St. Louis Stallions

[Gothamite]

(yes, I will continue to contend that Cleveland was treated 100x better than any other city that lost a team)

You would be correct about that. They were. Would that the NFL had treated Baltimore, or MLB Brooklyn and Milwaukee, so well....

As for the move of the Oilers, I don't know that you can blame this. They would likely have moved anyway - the question is where.

The real irony is that St. Louis and Baltimore are probably the strongest of the franchises in place at this point in the cities from that round of expansion

Good point. That's because they ended up with relocated teams, which are historically much stronger.

[Wellsandt]

Anyone else thinks the designer of the new Broncos logo (1997) was inspired by the Stallions logo?

[lypator]

4. The creation of a small market franchise in Jacksonville that seems to be on tenuous footing despite on-field success.

NFL teams do not have local television contracts, therefore there is no such thing as a small market team.

[GasHouse1934]

Anyone else thinks the designer of the new Broncos logo (1997) was inspired by the Stallions logo?

Oh, absolutely! The abortive Stallions logo was designed by (or at least in conjunction with) NFL Properties, I think. It would be no surprise that it was modified and recycled; it's a cool-looking horse. I recall thinking, "Hey, wait a minute, isn't that...." when the Broncos broke out the new look in '97.

Fred

[leopard88]

4.  The creation of a small market franchise in Jacksonville that seems to be on tenuous footing despite on-field success.

NFL teams do not have local television contracts, therefore there is no such thing as a small market team.

I would beg to differ, though I agree the problem is not as acute as in baseball. "Small market" issues still exist with regard to non-shared revenue, which I believe includes local radio, preseason TV, non-game TV and radio (i.e., coaches' shows, preview shows, etc.), luxury suite rentals, seat licenses and other advertising revenues (anyone can correct me, or add others, if they wish). If these issues were not still present, teams would not be so hard pressed to push for new stadium deals in an effort to enhance their revenue streams (e.g., Indianapolis, Arizona, Minnesota, New Orleans).

Yes, the national TV revenue, the licensing revenue and much of the standard ticket revenue are shared, but the NFL owners are not complete socialists. There are still very important distinctions between the various markets (not all of which are specifically geographically driven, otherwise Green Bay would not have an NFL team). I would be willing to bet, for example, that Jacksonville's radio deal is a little less lucrative than that of the Giants.

Post No. 600.

[Gothamite]

Agreed. There are no small television markets, but there is such as thing as a small market in the NFL in terms of fanbase and corporate support.

Is Jacksonville still blocked out for any games? For years, they couldn't sell out their games. In some cities, those tickets would be sold to corporations to allow the games to be locally broadcast.

[leopard88]

Agreed. There are no small television markets, but there is such as thing as a small market in the NFL in terms of fanbase and corporate support.

Is Jacksonville still blocked out for any games? For years, they couldn't sell out their games. In some cities, those tickets would be sold to corporations to allow the games to be locally broadcast.

I think there are small TV markets, but since it is only applies to preseason and non-game programming, it is much less of an issue.

As for the Jaguars, I know they downsized Alltel Stadium this year by covering some of the seats (thus reducing the sellout threshold for blackout purposes). I don't know if they still had trouble filling the stadium under those circumstances.

[BuddyLane]

Just a thought, or a question. If Baltimore went with the Bombers, could they have been sued by the CFL for use of the name Bombers? I don't know how all that works. I do like those Bengals helmets.

Does anyone have a larger image of that Stallions logo they can paste on here? I want to try to redesign it.

Thanks.

[leopard88]

    Just a thought, or a question. If Baltimore went with the Bombers, could they have been sued by the CFL for use of the name Bombers? I don't know how all that works.

Could they have sued? Yes. Would the suit be successful? That isn't clear.

The two key distinctions between this situation and the CFL Colts situation are:

1. The CFL team is the Blue Bombers, even if they are popularly referred to as the Bombers (assuming that is the actually the case, as I don't know).

2. The Colts litigation involved putting a team with a substantially similar nickname ("CFL Colts" v. "Colts") in the same city, whereas this would involve distinct cities in different countries (like the Detroit Lions and the B.C. Lions).

The key test in trademark cases is the likelihood of consumer confusion about the creator/source of the product or holder of the mark. In your scenario, I think the likelihood of confusion is pretty low. Therefore, if I was a betting man, which I most usually am not (especially with regard to litigation), I would say the CFL would likely lose at the end of the day.

[Gothamite]

As for the Jaguars, I know they downsized Alltel Stadium this year by covering some of the seats (thus reducing the sellout threshold for blackout purposes). I don't know if they still had trouble filling the stadium under those circumstances.

So I guess that answers my question.

If they are selling out, it's because they lowered the bar.

Still doesn't make expansion into Jacksonville look like a very good idea, in hindsight.

[lypator]

4.  The creation of a small market franchise in Jacksonville that seems to be on tenuous footing despite on-field success.

NFL teams do not have local television contracts, therefore there is no such thing as a small market team.

I would beg to differ, though I agree the problem is not as acute as in baseball. "Small market" issues still exist with regard to non-shared revenue, which I believe includes local radio, preseason TV, non-game TV and radio (i.e., coaches' shows, preview shows, etc.), luxury suite rentals, seat licenses and other advertising revenues (anyone can correct me, or add others, if they wish). If these issues were not still present, teams would not be so hard pressed to push for new stadium deals in an effort to enhance their revenue streams (e.g., Indianapolis, Arizona, Minnesota, New Orleans).

Yes, the national TV revenue, the licensing revenue and much of the standard ticket revenue are shared, but the NFL owners are not complete socialists. There are still very important distinctions between the various markets (not all of which are specifically geographically driven, otherwise Green Bay would not have an NFL team). I would be willing to bet, for example, that Jacksonville's radio deal is a little less lucrative than that of the Giants.

Post No. 600.

Your argument about Jacksonville being a small market is ridiculous. To point out your ignorance here is a few statistics from the census bureau. Aside from LA these are the city?s that where competing against Jacksonville, please note that none of the cities has a bigger population and only Charlotte (which go a team) has a higher median household income.

City Population Median household income

St. Louis 332,223 $27,156

Baltimore 628,670 $30,078

Memphis 645,978 $32,285

Jacksonville 773,781 $40,318

Charlotte 584,658 $46,975

Now look a handful of other successful football cities and notice only Indianapolis has a larger population and none have a higher Median household income.

City Population Median household income

Tampa 317,647 $34,415

Cleveland 461,324 $25,928

Pittsburgh 325,337 $28,588

Indianapolis 783,436 $40,051

Oakland 398,844 $40,055

New Orleans 469,032 $27,133

Denver 557,478 $39,500

Are you sure you still want to call Jacksonville a small market city?

[rams80]

Sure, but only because everybody else does.

Seriously-if they're a "major market", how come they aren't on any other league's radar?

[BBTV]

Wow, talk about not knowing facts. City population means nothing. "Cities" like Jacksonville, and a lot of other southern cities, include areas that in many urban cities are considered suburban. The real statistic is the population in the metro area, which for Jacksonville, is only 1.1 million.

That puts it at 43 (as of 2003, or 46 based on the 2000 census.)

In fact, of the other cities referenced:

St. Louis - 18

Baltimore - 19

Memphos - 41

Charlotte - 37

Jacksonville is absolutely small market. Especially considering that Pittsburgh is generally accepted to be a small market, and it's metro area is > 2 million.

That doesn't make it a bad city, or a bad place to live, or bad anything. But as last year's Super Bowl proved, it isn't big enough for that caliber event, or a top-tier pro team in any league that doesn't have a revenue sharing agreement like the NFL.

While not 100% meaningless, median household income means very little, as scales and economies vary drastically from city to city. If you are bringing that into the argument, you would also need to reference each cities cost of living, real estate market, and countless other figures that aren't really necessary for a discussion like this.

Source:

http://www.proximityone.com/msa03us.htm

[leopard88]

BBTV, thanks for making my rebuttal for me. I was ready to start digging, but you made every point I would make. If northern cities could just annex their suburbs like their southern counterparts, then city population would be relevant. Otherwise, you have to look at metropolitan area population.

To the extent median income is relevant, lypator's numbers are flawed for the same reason as the population statistics. When you are looking at median incomes in northern cities, you are largely looking at income in poorer areas. In Maryland, for example, the counties immediately adjacent to Baltimore have median household incomes of 1.5 - 2.5 times that of the city itself, using 1999 Census Bureau figures.

http://quickfacts.census.gov/qfd/states/24/24027.html

[Mac the Knife]

4.  The creation of a small market franchise in Jacksonville that seems to be on tenuous footing despite on-field success.

NFL teams do not have local television contracts, therefore there is no such thing as a small market team.

I would beg to differ, though I agree the problem is not as acute as in baseball. "Small market" issues still exist with regard to non-shared revenue, which I believe includes local radio, preseason TV, non-game TV and radio (i.e., coaches' shows, preview shows, etc.), luxury suite rentals, seat licenses and other advertising revenues (anyone can correct me, or add others, if they wish). If these issues were not still present, teams would not be so hard pressed to push for new stadium deals in an effort to enhance their revenue streams (e.g., Indianapolis, Arizona, Minnesota, New Orleans).

Yes, the national TV revenue, the licensing revenue and much of the standard ticket revenue are shared, but the NFL owners are not complete socialists. There are still very important distinctions between the various markets (not all of which are specifically geographically driven, otherwise Green Bay would not have an NFL team). I would be willing to bet, for example, that Jacksonville's radio deal is a little less lucrative than that of the Giants.

Post No. 600.

Sorry, but when your share of the league's national television revenue is sufficient to cover your entire payroll expense each year, he's right - there's no small market worries. Just less profit than the others, that's all.

[leopard88]

Sorry, but when your share of the league's national television revenue is sufficient to cover your entire payroll expense each year, he's right - there's no small market worries.  Just less profit than the others, that's all.

If there were truly "no small market worries" in the NFL, why is there such concern about teams like Jacksonville, Minnesota, New Orleans (even pre-Katrina) and Indianapolis (prior to getting a new stadium deal, that is) pulling up the stakes and moving? The other revenue matters, because teams have expenses beyond payroll. The amount of that other revenue and the way you can/do spend it on coaching, scouting, training facilities, etc. still matters, and that is why market size is relevant (though I have already conceded that the NFL system makes it far less relevant than in other sports).