Spring Football Concept: AAFL Project

[Bomba Tomba]

I said it once, now I'll say it twice: Archers

 

Kings have nice colors but an overused name

Aviators would be my second pick

Rampage has no relation to STL, if it loses it can be reused for another team imo

[Brian in Boston]

St. Louis Kings

[BengalErnst]

Archers are the most blah logo and Kings are the most blah name. Aviators would be great but I’m not a fan of how it fits on the helmet. 

[OchentaYOcho88]

Rampage by leaps and bounds!

[Kooky01]

Gotta go with Kings here. 

[WideRight]

This is the closest vote yet.  I am going to hold off until after the Stillers-Bills game (Go Bills!!!) and then post the vote tally.  If it is very close, I will decide the final outcome, so if you haven't voted yet, now is the time. 

[Dion Jones Jr.]

I'll go with aviators

[DCarp1231]

Kings 

[WideRight]

That was a very close vote, and with one last nod to the aviators, the count is:

 

Kings                         3

Archers                    4

Aviators                   5

Rampage                 7

 

St.  Louis, you have your franchise, the St. Louis Rampage!!!  

 

Yes, it's a left-handed nod to the St. Louis Rams.  No, rhinos are not indigenous to Missouri.   

 

But what will the Rampage look like?  Well, we know they will sport orange helmets with the charging rhino logo on either side and a single navy and grey "horn"  from the facemask to the crown.  But what about the rest of the look?  Well, here it is. 

 

 

Orange jerseys with grey sleeves, white jerseys with orange sleeves, grey and white pant sets and navy socks.  We have big blocky numbers with 2 outlines, a secondary logo with an "STL" monogram within the full body of a rhino and then a tertiary mark with the R for Rampage with rhino horns.  A unique color combination and an orange-dominant team.  So we have 2 clubs with navy as a color but no navy jerseys yet, which I think will be helpful as we move along.  

 

So, St. Louis, let's get ready for the Rampage!!!   

 

And so, with two teams locked in to the AAFL inaugural season, there are still 6 more left to determine.  Time to make our case to our TV partners.  We have done well with the two largest non-NFL markets in place, but now we need major markets to make this league viable for the major TV partners (ESPN/ABC and Amazon Prime).  Of course we also want to see full stadia on Sundays (and Saturdays), so that means we are limiting our pool of cities to those with reasonably sized (25-50k) venues that are not in use for baseball. The AAFL has been working with MLS to allow dual usage on stadia built as soccer specific, which does open up more options for the league.  In some cases this means having an alternate field that gets trucked in for the AAFL game, in others it just means using a less durable paint for painting football field lines, so that the stadium can be reverted back to a soccer field without ugly faded football lines everywhere. 

 

We start in the West, where we have 6 top contenders for an AAFL franchise in an NFL city.  All six are major markets, all have stadiums that are available and right-sized for this league.  So, the question comes down to which city makes the most sense for the AAFL and will provide both TV ratings and a fervent local base of fan support. 

As with our non-NFL city votes, please pick only 1 city, make your case, and we will wait 2-3 days to see which city will become the 2^nd of our 4 Western Division squads to start the inaugural season.

 

LOS ANGELES

Metro: 2^ND – 12.8 million

Stadium:  Dignity Health Park (27,000)

Positives: Huge metro area, great weather, perfectly-sized MLS stadium

Negatives: Notoriously fickle fanbase, proximity to San Diego AAFL franchise

My Take: If San Diego was not the first AAFL city chosen, I would say LA would be a must, but their reputation as a “late arriving” fanbase, and poor attendance in several other leagues makes me think that San Diego is enough in Southern Cali for this league.

 

CHICAGO

Metro: 3^rd – 9.27 million

Stadium: SeatGeek Stadium (20,000)

Positives:  Large metro area, pretty good sports town

Negatives: Could have bad weather for first 1-2 months of the season, stadium is not in a great location and is borderline small.  Attendance at other (USFL, XFL) leagues has been pretty bad.

My Take:  I love Chicago, but I am not sure Chicago loves AAA football.  Neither the USFL nor the XFL drew well here.  Seatgeek stadium is also an awkward fit, and I don’t see fans making a trek up to Evanston to watch a club at Ryan Field (NWestern).

 

DALLAS

Metro: 4^th – 7.94 million

Stadium:  Choctaw Stadium (48.114)

Positives: Two viable stadiums (Toyota Stadium is just over 20,000) so they could right-size the stadium to the fan response.  Decent weather, strong football fanbase

Negatives: As with most larger cities, crowded media base with NBA, MLB, etc.

My Take:  I think Dallas is a good fit simply because it is a football-first state and city, and they

have 2 very viable stadia to choose from.  The only possible issue is if picking Dallas means no other Texas cities get in.  Texas is big enough, even if we don’t see 2 Texas franchises in the original 8, by 12 or 16 they will get a second one to be sure.

 

HOUSTON

Metro: 5^th – 7.37 million

Stadium:  TDECU (40,000)

Positives: Perfectly sized stadium for a big fan base.  Could drop to Shell Energy Stadium (22,039) if the fans don’t fill TDECU.  Weather is pretty good, maybe a bit humid in midsummer.  Football region. 

Negatives: Another crowded media market, potential for bad weather (rain)

My Take:  Almost anything I would say about Dallas I could say for Houston.  I guess the decision between the two is whether you are OK with humidity.

 

DETROIT

Metro: 14^th – 4.35 million

Stadium:  Rynearson Stadium (30,200)

Positives: Good football region, good support for USFL in the past, Stadium is a good size

Negatives: Stadium is not actually in Detroit, March & April weather can be dicey

My Take:  A bit of a stretch here.  Ypsilanti is not exactly downtown Detroit, but neither was Pontiac, so maybe you take a regional approach and use “Michigan” as the name.  Early spring weather is an issue since it is not a domed stadium.

 

LAS VEGAS

Metro: 29^th – 2.32 million

Stadium: Sam Boyd Stadium (40,000)

Positives: Great weather in early spring, entertainment hub & destination city, Good XFL support in 2001.

Negatives: Very hot in summer, potential stretch of a smaller market with NFL already in town,

poor XFL 2023 attendance, smallest of the NFL markets under consideration.

My Take: A longshot, not only due to the weather, but the issues with UNLV not wanting to share Sam Boyd.  I would also worry that with the arrival of the Knights, Raiders and A’s, the sports market is pretty saturated and a AAA football club might struggle to draw media and fan attention.

 

There you go.  Six cities, we are choosing one.  Once we do that, it is on to the team identity and then we look to the East, where several huge cities are out of the running due to a lack of right-sized stadia.  So, who will be left?   For now, let’s get a 2^nd team in the West and then we can move on.  

 

Voting will close either Wed. night or Thursday morning, with the results and the 4 possible identities revealed on Thursday. 

[BengalErnst]

Dallas 

[Silence of the Rams]

13 minutes ago, BengalErnst said:

Dallas 

Yes. They deserve at least one winning football team. Yes I have 0 chill

[raz]

Dallas 

[Fowler2]

My vote: Houston

 

A quick note on Vegas. UNLV doesn't use Sam Boyd anymore. They play at Allegiant Stadium. 

[DCarp1231]

Houston  

[zoads82]

Houston

[Brian in Boston]

Dallas

[TrueYankee26]

Houston

[maxwasson]

Dallas

[CLEFAN94]

Chicago

[McCall]

13 hours ago, BottomlessPitt said:

My vote: Houston

 

A quick note on Vegas. UNLV doesn't use Sam Boyd anymore. They play at Allegiant Stadium. 

But the Raiders have a say in who does use Sam Boyd, by virtue of their deal for UNLV to play at Allegiant, and it seems they won't let anybody use it.