NFL Expansion Project

[phlash]

When I lived in Biloxi, Mississippi it seemed the entire state was a little apathetic towards the NFL. Yes there were plenty of Saints fans, but I just dont remember a lot of loyalty. I was rather young and maybe the Saints were horrific then but would a team for the Mississippi market work? Is Jackson (population 185,000) too small?

[rams80]

When I lived in Biloxi, Mississippi it seemed the entire state was a little apathetic towards the NFL. Yes there were plenty of Saints fans, but I just dont remember a lot of loyalty. I was rather young and maybe the Saints were horrific then but would a team for the Mississippi market work? Is Jackson (population 185,000) too small?

Lessee....93rd largest MSA.

Yes, it's too small.

[Davidson]

3 pages and no concepts. Just re-alignment talk.

WHYYYYYYYYY?!

Yeah, I saw this bumped up on the top of the page and I was thinking after 3 pages there would be some concepts, so I clicked the link. But no concepts, just realignment talk. Shame.

haha, relax. theyre coming.

im just mega busy. thanks for everyone who suggested places. ive taken them into consideration

and have chosen 8. you cannot please all the people all the time however so there is a certain amount

of artistic license in choosing locations that fit what i want to do.

first up, the las vegas wranglers, the vancouver bruins and austin oilers. logos are done, just have to lay it all out.

will be done in the next week.

[dcameronh]

I can't wait to see them. Would it be possible to start posting the concepts in a new thread so we can find them easier? Again, I'm very excited to see your concepts. If they are anything like some of your others, I think we are in for a treat.

[tgvyhn]

For 8 new teams here's where I would put them.

1. Los Angeles

2. Portland

3. Salt Lake City

4. Mexico City

5. San Antonio

6. Las Vegas

7. Orlando

8. Sacramento

Alot of people may not be sold on the Mexico City idea, which I understand so I'd replace them with Columbus if I was told a Mexico City team would be out of the question.

[McCall]

On its own, no. But an Omaha team would tap NE Kansas (including Topeka, Lawrence, and Overland Park), the Dakotas, and Iowa. Before you ask, "But what about Kansas City?" Well, KC in Kansas is like the Lions in Detroit, you'll simply find more fans of other teams.

I hate the Chiefs with a passion, but there is no way teams in Kansas, especially the northeastern portion (Topeka, Lawrence, Overland Park, etc.) are gonna switch allegiances from the Chiefs. Chiefs fans are just about as die-hard as the come. Sometimes to a fault. Believe me, being a Rams fan in Chiefs country, I see it all the time. They are no comparison to the Lions.

Norfolk (Hampton Roads Metro- 1.6 Million) would be a good idea, and it is no more in DC's back yard (193 miles) as Philly is in NYC, Baltimore is in Philly, and DC is in Baltimore. The advantage the area would have is it would be the only game in town. Plus it could over time develop a national following with all the naval personnel there. But hey this is all pretend so you can put a team anyplace. But since most of the East is taken, Hampton Roads is about the only place left other than Nassau County NY.

That's essentially why I put a team in Virginia. It would be the only major sports team in the state and would only compete with Virginia Tech and Virginia football.

Ya know I don't even know if UVa and VT would be that much competition. Sure they are state wide programs, but with VT being in the western part of the state and UVa in the center, that leaves Tidewater pretty much open. I think it is an overlooked market.

I really grew to love the idea of Norfolk as a sports market when the Expos were exploring relocation there before they chose DC (Don't know how truly serious their consideration was, but it caught my eye nonetheless). I think football would be a good sport to start them off. Although football is a sport where the market expectancy is rather large, and I would hope it wouldn't be too much for the Hampton Roads area. My only qualm is with those selecting them for their realignments... put them in the South.

EDIT: Here is the latest "40 Team" plan I've come up with. No teams swich conferences. Some switch divisions. Most divisional rivalries stay intact.

NFC

West: Arizona, Los Angeles, San Francisco, Seattle, Utah

South: Atlanta, Carolina, New Orleans, San Antonio, Tampa Bay

North: St. Louis, Chicago, Detroit, Green Bay, Minnesota

East: Dallas, NY Giants, Norfolk, Philadelphia, Washington

AFC

West: Denver, Kansas City, Las Vegas, Oakland, San Diego

South: Alabama, Houston, Jacksonville, Oklahoma City, Tennessee

North: Cincinnati, Cleveland, Indianapolis, Pittsburgh, Toronto

East: Baltimore, Buffalo, Miami, New England, NY Jets

[Delux247]

I would say the 8 best cities to place an NFL team are Anaheim, East Rutherford, Los Angeles, Oklahoma City, Salt Lake, San Antonio, San Jose, & Toronto.

If those 8 are added, I think the ideal (re)alignment would be:

AFC

EAST

Bills, Jets, Patriots, Ravens, & Steelers

NORTH

Browns, Bengals, Chiefs, Colts, & Titans

SOUTH

Jaguars, Texans, Dolphins, San Antonio, & Oklahoma City

WEST

Broncos, Chargers, Raiders, Anaheim, & Salt Lake City

NFC

EAST

Giants, Eagles, Redskins, Panthers, & New Jersey

NORTH

Bears, Lions, Packers, Vikings, & Toronto

SOUTH

Falcons, Saints, Buccaneers, Cowboys, & Rams

WEST

Cardinals, 49ers, Seahawks, Los Angeles, & San Jose

[McCall]

I would say the 8 best cities to place an NFL team are Anaheim, East Rutherford, Los Angeles, Oklahoma City, Salt Lake, San Antonio, San Jose, & Toronto.

If those 8 are added, I think the ideal (re)alignment would be:

AFC

EAST

Bills, Jets, Patriots, Ravens, & Steelers

NORTH

Browns, Bengals, Chiefs, Colts, & Titans

SOUTH

Jaguars, Texans, Dolphins, San Antonio, & Oklahoma City

WEST

Broncos, Chargers, Raiders, Anaheim, & Salt Lake City

NFC

EAST

Giants, Eagles, Redskins, Panthers, & New Jersey

NORTH

Bears, Lions, Packers, Vikings, & Toronto

SOUTH

Falcons, Saints, Buccaneers, Cowboys, & Rams

WEST

Cardinals, 49ers, Seahawks, Los Angeles, & San Jose

East Rutherford??? You do realize that's where the Giants AND Jets play, don't ya? Unless, for some unexpainable reason, you think the Meadowlands need a 3rd team. You proposing that all 3 teams play at the new Meadowlands Stadium?

San Jose? The Bay Area does not need a third team. 2 will suffice.

[edwardgr]

I understand the desire to do this as a concept, but some of the suggestions seem to be a bit unrealistic.

I think any further NFL expansion will be as follows:

LA Area x2. I say this because I think you need to be able to balance the LA market between the two networks bidding for the main TV rights.

Toronto assuming the Bills don't move here first. Maybe Vancouver BC.

Other possible US locales

Salt Lake City (needs stadium, I doubt Rice Eccles works for the NFL)

San Antonio (probably needs to replace Alamo Dome, first, sadly)

So this may account for up to 6 new locations. Beyond them I would say London and some other euro city is likely.

I do not think Mexico is viable at all at this time.

[illwauk]

I know a gasoline snowball has a better chance in hell than Milwaukee does of getting an NFL team, but I still want to see your Milwaukee Bruins concept for the simple fact that you chose a nickname that has nothing to do with alcohol or dairy.

[McCall]

I know a gasoline snowball has a better chance in hell than Milwaukee does of getting an NFL team, but I still want to see your Milwaukee Bruins concept for the simple fact that you chose a nickname that has nothing to do with alcohol or dairy.

Bruins = Brewin' ???

[The Imperfect]

I would say the 8 best cities to place an NFL team are Anaheim, East Rutherford, Los Angeles, Oklahoma City, Salt Lake, San Antonio, San Jose, & Toronto.

If those 8 are added, I think the ideal (re)alignment would be:

AFC

EAST

Bills, Jets, Patriots, Ravens, & Steelers

NORTH

Browns, Bengals, Chiefs, Colts, & Titans

SOUTH

Jaguars, Texans, Dolphins, San Antonio, & Oklahoma City

WEST

Broncos, Chargers, Raiders, Anaheim, & Salt Lake City

NFC

EAST

Giants, Eagles, Redskins, Panthers, & New Jersey

NORTH

Bears, Lions, Packers, Vikings, & Toronto

SOUTH

Falcons, Saints, Buccaneers, Cowboys, & Rams

WEST

Cardinals, 49ers, Seahawks, Los Angeles, & San Jose

There is no way you can break up the AFC North. That the division is the second more intense rivalry wise behind the NFC East. And why is San Jose getting a team when San Francisco and Oakland already have teams and they are right near each other? I also don't get why you moved Dallas out of the NFC East. Yes they are in the South, but if the actual NFL isn't even going to realign them, why is your fake NFL? And no way New Jersey is getting a team. That's what the Giants and Jets are for.

[AJM]

Posted this http://boards.sportslogos.net/index.php?showtopic=64531

Chicago Mayor seriously thinks city could support a 2nd NFL team...maybe we should consider this when discussing expansion (not really).

[McCall]

Posted this http://boards.sportslogos.net/index.php?showtopic=64531

Chicago Mayor seriously thinks city could support a 2nd NFL team...maybe we should consider this when discussing expansion (not really).

Ok. This is now the 3rd time this has been brought up in a thread and it's not even big news, just kind of a dumb opinion of the Mayor of Chicago.

[Claystation360]

He brought it up ironiclly the same week Chicago's former team is in the Super Bowl . Anyways if it was to happen the new Chi town team would have to be a AFC team.It would be a nice bit of income for the AFC .

Anyway's here we go. NFL goes to a 18 game regular season and will make up for division play and Expansion to the Playoff set up with 1 more wild card per conference.

NFC East: NY Giants, Philadephia, Washington, Dallas, Carolina

NFC North: Cleveland, Detroit, Green Bay, Chicago, Minnesota,

NFC South: Tampa Bay, Atlanta, New Orleans , MEMPHIS, OKLAHOMA CITY

NFC West: San Francisco, Seattle, Arizona, St. Louis, LOS ANGELES

AFC East: Toronto(Bills), New England, NY Jets, Jacksonville, Miami

AFC North: CHICAGO ,Cincinnati, Baltimore, Pittsburgh, Indianapolis

AFC South: LAS VEGAS,Houston, Tennessee, SAN ANTONIO, ALABAMA (Birmingham)

AFC West: PORTLAND, Denver, San Diego, Kansas City, Los Angeles(raiders)

Yes im sure plenty will be said about this ! but I think this is the best outlook. it keeps some rivals together , reunites some, and starts some new ones.

Buffalo is a dieing city it will sadly lose the Bills to Toronto or some were and have to use the TV.

The NFL likes keeping the older teams in the NFC , and ever since the Browns returned they really havent fit in much with the AFC Central/North Rivaliry , Baltimore took that over.

So why not move them back to the NFC with some old school rivals they had when they were a great franchise and maybe it could return for them.

I went with Chicago(Blitz) as a AFC expansion team to start a new rivialiry in the Chi town and in the AFC.

Memphis(showboats) sounds like a winner hell they have applied for a expansion team every time since the 70's of course going to the NFC since the Titans are AFC would just make since.

Same as OKC (Outlaws) as either a NFC or AFC .

But of course Giving the City of Los Angeles it's 1st NFL expansion team would be a honor the NFC would want.

Alabama( Thunderbirds/Thunderbolts/freebirds) ,San Antonio(Stallions), and Los Vegas (Gamblers)would have the honor of being in a divison that has the once youngest NFL teams and a AFL charter member.

Besides that You know Al Divis couldn;t let someone else have the LA market by themselves so Compton (LA) Raiders are back. and the AFC expands to the northwest so the area doesnt go solely to the NFC seahawks.

Anyways I really cant see anything happening for a while to come they league has already added 4 in 15 years , but the 32 number seems so right it would almost have to be a major jump to 40 to keep it right.

[McCall]

He brought it up ironiclly the same week Chicago's former team is in the Super Bowl.

Actually, that is exactly why he brought it up

Anyway's here we go. NFL goes to a 18 game regular season and will make up for division play and Expansion to the Playoff set up with 1 more wild card per conference.

NFC East: NY Giants, Philadephia, Washington, Dallas, Carolina

NFC North: Cleveland, Detroit, Green Bay, Chicago, Minnesota,

NFC South: Tampa Bay, Atlanta, New Orleans , MEMPHIS, OKLAHOMA CITY

NFC West: San Francisco, Seattle, Arizona, St. Louis, LOS ANGELES

AFC East: Toronto(Bills), New England, NY Jets, Jacksonville, Miami

AFC North: CHICAGO ,Cincinnati, Baltimore, Pittsburgh, Indianapolis

AFC South: LAS VEGAS,Houston, Tennessee, SAN ANTONIO, ALABAMA (Birmingham)

AFC West: PORTLAND, Denver, San Diego, Kansas City, Los Angeles(raiders)

Yes im sure plenty will be said about this ! but I think this is the best outlook. it keeps some rivals together , reunites some, and starts some new ones.

Buffalo is a dieing city it will sadly lose the Bills to Toronto or some were and have to use the TV.

The NFL likes keeping the older teams in the NFC , and ever since the Browns returned they really havent fit in much with the AFC Central/North Rivaliry , Baltimore took that over.

So why not move them back to the NFC with some old school rivals they had when they were a great franchise and maybe it could return for them.

I went with Chicago(Blitz) as a AFC expansion team to start a new rivialiry in the Chi town and in the AFC.

Memphis(showboats) sounds like a winner hell they have applied for a expansion team every time since the 70's of course going to the NFC since the Titans are AFC would just make since.

Same as OKC (Outlaws) as either a NFC or AFC .

But of course Giving the City of Los Angeles it's 1st NFL expansion team would be a honor the NFC would want.

Alabama( Thunderbirds/Thunderbolts/freebirds) ,San Antonio(Stallions), and Los Vegas (Gamblers)would have the honor of being in a divison that has the once youngest NFL teams and a AFL charter member.

Besides that You know Al Divis couldn;t let someone else have the LA market by themselves so Compton (LA) Raiders are back. and the AFC expands to the northwest so the area doesnt go solely to the NFC seahawks.

Anyways I really cant see anything happening for a while to come they league has already added 4 in 15 years , but the 32 number seems so right it would almost have to be a major jump to 40 to keep it right.

Cleveland to the NFC = Not a chance in hell.

2nd team in Chicago = Almost as big of a not a chance in hell.

[Leafers]

3 pages and no concepts. Just re-alignment talk.

WHYYYYYYYYY?!

Yeah, I saw this bumped up on the top of the page and I was thinking after 3 pages there would be some concepts, so I clicked the link. But no concepts, just realignment talk. Shame.

haha, relax. theyre coming.

im just mega busy. thanks for everyone who suggested places. ive taken them into consideration

and have chosen 8. you cannot please all the people all the time however so there is a certain amount

of artistic license in choosing locations that fit what i want to do.

first up, the las vegas wranglers, the vancouver bruins and austin oilers. logos are done, just have to lay it all out.

will be done in the next week.

Really? That's what you chose? Ok, I lost all interest, even if those are only the first three. None of those cities make sense having a team and those names are Minor League (Wranglers) or re-used (Bruins and Oilers) names.

[chestnutz]

Wow leafers, nice.

I will agree that Austin is kinda silly. The other two make sense to me though.

[Leafers]

Wow leafers, nice.

I will agree that Austin is kinda silly. The other two make sense to me though.

I didn't mean to come off as attacking or anything.

Look what happened to the Grizzlies. I think that explains a lot, although a city can change. There just hasn't been any proof that Vancouver can support a pro team strongly outside of the Canucks. The Lions are supported, yes, but not enough to impress the NFL in any way.

And if Vegas were to get a franchise, it would be a huge gamble (no pun...I guess) because of the lack of teams in the past. I'm not saying you need past sports teams to get a new team, it's just that tourists more than likely aren't fans of the city's teams that they visit. It's not like your going to show up to Vegas and say, "Yeah Go Wranglers!" just because you like the city and you're there. And I'm not saying no one lives in Vegas either, but there are much, much stronger choices out there.

Austin, again, there's just better choices out there. And Texas already has it's two football teams. Give Oklahoma a team to rival against a Texas team.

The Cities I've listed are Portland, Oklahoma, Louisville, Toronto, Orlando, Virginia Beach, Salt Lake and Los Angeles. All are strong and among the top 40 cities of the U.S. Population and college/outside sport support went into narrowing it down and the choices seemed obvious to me. Orlando's the only one team I questioned because of there already being 3 Florida teams, but Orlando is a well-populated city.

So, looking at my list, cities such as Las Vegas and Austin, even Vancouver, seem rather silly if you ask me. Even though I believe nearly any city can "support" an NFL team, the league wants results, not just numbers.

I was a bit over the top saying I lost interest in this because that's not true by any means. I'll still view and comment on concepts and such, it's just I don't agree with the decision. And that's why.

[edwardgr]

The Grizzlies were mismanaged and the greedy owners pulled the plug much to early. They were never given a chance in Vancouver.

The NFL is entirely different than the NBA. Football has a long history in Canada, certainly much longer than Basketball.

Charlotte was obviously somewhere between 1st and 2nd tier when it was awarded. The Panthers have been very successful. Jacksonville was a calculated risk and the jury is still out on that one. I don't think the Jags are close to moving at this point, but it would be difficult for them to turn down a sweetheart deal (City of Industry development anyone?)

Vegas is a bit of a gamble (pun intended). No pro sports to speak of, and I think the casino and gambling culture ultimately hurts the chances. But then again wave a billion dollar retractable roof stadium at the NFL and I am sure it will be drooling like Pavlov's dog. But then again 33% population increase since the last census is hard to argue. The region is definitely growing. It will probably be like Phoenix was with regards to pro teams.

I think Salt Lakes history of supporting the Jazz and the new Real Salt Lake soccer team proves that the area is capable of supporting pro sports. I also think there is enough affluency despite the relatively small size to make it desireable for the NFL.

There are very few domestic options left for the NFL for at least the next 2 decades or so.

Chicago expansion would require a huge payout to the Bears for territory infringement. While a second team in the second city makes sense I just don't see it happening. Now if Chicago wins the Olympic bid and builds a new Olympic Stadium instead of using Soldier Field then this may be possible after all. Otherwise I doubt it.

Columbus, OH not without a stadium of their own, there is no way OSU allows an NFL team to share Ohio Stadium during the same season. The only reason the Glory played there in 1992 in the WLAF was because it was a spring season.

San Antonio is still larger than Austin but Austin is growing nearly twice as fast. I think if this happened in the next couple years San Antonio would get the nod, but in 20-30 years it may very well be Austin.

Thereafter it may be easier to look at CSA's instead of MSA's. Orlando, Sacramento, Vegas, and Raleigh - Durham are all top 30 CSA's without the NFL.