) can't hold leagues up to 50 teams. Maybe not in my life though. 

[2001mark]

It might've worked 70yrs ago graphed over today's demographics when there weren't nearly as many sports options.    

Soccer is probably the only sport that could try in my lifetime, with global league.

[TBGKon]

32 is about the max limit for a league.  It allow for a safe saturation point and doesn't dilute the talent pool.

[FlyEaglesFly76]

50 teams is a pipe dream. The talent pool would get so diluted at 50 teams the games would be High School quality unless EVERY SINGLE athlete in the world all pile onto one sport.

 

Not to mention, not every city is able to support a pro team..

[TheLAKnight]

I could see maybe 36 max, though 32 is more ideal. Having even 40 teams would be really pushing the limits of a league. Looking purely at divisional make-up, 36 teams could be broken down into 6 divisions of 6 (best), 3 divisions of 12, 4 divisions of 9, or 9 divisions of 4 (worst). The NFL currently with 32 works well with 8 divisions of 4. If the NHL adds 1 more after Vegas, they'll likely go with 4 divisions of 8. No other real ways to go there. Otherwise, you would need to follow the old MLB set up with 2 (or more) leagues which don't meet in the regular season.   

[JackieMoon]

It all comes down to money. Money is the reason these leagues expanded in the first place. Like it has been mentioned, every league is almost at it's climax. At some point, you go overboard and then there is the climb back down the mountain (i.e. what has happened to NASCAR). In a perfect world, yeah every North American Pro League could sport 50 teams. But, in the real-world, where everyday holds the potential of another depression, I don't see it happening. I do believe by 2030, there probably will be 32 teams in every league (the top four that is). As for after that, 36 could become a possibility. But after that, it becomes severely watered down with teams, talent, and fanbase. If every sport goes past a certain point, then it turns into a Premier League style where you have a certain group at the top, and a certain group who are just their to fill the void.

[Cosmic]

16 hours ago, sohiosportsfreak said:

 If every sport goes past a certain point, then it turns into a Premier League style where you have a certain group at the top, and a certain group who are just their to fill the void.

Good thing we aren't at THAT point yet!

 

[BigRed618]

Maybe 40 would be the next logical benchmark. When it comes to composing schedules, multiples of 4 are easier to deal with than fives, so I've heard. That's why the major leagues are all trying to go for 32 teams apiece.

[pianoknight]

If the NFL were to swell to 50 teams in the future, I would think it might come from the addition of cities in Canada and possibly Mexico and/or the defunct NFL Europe.  There is definitely a market for American football abroad, although per capita it will never replace soccer, rugby, etc.  Certainly, with 18 new teams, you'd have the usual American suspects like Las Vegas, Salt Lake, Portland and so on.  You might even get enough momentum to put teams in metros hovering right at the 1 million citizen mark like Omaha, Oklahoma City and Louisville.

 

Let's say you need to fill up a 50,000 seat stadium regularly, plus have another 100k or so fans in the region to really have a strong following.  I'd argue that you'd be better getting 150k people out of London (~2% of London's 8.7 million) versus a smaller US city where you'd need like 65% of the residents to be supporters.

 

I also understand the love for the uniqueness of Canadian Football, what with their oblong fields, 3 downs and 12 men on a side.  But I also think that if the NFL were to expand northward, the CFL would be better off in a merger situation opposed to trying to create outright competition against the NFL.  Watching a Blue Bombers-Packers game would be pretty awesome, IMO.

[BBTV]

1.  STOP WITH THE LONDON TALK.  Unless we're talking 100 years in the future, when planes travel twice as fast, or 1000 years in the future when particle transport is possible, it's a non starter and an idea that shouldn't even be taken a little bit seriously.

 

2.  Mergers are not feasible in the top leagues in 2016.  If you "merge" the CFL with the NFL, the following would happen:

.  a.  The CFL would die.

.  b.  The absorbed teams would instantly be the worst in the league, and half their players might get seriously injured.

.  c.  The NFL owners would never approve such a thing, unless the absorbed teams were willing to pay $1B merger fees (Essentially an expansion fee.)

.  d.  The merged teams would in essence just be expansion teams, and you'd have to fill them via expansion draft since very few (if any) of those players could play against NFL talent (though by virtue of expansion, the talent floor drops.)

[2001mark]

Toronto Raptors, playing from the 4th largest market on the continent (not to mention having the rest of Canada nearly to itself) cannot even find much American air time... 

& ppl think CFL cities would survive in the television series we call NFL?  Yeah.  No.

[BBTV]

7 minutes ago, 2001mark said:

Toronto Raptors, playing from the 4th largest market on the continent (not to mention having the rest of Canada nearly to itself) cannot even find much American air time... 

& ppl think CFL cities would survive in the television series we call NFL?  Yeah.  No.

 

?

[2001mark]

Just now, BringBackTheVet said:

 

?

New York

Mexico City

Los Angeles

Toronto

Houston

Chicago

etc

 

That's usually what I see quoted.

 

[BBTV]

4 minutes ago, 2001mark said:

New York

Mexico City

Los Angeles

Toronto

Houston

Chicago

etc

 

That's usually what I see quoted.

 

 

Not sure that's accurate.  It is a big market though.

[dfwabel]

Y'all need to remember junior high Economics and "The Law of Diminishing Returns". All league executives realize this, but possibly MLS.

 

Even though there are thousands of undrafted players every spring to become part of the NFL, only a dozens make a roster or practice squad. Plus, the market doesn't want to watch a "development" league as the FXFL failed after just two years.

 

40 team NFL would likely be at the limit.

 

 

[pianoknight]

Yeah, but in the future we'll have clones so you'll be able to watch Bayton Schmanning lead the Bismarck Donuts against Trett Mavre and the Las Cruces Linx in Super Bowl XXLXLXIIXIXLLXLVVIIII.