bbb Posted March 20, 2014 Author Share Posted March 20, 2014 AFC North:BengalsBrownsSteelersRavensColumbus* AFC East:BillsDolphinsJetsPatriotsAlbany (NY)* AFC South:ColtsJaguarsTitansTexansSt Louis* AFC West:BroncosChargersChiefsRaidersNevada* NFC North:BearsLionsPackersVikingsNebraska* NFC East:CowboysEaglesGiantsRedskinsOrlando* NFC South:BuccaneersFalconsPanthersSaintsOklahoma* NFC West:49ersCardinalsRams (Los Angeles)SeahawksOregon* *expansion teams Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bbb Posted March 20, 2014 Author Share Posted March 20, 2014 Columbus sea scouts sounds good. Like Colombo did in 1492 ( sì sono Italiano Yes l'm an italian guy) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bbb Posted March 20, 2014 Author Share Posted March 20, 2014 http://s1061.photobucket.com/user/leodari/media/NEWnflteams_mapupdate2_zps46ebf5e3.png.htmlupdate with the new 8 teams in the divisions Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pianoknight Posted March 20, 2014 Share Posted March 20, 2014 I like the alignment, but I'm not crazy on some of the names.One change I'd make - keep the Rams in STL and make the expansion team in LA instead of moving the Rams. Yes, I know that the old timers get dizzy off the idea of moving the Rams back to the West Coast, but the team's had its best success in STL, going to two Super Bowls and winning one. The Warner-Faulk era is just too good to ignore.Plus, STL tends to be a Cardinals-first town, but the Rams still have a fanbase. On the flip side, I also think you'd have better luck with a fresh start in LA than bringing back a team that hasn't been there for 20 years. 5th in NAT. TITLES | 2nd in CONF. TITLES | 5th in HEISMAN | 7th in DRAFTS | 8th in ALL-AMER | 7th in WINS | 4th in BOWLS | 1st in SELLOUTS | 1st GAMEDAY SIGN Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Buster Posted March 20, 2014 Share Posted March 20, 2014 I like it for the most part. you shouldn't have a team in mexico city. Football wouldn't catch on there. I suggest a team for the dakotas.Or Calgary, or Toronto.Mexico City has further issues, like the drug cartels and water supply. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
derschwigg Posted March 20, 2014 Share Posted March 20, 2014 I like it for the most part. you shouldn't have a team in mexico city. Football wouldn't catch on there. I suggest a team for the dakotas.Or Calgary, or Toronto.Mexico City has further issues, like the drug cartels and water supply.Nit-picky here, but a team in Mexico/Canada would require a league name change to the "International Football League."The teams you have in place are alright. The names are a little lacking, IMO.I'd move Nevada to Salt Lake to spread things out geographically. It's like Denver's been quarantined for some reason Maybe the Salt Lake Mountaineers instead? Or you could go the Area 51 route.I'd also move Orlando into South Carolinas - you've got plenty of teams in Florida as is. Maybe the South Carolina Admirals or the Rebels?You may as well keep the Rams in St. Louis, though. Start fresh out west. There's loads of great names you can pull from. LA Quakes/Tremors, for example. My Portfolio | My Store | My Self Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NCCoachArete Posted March 20, 2014 Share Posted March 20, 2014 I don't think adding a team outside the USA would automatically force a name change. Branding is very important. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jhans203 Posted March 20, 2014 Share Posted March 20, 2014 I like it for the most part. you shouldn't have a team in mexico city. Football wouldn't catch on there. I suggest a team for the dakotas.Or Calgary, or Toronto.Mexico City has further issues, like the drug cartels and water supply.Nit-picky here, but a team in Mexico/Canada would require a league name change to the "International Football League."The teams you have in place are alright. The names are a little lacking, IMO.I'd move Nevada to Salt Lake to spread things out geographically. It's like Denver's been quarantined for some reason Maybe the Salt Lake Mountaineers instead? Or you could go the Area 51 route.I'd also move Orlando into South Carolinas - you've got plenty of teams in Florida as is. Maybe the South Carolina Admirals or the Rebels?You may as well keep the Rams in St. Louis, though. Start fresh out west. There's loads of great names you can pull from. LA Quakes/Tremors, for example.Yeah SLC is never going to get a NFL team. I'd love it, but the whole Sunday thing would be a huge roadblock. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
derschwigg Posted March 20, 2014 Share Posted March 20, 2014 I don't think adding a team outside the USA would automatically force a name change. Branding is very important.Exactly. It's TOO important, that's why it won't happen.I like it for the most part. you shouldn't have a team in mexico city. Football wouldn't catch on there. I suggest a team for the dakotas.Or Calgary, or Toronto.Mexico City has further issues, like the drug cartels and water supply.Nit-picky here, but a team in Mexico/Canada would require a league name change to the "International Football League."The teams you have in place are alright. The names are a little lacking, IMO.I'd move Nevada to Salt Lake to spread things out geographically. It's like Denver's been quarantined for some reason Maybe the Salt Lake Mountaineers instead? Or you could go the Area 51 route.I'd also move Orlando into South Carolinas - you've got plenty of teams in Florida as is. Maybe the South Carolina Admirals or the Rebels?You may as well keep the Rams in St. Louis, though. Start fresh out west. There's loads of great names you can pull from. LA Quakes/Tremors, for example.Yeah SLC is never going to get a NFL team. I'd love it, but the whole Sunday thing would be a huge roadblock. COMPLETELY forgot about that. Great point. Maybe New Mexico? You could easily market for Albuquerque. My Portfolio | My Store | My Self Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Soarindude Posted March 20, 2014 Share Posted March 20, 2014 In what rule was ever established that called for a "forced name change". It's absolutely outlandish to actually believe that's a rule. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NCCoachArete Posted March 20, 2014 Share Posted March 20, 2014 Why couldn't Utah have football on Sundays? They have basketball on Sundays. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mamiller99 Posted March 21, 2014 Share Posted March 21, 2014 Don't know if Ohio could have that many football teams. That's what- She Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
derschwigg Posted March 23, 2014 Share Posted March 23, 2014 Why couldn't Utah have football on Sundays? They have basketball on Sundays.Mormons STRONGLY prefer to keep Sunday for the Lord. BYU runs into this issue a lot. My Portfolio | My Store | My Self Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
derschwigg Posted March 23, 2014 Share Posted March 23, 2014 In what rule was ever established that called for a "forced name change". It's absolutely outlandish to actually believe that's a rule.You don't see an American CFL team, do you? It's simple semantics, not a personal preference. My Portfolio | My Store | My Self Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NCCoachArete Posted March 23, 2014 Share Posted March 23, 2014 Perhaps, but the Utah Jazz play on Sundays to a packed house. Mormons must be able to adjust. BYU is a Mormon school so I can see how their athletics could be affected. However, pro franchises are not religious based and have drawn extremely well despite the Mormon influence throughout the state.Why couldn't Utah have football on Sundays? They have basketball on Sundays.Mormons STRONGLY prefer to keep Sunday for the Lord. BYU runs into this issue a lot. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bbb Posted March 25, 2014 Author Share Posted March 25, 2014 http://s1061.photobucket.com/user/leodari/media/stlouisduckslogo_zpse11ce693.png.htmlthe st.louis ducks logohttp://s1061.photobucket.com/user/leodari/media/stlouisduckshomeuniform_zpsd91f4276.png.htmlducks home uniformhttp://s1061.photobucket.com/user/leodari/media/stlouisducksawayuniform_zps434464d0.png.htmlducks away uniform Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Soarindude Posted March 25, 2014 Share Posted March 25, 2014 In what rule was ever established that called for a "forced name change". It's absolutely outlandish to actually believe that's a rule.You don't see an American CFL team, do you? It's simple semantics, not a personal preference. There actually was American expansion into the CFL at one point. The league never changed their name. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bbb Posted March 26, 2014 Author Share Posted March 26, 2014 do you like the uniforms and logo? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ultramark3000 Posted March 27, 2014 Share Posted March 27, 2014 lots to chime in onfirst, the nfl would NOT change its name if they moved into London, Toronto, Mexico City, Tokeyo, or Luxemburgh. The NHL and NBA are both international, so just let that go.second, the St Louis ducks?????? im gonna try and unsee that, really dude, thats just stupidthough at least finally keeping a team in st louis seems ok now with the proposed teams in such population dense markets as calgary, oklahoma city, lincoln, and freakin bizmark.....really? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bbb Posted March 27, 2014 Author Share Posted March 27, 2014 so, l can make the new mexico ducks Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.