NFL Considering Expansion

[rdub78]

Goodell said that adding to the league's 32 teams "has not been on our agenda" and that he doesn't "see that in the foreseeable future."
He also said the NFL wants "to keep our teams where they are."


Sounds to me this is something merely talked about and nothing is happening anytime soon.

[DonkeyJote]

Quote: Originally Posted by wEEman33

Like I said in the other thread, London has to be the most likely, with maybe Toronto in the mix as well.

I doubt London gets a team. The only way London ever conceivably gets a team is if the NFL expands into Europe hard, and they would not be the only European team. London is a 7 hour flight from the East coast of the United States. No way the players union is going to sign off on that. London is also 5 hours ahead of the East Coast and 8 hours ahead of the West Coast. It'd be impossible for the London team to ever be on primetime, as an 8:30 pm start Eastern would be 1:30 am in London - the latest they could ever conceivably play would be the Early game slot (1pm eastern). The NFL wants to play games there, and expand their footprint, but there are way too many hurdles for a team in London to work.

Quote: Originally Posted by TheMatrix31

If the NFL expanded to 36 teams, I wouldn't watch anymore. That is way, way, WAY too much.

I don't understand why that is too much? 32 is okay, but 34 or 36 is overboard? There's going to be an 18-game schedule. The way I see it, they could go to 40 teams and be okay at 18 games. 40 is the limit, but it could work there. I don't see any reason why it can't work at 34.

Quote: Originally Posted by SwampStomper90

LA, San Antonio, San Jose, Portland, Las Vegas, Toronto, Vancouver, Ottowa, Montreal, Oklahoma City, and Salt Lake City are all viable possibilities, IMO. Granted most of them would have to fund a stadium. But that's the price you half to pay for something like that.

San Jose is already getting a team - the 49ers are moving to Santa Clara, which is about 10 min outside of San Jose. Vancouver, Ottowa, and Montreal are very unlikely - if Canada gets and NFL team, it will be to Toronto.

Quote: Originally Posted by bgeno

Why wouldn't they want to put any more teams in Florida or California. If it will make them the most money, they'll put another team in one of those states. Orlando and Sacramento are the biggest TV markets without a team, so they would certainly be considered. I'm not sure why you mentioned Greenville for a team in the Carolinas and not Raleigh. Raleigh-Durham is a pretty big market (bigger than Baltimore, Indianapolos, San Diego, Nashville, Kansas City, Cincinnati and all the small markets you mentioned) and the eastern Carolina market (Greenville, Wilmington, Outet Banks, etc) couldn't foster and NFL team. Besides, I know most people in Greenville are Panthers fans already. :::edit : you meant Greenville, SC... DOH! I'm still new to the south... Lol... Greenville, SC, would make much more sense than Greenville, NC ::: I also don't understand why the NFL would avoid Columbus just because the browns and bengals suck. Columbus isn't a huge market, but I think it could handle an NFL team. Plus, with Ohio State, you know there are football fans there. I just don't think an NFL team could match the popularity of the Buckeyes in that city. Behind Orlando and Sacramento, Portland has the biggest media market without an NFL team. Believe it or not, the Raleigh-Durham market is the next largest without and NFL team. My pick would probably be Toronto in the end. It's a huge market, plus it probably brings with it the entire population of Canada. Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Assuming a team goes to LA, that would give California 4 teams already. It's not just about market size. Don't get me wrong, that's important, but it's more about how many fans would you gain. Sacramento already supports the 49ers and Raiders. The city is only about an hour and a half outside of San Francisco and Oakland. What do you really gain by going to Sacramento - almost any city is going to have good attendance, it's a bump in tv ratings you're looking for, and I don't think you're going to get a very big bump from people in Sacramento, since they already watch the Bay Area teams.

As far as Florida, the NFL already has 3 teams there, and two aren't doing so hot. Orlando isn't going to support a team significantly better than Tampa or Jacksonville, and putting a team there will only hurt the Bucs and Jags.

And putting a team in Columbus wouldn't be a good idea. It's not a small market, but it's not big enough by itself. Most NFL teams have secondary markets, any Columbus's potential secondary markets are already held down by the Bengals and Browns. Plus, adding a team in Columbus takes away from Cleveland and Cincinatti. You aren't adding any new fans there, just rearranging the ones you already have.

And I mentioned Greenville instead of Raleigh because the Panthers were originally supposed to be the team for both Carolina's, and while I don't believe South Carolina could support a team, I believe they could do better than a second team in North Carolina.

Quote: Originally Posted by rdub78

Goodell said that adding to the league's 32 teams "has not been on our agenda" and that he doesn't "see that in the foreseeable future." He also said the NFL wants "to keep our teams where they are." Sounds to me this is something merely talked about and nothing is happening anytime soon.

Nothing is happening soon. Nothing will happen until the the Stadium in LA is ready to go. As soon as LA is ready, the NFL is going to put a team there, and if they don't want to relocate, expansion is the way to go. Goodell said they want to get into LA, and he also said they don't want to move any of their teams. I'd imagine he has a couple people looking into the best possible second city to expand on. It's not going to happen until the LA Stadium situation is ready to go - this would be a move primarily to get into LA. But when it does, I think they will expand - I don't think the NFL wants to rip a team from a city - that can be bad PR - look at the NBA. They get a ton of heat for the Seattle situation, and the possible Sacramento and New Orleans situations.

[JohnnyP1119]

If they did...Toronto and LA...but I don't want more than 32 teams...that's a good limit...can you imagine turning your TV on to ESPN to watch NFL34...lol

[Watson]

I'd love to see a team in OKC. Kinda no man land as far as fandom goes. The closest team is what, The Cowboys? I think they can take a hit in their fanbase numbers.

Not sure about Salt Lake City. Don't follow basketball close enough to know how well the Jazz are supported. But I think it would just be another Jacksonville tbh.

Portland would be like cutting the Seahawks local fanbase in half, don't think the NFL would go for that.

Too many east coast teams for Hartford.

Birmingham and San Antonio are interesting, but with San Antonio it's kind of the same thing with California. What's too much, although unlike California it works in basketball. Birmingham...in Alabama, where if I had to guess there's more Saints fans than Falcons/Jacksonville, so would you really make NOLA an even smaller market?

Vegas...as stated earlier, I don't think Vegas would work for the same reasons.

Not a big fan of Los Angeles having two teams. Because it works out so well for the Clippers/Lakers and Dodgers/Angles (Anaheim. Sure.) right? And that would give California 4 teams. How much is too much?

But we'll more than Likely see Los Angeles/Toronto

[untrugby]

Quote: Originally Posted by DonkeyJote

I don't understand why that is too much? 32 is okay, but 34 or 36 is overboard? There's going to be an 18-game schedule. The way I see it, they could go to 40 teams and be okay at 18 games. 40 is the limit, but it could work there. I don't see any reason why it can't work at 34.

its not about how the league schedule works its about the talent pool. each new team would add 53 players to the talent pool. so think about the top 106 players not in the NFL right now and those are what would be added to the NFL.

[TripleCrown9]

Quote: Originally Posted by WatsonTiger

I'd love to see a team in OKC. Kinda no man land as far as fandom goes. The closest team is what, The Cowboys? I think they can take a hit in their fanbase numbers. Not a big fan of Los Angeles having two teams. Because it works out so well for the Clippers/Lakers and Dodgers/Angles (Anaheim. Sure.) right? And that would give California 4 teams. How much is too much? But we'll more than Likely see Los Angeles/Toronto

They also have two hockey teams.

[Chrisksaint]

The state of Florida barely deserves any of the teams they have nonetheless adding another pro sport team.

[DonkeyJote]

Quote: Originally Posted by WatsonTiger

I'd love to see a team in OKC. Kinda no man land as far as fandom goes. The closest team is what, The Cowboys? I think they can take a hit in their fanbase numbers. Not sure about Salt Lake City. Don't follow basketball close enough to know how well the Jazz are supported. But I think it would just be another Jacksonville tbh. Portland would be like cutting the Seahawks local fanbase in half, don't think the NFL would go for that. Too many east coast teams for Hartford. Birmingham and San Antonio are interesting, but with San Antonio it's kind of the same thing with California. What's too much, although unlike California it works in basketball. Birmingham...in Alabama, where if I had to guess there's more Saints fans than Falcons/Jacksonville, so would you really make NOLA an even smaller market? Vegas...as stated earlier, I don't think Vegas would work for the same reasons. Not a big fan of Los Angeles having two teams. Because it works out so well for the Clippers/Lakers and Dodgers/Angles (Anaheim. Sure.) right? And that would give California 4 teams. How much is too much? But we'll more than Likely see Los Angeles/Toronto

To me, the difference between the top 106 out of the league and the bottom 106 in the league is negligible. You're right about Birmingham. I didn't think about the Saints. But I think you're wrong about Portland.

Portland and Seattle had a great rivalry in the NBA, and the Washington Huskies and Oregon Ducks have a great one in College football. I believe the notion that Portland is full of Seahawks fans is false. Just google "Portland news" and go to the sites of various news channels and newspapers and go to the sports section. You don't see the Seahawks. It's a 3 hour drive from Seattle to Portland. I don't believe adding a team in Portland would take away from the Seahawks at all. Seattle and it's surrounding cities is huge on it's own, Spokane would almost certainly be a Seahawks town still. I don't think Portland has nearly as many Seahawks fans as you think.

I disagree about there being too many East Coast teams for Hartford. There's only one team in New England, and there a ton of people there. And all of the northeastern teams do very well for themselves. I really don't think one more would upset the balance too much. There are probably better options, but I think Hartford could be a successful franchise.

Salt Lake City would be better than Jacksonville - it's a much bigger market.