86 replies to this topic

[soxhop411]

http://espn.go.com/l...ise-los-angeles

INDIANAPOLIS -- Commissioner Roger Goodell says if the NFL puts a team in Los Angeles, it is probable the league would expand to 34 franchises.
Appearing Thursday night on "Costas Live" on NBC Sports Network, Goodell says the league "doesn't want to move any of our teams." He said if a suitable stadium is built in the Los Angeles area, "we probably don't want to go to 33" teams by adding just one new club. Instead, the league would consider adding two. An odd number of teams would pose scheduling problems.
There has been speculation an LA stadium could house two NFL franchises, although Goodell did not address that with host Bob Costas.
Goodell says there are several issues that must be solved in LA, particularly which of two current stadium proposals is best. He didn't suggest any timetable for returning to Southern California

If thats the case, who will receive the second team. And is this a better route then moving a team?

[Rough Carrigan]

They won't do this until one or two teams still trying to extort better stadiums from their cities get some kind of resolution. The LA option has been very useful for the Vikings and others. Have to try and help the billionaire members of the NFL owners club take money from average citizens.

[singaporesoxfan]

The suggestion of two LA area teams (LA/Orange County?) is intriguing. Would kind of make sense, in that the population of greater LA is easily more than twice that of any other city without a team.

[BucketOBalls]

Woudln't adding any more teams pose scheduling problems? You would end up with 2 divisions with 5 teams.

[scottyno]

what a clusterfuck this would be for tiebreakers and interdivision scheduling

[soxfan121]

Best case scenario for the NFL: This open prodding gets MIN to cave on the stadium. San Diego takes the "two LA" teams threat (extortion?) seriously and cuts a deal. Owners get two expansion team fees (what's the buy-in, $400M? more?), one in LA and one in San Antonio AND get to keep the "two LA teams" threat open when STL's lease runs out after their London flirtations.

Worst case scenario for the NFL: MIN rejects the stadium and Wilf moves another MIN franchise to LA. SD also moves to LA. Expansion fees = $0 because both areas are so pissy about losing their teams for at least a decade. San Antonio tells the NFL they are Cowboy fans or Texan fans and fuck off. Talk of two expansion teams in London...

[Hoya81]

Given the way the Rams owner has been involved with the Dodgers bidding, and moving three home games to London, I think that they are a prime candidate to move to LA. And given Khan's ties to STL, we could see a Rams to LA and Jags to STL for 2016. And you wouldnt even have to change any divisions around, as the Rams are already in the NFC West and STL fits well in an AFC South with Indy, Hou and Ten.

[Beomoose]

I think Las Vegas is the obvious choice for a second expansion. Its permanent population isn't impressively huge, if adequate, but it would draw visiting fans like flies to honey. Especially if they put it in the same division as the LA team.

2 LA teams if it's taken from existing teams is bad news for the rest of CA, but manageable. 2 LA teams on top of the existing 3 California teams would be asinine.

[MentalDisabldLst]

San Antonio tells the NFL they are Cowboy fans or Texan fans and fuck off.

You could easily start a bar fight in San Antonio by suggesting the above.

[CaptainLaddie]

I think Las Vegas is the obvious choice for a second expansion. Its permanent population isn't impressively huge, if adequate, but it would draw visiting fans like flies to honey. Especially if they put it in the same division as the LA team.

2 LA teams if it's taken from existing teams is bad news for the rest of CA, but manageable. 2 LA teams on top of the existing 3 California teams would be asinine.

YES because nothing could go wrong putting America's favorite game to gamble on in the same city as America's favorite place to go gamble on America's favorite game to gamble on.

NOPE, no problems that I can see.

Sorry for the snark, but I just don't see this.

Either LA gets two teams or LA gets one and then some place like Portland does.

[Beomoose]

Yeah, Laddie, I know. Someone trots that out every time anyone mentions the idea of putting a pro sports franchise in Vegas. As far as I can tell, UNLV is not run by the Gahdfadda and the two previous "pro" football teams to stop by (XFL and Arena) had stays which were anything but eventful. And it's not like there aren't massive gambling venues nearby other teams. Lots of Indian Casinos out there, riverboats in the south, and Atlantic City is not exactly a land forgotten to Philly, Baltimore, or New York.

Edited by Beomoose, 03 February 2012 - 03:49 AM.

[Royal Reader]

32 seems like such a workable number though. 30 had six divisions of five. 32 has eight of four. 34 just doesn't work at any configuration. They'd be better off going to 36 and six divisions of six, but I'm not sure there are enough big markets for it to be viable unless they move into Canada or something. It's hard to see how adding a Portland or San Antonio team would really increase revenues that much.

[singaporesoxfan]

2 LA teams if it's taken from existing teams is bad news for the rest of CA, but manageable. 2 LA teams on top of the existing 3 California teams would be asinine.

Why would it be asinine? California is seriously underserved by NFL teams, and even with 2 additional teams each CA team would still have a larger potential fanbase than Vegas or Portland. Seems okay to have 5 MLB teams in the state.

[singaporesoxfan]

32 seems like such a workable number though. 30 had six divisions of five. 32 has eight of four. 34 just doesn't work at any configuration. They'd be better off going to 36 and six divisions of six, but I'm not sure there are enough big markets for it to be viable unless they move into Canada or something. It's hard to see how adding a Portland or San Antonio team would really increase revenues that much.

The NYC metro area could probably support another team that was actually located in the state of NY. I suspect Chicago could too. Not that the Jets, Giants or Bears would allow it.

[Batman Likes The Sox]

Obviously it would be tough with scheduling and flights, but given all the London games lately, how does the NFL not make the big splash with one new team in L.A. and the other in London?

[collings94]

I don't even know if LA should have one team let alone two (LA is a terrible sports town). Population wise, San Antonio is the 7th largest city in country and has done a great job supporting the Spurs. Also, what about Las Vegas, Portland or Louisville?

[Eck'sSneakyCheese]

What about Oklahoma? They're all football crazy down there. They've done ok supporting the Thunder why not an NFL franchise? Also, Canada wouldn't be a terrible idea. I don't know how the CFL would feel about it though. I would think LA, Oklahoma and two Canadian teams (East and West) would keep some symmetry and generate tons of revenue.

[ivanvamp]

what a clusterfuck this would be for tiebreakers and interdivision scheduling

Agreed. The NFL formula right now is pretty much perfect. Scheduling is easy, the playoffs are great (just the right number of teams), it's ideal. I'm not sure every city is the best place for an NFL franchise (i.e., Jacksonville perhaps), but for the most part, it's a really good situation. 34 teams would be crazy for scheduling, tiebreakers, etc., and it would almost certainly mean the NFL - which has already been considering this anyway - would add another playoff team per conference. Which I think would be bad.

In the words of Nancy Reagan: Just Say No

[steveluck7]

Adding two expansion teams, IMO, would affect the Patriots (BB in particular) pretty adverseley. We al know his affinity for the UDFAs; adding 2 new teams significantly waters down that population moving forward.

[Smiling Joe Hesketh]

Why would they consider expansion when the Jaguars/Vikings/Rams might all be looking to move?

God Goodell is such a clown.

[NickEsasky]

Scheduling, tiebreakers, all that are valid concerns. However I feel the biggest thing being overlooked is dilution of talent. Two more teams means 104 ish new roster spots. Are there 104 more guys out there who are good enough to be playing in the NFL regularly?

[singaporesoxfan]

I don't even know if LA should have one team let alone two (LA is a terrible sports town). Population wise, San Antonio is the 7th largest city in country and has done a great job supporting the Spurs. Also, what about Las Vegas, Portland or Louisville?

It's silly to quote city populations based solely on the boundaries of their city limits, which are more a political construct than a reflection of their integration as a metropolitan area. Otherwise Boston is only the 23rd largest city in the US since Cambridge, Arlington etc. are technically separate cities. Using Metropolitan Statistical Areas, the largest MSAs without an NFL team are: LA-Long Beach (12.8m people); Riverside/San Bernandino (4.2m people); Portland (2.2m); Sacramento (2.1m); and San Antonio (2.1m). Which is to say, the largest markets without an NFL team are predominantly in California. If you want to define it more broadly and use Combined Statistic Areas (CSAs), the largest CSAs or MSAs without an NFL team are LA-Riverside (17.9m); Orlando (2.8m); Sacramento (2.5m); Portland (2.2m); and San Antonio (2.1m). LA might be a terrible sports town, but you can make a lot of money from 12.8m people, even if they are fair weather fans.

Edited by singaporesoxfan, 03 February 2012 - 09:30 AM.

[Zombie Wakefield]

Why would it be asinine? California is seriously underserved by NFL teams, and even with 2 additional teams each CA team would still have a larger potential fanbase than Vegas or Portland. Seems okay to have 5 MLB teams in the state.

Piling on here, just about 12% of the entire population of the United States lives in California, so 4 teams out of 32 would be proportional.

Of course, all of this team expansion/moving discussion doesn't take into account that (1) TV contracts account for the majority of NFL revenues, and stadium location really doesn't matter for most of the TV audience, (2) the NFL market is pretty saturated already -- it seems more likely that a new team would get a lukewarm reception and/or cannibalize current fans of other teams living in the area -- is it reasonable to assume that adding a new team will suddenly increase the total number of NFL fans (and corresponding revenue) by another 3.125% (1/32), or is it more likely to see diminishing returns given the limited number of total potential fans and money?

[soxfan121]

I don't even know if LA should have one team let alone two (LA is a terrible sports town). Population wise, San Antonio is the 7th largest city in country and has done a great job supporting the Spurs. Also, what about Las Vegas, Portland or Louisville?

LA is the 2nd largest metropolitan area in the country, supports two NBA teams, two MLB teams, an NHL team and two major college programs. Of course LA should have an NFL team; the "terrible sports town" label is inaccurate. LA is a front-running sports town. When the Raiders were good, they packed the LA Coliseum. A winning football team in LA or two is a well supported one; a loser is a mid-tier revenue haven. Ask Donald Sterling.

Las Vegas, Portland, Louisville and Oklahoma City are all relatively similar in population; the lack of a regional footprint hurts. Boston is only slightly larger, in terms of population, but the number of people who live within the footprint (i.e. New England) makes this market (for the Pats, B's, etc.) the equivalent of Houston or Chicago. The relative lack of regional population around LV, Portland, Louisville (cut into by Cincy) and OKC is much lower.- 300K lower than Jacksonville, for example. Meanwhile, San Antonio is the 7th largest city by population and has Corpus Christi within (barely) it's footprint; if San Antonio is not Cowboy or Texan country, then the NFL should be moving there as soon as possible after LA.

Adding two expansion teams, IMO, would affect the Patriots (BB in particular) pretty adverseley. We al know his affinity for the UDFAs; adding 2 new teams significantly waters down that population moving forward.

An idea to expand the draft to ten rounds would do this and is more likely to happen in the next 2-3 seasons.

Why would they consider expansion when the Jaguars/Vikings/Rams might all be looking to move?

God Goodell is such a clown.

Money. Houston paid $700M in 2002. Two teams in LA = $2B. A team in LA and a team in San Antonio is ~$1.8B. Split up between the owners. In no way owed to the players.

As for the leverage aspect, I covered that up thread.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

If the NFL is going down the expansion road, here's an idea - go to 40 teams. 32 existing + 2 LA + San Antonio + Portland + Mexico City + Toronto + 2 London. Then, as outreach to international fans, adopt a promotion/relegation system so you end up with 2 "leagues" of 20 - the NFL and the AFL. (Added bonus - Al Davis is furious from beyond the grave) Top 4 from the lower tier and top 8 from upper tier make the playoffs; lowest 4 in upper tier get relegated in favor of playoff teams for next season. 4 lower tier seeds play bottom 4 of the 8 qualifiers from upper tier. Top 4 from upper tier get bye week. Then round of 8, final 4, super bowl. (an extra round of playoff football that can be added to the existing TV deals = more revenue for the owners)

[steveluck7]

An idea to expand the draft to ten rounds would do this and is more likely to happen in the next 2-3 seasons.

Would rosters expand accordingly? if not then the overall talent level between active rosters, practice squads, and those "priority targets" would remain the same. Those who are now UDFAs will basically turn into camp casualties instead. Adding 106 new active spots + practice squads affects the overall talent pool more, IMO

Edited by steveluck7, 03 February 2012 - 10:07 AM.

[Spacemans Bong]

When the Raiders were good, they packed the LA Coliseum.

Not really, they only sold out something like a dozen games in LA and didn't consistently sell out even after reducing capacity via tarps to a more realistic 66,000.

Of course, many people in LA were not Raider fans at all but rather LA Ram fans, and they had a long history of filling up the Coliseum.

[Marbleheader]

Why would they consider expansion when the Jaguars/Vikings/Rams might all be looking to move?

God Goodell is such a clown.

Over-expansion worked so well for the NHL and NBA. St. Louis is about to lose their 2nd franchise in 20 years, the NFL should stay away for a lonmg time there. The Rams back to LA makes too much sense to happen. Expansion is the worst thing they could possibly do. So, in all likelihood, they will.

[turnthe2]

I don't see Portland being a fit for a team....Paul Allen would throw a fit of Peter Angelos proportions.

Vegas would be a great fit as it would boost the horrible economy there. People would come not only for a football game on Sunday but for an entire weekend getaway. There are plenty of residents in Northwestern Arizona and Southeastern California that would fill the stadium. The XFL had the Outlaws there during their brief history. One thought that came to mind was doing a temporary move a la the OKC Thunder and see how it goes.

Yeah, I went there.........

Edited by turnthe2, 03 February 2012 - 10:45 AM.

[kneemoe]

Yeah, Laddie, I know. Someone trots that out every time anyone mentions the idea of putting a pro sports franchise in Vegas. As far as I can tell, UNLV is not run by the Gahdfadda and the two previous "pro" football teams to stop by (XFL and Arena) had stays which were anything but eventful. And it's not like there aren't massive gambling venues nearby other teams. Lots of Indian Casinos out there, riverboats in the south, and Atlantic City is not exactly a land forgotten to Philly, Baltimore, or New York.

I think the bigger problem is that Nevada has the highest unemployment rate in the country, LV got hit very hard by the mortgage bubble and foreclosures are sky high there - except for tourists/visitors there just isn't a lot of disposable income up for grabs there.

[ethangl]

Meanwhile, San Antonio is the 7th largest city by population and has Corpus Christi within (barely) it's footprint; if San Antonio is not Cowboy or Texan country, then the NFL should be moving there as soon as possible after LA.

Corpus? If the NFL expands to central Texas, they'll make the stadium accessible to Austin, not a dead town on the gulf. Put the stadium between the two cities and the two million people in that metro area are a half hour away. Put it south and you get none of them.

Edited by ethangl, 03 February 2012 - 10:51 AM.

[8slim]

Goodell's comments sound like total posturing to me. "We don't want to move an existing team, but if they aren't going to support them then we really have no choice..."

If expansion were to happen it ain't going to be for markets like San Antonio, Portland, or whatever. This league just locked in labor peace and massive domestic TV deals for a decade. The revenue potential lies abroad.

[bowiac]

I wouldn't have too many dilution concerns. The NFL is more popular than it's ever been, and the NFL is pulling better athletes than ever before. There are probably a lot of NFL caliber players currently not getting a shot, just because they're trapped on practice squads and in the CFL.

[dynomite]

When asked to expand on these comments this at his press conference just now, Goddell said something along the lines of "I don't know what comments you're referring to, but be have not had any conversations about expansion. We want to put a team in LA in a way that makes sense for the league and the city." He added something about how they also didn't want to move any teams.

I suppose it's a solid method of dodging the question (particularly when there's no follow up question) but the statement was logically ludicrous: the NFL hasn't talked about expanding... even though they want to put a new team in LA?

[Cousin Walter]

Atlantic City is not exactly a land forgotten to Philly, Baltimore, or New York.

New Jersey does not allow sports betting, even in casinos, at this time.

[Mooch]

Las Vegas, Portland, Louisville and Oklahoma City are all relatively similar in population; the lack of a regional footprint hurts. Boston is only slightly larger, in terms of population, but the number of people who live within the footprint (i.e. New England) makes this market (for the Pats, B's, etc.) the equivalent of Houston or Chicago. The relative lack of regional population around LV, Portland, Louisville (cut into by Cincy) and OKC is much lower.- 300K lower than Jacksonville, for example. Meanwhile, San Antonio is the 7th largest city by population and has Corpus Christi within (barely) it's footprint; if San Antonio is not Cowboy or Texan country, then the NFL should be moving there as soon as possible after LA.

The NFL won't look at this in terms of population size of the city and surrounding areas. It's about television and the size of the DMA as well as potential corporate partners in those areas.

Right now, here are the largest DMAs without an NFL team:

#2 DMA rank: Los Angeles - 5,569,780 homes, 4.8% of the US
#19 DMA rank: Orlando/Daytona Beach/Melbourne - 1,465,460 homes, 1.3% of the US
#20 DMA rank: Sacramento/Stockton/Modesto - 1,388,570 homes, 1.2% of the US
#22 DMA rank: Portland OR - 1,190,010 homes, 1% of the US
#24 DMA rank: Raleigh/Durham NC - 1,143,420 homes, 1% of the US

Further down the list:

#36 DMA rank: San Antonio - 880,690 homes, 0.7% of the US
#40 DMA rank: Vegas - 737,300 homes, 0.6% of the US
#44 DMA rank: Oklahoma City - 712,630 homes, 0.6% of the US
#48 DMA rank: Louisville - 674,050 homes, 0.5% of the US

Los Angeles and Portland are the two that jump off the page to me.

[DrewDawg]

34 teams? Screw it-- go with two 17 team conferences, play everyone in your conference once. Top 6 make playoffs as top two get byes.

Seriously, the talent has been watered down, and now we need another 100+ players?

[8slim]

The NFL won't look at this in terms of population size of the city and surrounding areas. It's about television and the size of the DMA as well as potential corporate partners in those areas.

True, but outside of L.A. there isn't a single U.S. market that'll move the needle in terms of TV.

London would. Mexico City would.

[Philip Jeff Frye]

True, but outside of L.A. there isn't a single U.S. market that'll move the needle in terms of TV.

London would. Mexico City would.

Yeah, but how many advertisers are desperate to reach Mexican consumers? Who's going to shell out for PSLs and skyboxes in Mexico City? And which NFL athletes are going to want to live in Mexico for half the year?

Similar issues with London. Income taxes are much higher there - are NFL players going to like that? How are they going to feel about those ten hour flights to the West Coast to play the Niners or Chargers? And there's just not that much interest in American Football. I'd say there's more US interest in Premier League soccer than there is in the UK about the NFL. The single game draws well because its a novelty, but hardly any games are televised. I couldn't find the Giants/Pats game earlier this year despite being in a hotel that caters to a lot of Americans and which offered about 60 channels on the telly. And how would TV really even work with a UK audience? NBC's "Football Night Across the Atlantic" would end at about 5:00 am in London. I guess the London Monarchs won't be playing many "prime time" games, will they?

Edited by Philip Jeff Frye, 03 February 2012 - 01:10 PM.

[8slim]

Yeah, but how many advertisers are desperate to reach Mexican consumers? Who's going to shell out for PSLs and skyboxes in Mexico City? And which NFL athletes are going to want to live in Mexico for half the year?

Well, probably advertisers like Coca-Cola, McDonald's, Visa, GM, Toyota, Anheuser-Busch, etc. Plus, you know, the Mexican one's too.

Similar issues with London. Income taxes are much higher there - are NFL players going to like that? And there's just not that much interest in American Football. I'd say there's more US interest in Premier League soccer than there is in the UK about the NFL. The single game draws well because its a novelty, but hardly any games are televised. I couldn't find the Giants/Pats game earlier this year despite being in a hotel that caters to a lot of Americans and which offered about 60 channels on the telly. And how would TV really even work with a UK audience? NBC's "Football Night Across the Atlantic" would end at about 5:00 am in London. I guess the London Monarchs won't be playing many "prime time" games, will they?

Putting a team someplace internationally is about market building. Think of it this way, put a team in London and put a team in San Antonio. 10 years later, which has more upside?

[Spacemans Bong]

San Antonio, 'cause the London team will have moved to San Diego or become the second LA team or whatever.

The single game draws well because its a novelty, but hardly any games are televised.

That's not actually true. Sky Sports show an early and a late game, the Sunday Night game is on Channel 5 and Monday Night is on ESPN. They usually go for the best or one of the best games, though they didn't televise the Patriots-Giants game.

So it's pretty decent coverage.

The game isn't a novelty either, there is a decent number of people interested in the NFL, probably the same or a little bit less than the Premier League. But they live all over the country, not in London, and even if they did nobody would ever play there, the taxes are crazy and every single game, without fail, would have to be an early game because they would not be allowed to play late games.

[steeplechase3k]

I live in Portland, but can't really see a team ever coming here. When the MLS Timbers moved here it was like pulling teeth to get $30 million to renovate an existing stadium. There is no way that Portland would pay ~$500 million for an NFL stadium. There is no political will for stadium building.

[Dehere]

I'm really skeptical that we will see any expansion during the current CBA/TV contracts. For the existing teams expansion means your slice of the revenue share goes from 1/32 to 1/33 or 1/34. You get your share of the expansion fee in year one but that gets more than negated by the diluted revenue share over time unless you believe that the expansion will significantly grow the revenue pie, which I think is very much debatable.

You'd be surprised at how lukewarm the networks are about getting a team in LA. If the team fails to sellout you're actually better off with no team in there and no restrictions on doubleheaders. A team in LA isn't necessarily a win in terms of growing TV audiences/revenue.

A team in London or Mexico City or Toronto has zero value for American broadcast networks who have no affiliates outside the US. You're opening up a new market but also diluting the value to American broadcasters and you have to remember that the NFL is now primarily an American television entertainment business.

[Morgan's Magic Snowplow]

I'm really skeptical that we will see any expansion during the current CBA/TV contracts. For the existing teams expansion means your slice of the revenue share goes from 1/32 to 1/33 or 1/34. You get your share of the expansion fee in year one but that gets more than negated by the diluted revenue share over time unless you believe that the expansion will significantly grow the revenue pie, which I think is very much debatable.

Yeah, expansion makes very little sense in the near term. Raising the possibility of expansion is just the politic thing for Goodell to say right now. Its important from the league's perspective to advertise two positions: "We would like to see a team in LA" and "We don't want to move any of the current franchises." The first is a no-brainer on several levels and the second is necessary from a PR standpoint, even if its not really true (which I doubt it is). So if they want to maintain those two positions with any coherency, then raising the vague possibility of expansion is the only way to do so.

[collings94]

I'm tired of LA bitching about how they need a team. The fact that the second largest city in the country lost not one, but two NFL Franchises is amazing. I know the moves were not all economic, but the fact is a team in a city that big should be making so much cash, you couldn't dream of moving to a different location.

[singaporesoxfan]

The game isn't a novelty either, there is a decent number of people interested in the NFL, probably the same or a little bit less than the Premier League.

The same as the EPL?! This cannot be true.

[simplyeric]

The NYC metro area could probably support another team that was actually located in the state of NY. I suspect Chicago could too. Not that the Jets, Giants or Bears would allow it.

Brooklyn, baby.

Yes the NJ teams would never allow it, but Brooklyn would totally rally around that, I bet. It's a super-diverse population, but they could probably make waves by trying to have exhibition games in Latin America.

[patinorange]

I'm tired of LA bitching about how they need a team. The fact that the second largest city in the country lost not one, but two NFL Franchises is amazing. I know the moves were not all economic, but the fact is a team in a city that big should be making so much cash, you couldn't dream of moving to a different location.

The two dead dipshit owners had more to do with the moves out of LA than fan support. Sadness is living out here for the last 20 years and still seeing all the Raider and Ram fans wearing their jerseys on gameday.
I think So Cal could support two more teams. Please put the Anaheim team in the AFC so I can see my Pats every few years.

[Royal Reader]

That's not actually true. Sky Sports show an early and a late game, the Sunday Night game is on Channel 5 and Monday Night is on ESPN. They usually go for the best or one of the best games, though they didn't televise the Patriots-Giants game.

So it's pretty decent coverage.

The game isn't a novelty either, there is a decent number of people interested in the NFL, probably the same or a little bit less than the Premier League. But they live all over the country, not in London, and even if they did nobody would ever play there, the taxes are crazy and every single game, without fail, would have to be an early game because they would not be allowed to play late games.

There's actually a choice of early and late games on the Red Button. On the early you get the top CBS and top FOX game, and then in the later slot the two best games. So you have six different games televised every week, plus TNF when it's on, all three Thanksgiving games, etc. The Giants-Pats RS game may not have been on, but then it wasn't on in large swathes of America either. The NFL does well because it's really the only thing with any appeal to the male 18-30 demographic on in the timeslot - usually up against costume dramas, antiques shows and religious programming.

The game is really taking off in the college-educated population: more university students in the UK play football than organized soccer (and the cheerleading societies have as many members as any women's sport) and the British Universities American Football league has pretty much doubled, if not more, the number of teams in the last 3-4 years. Most people in college now will know someone who's on a team.

As for British Gridiron fans living all over the country: sure, but the country's smaller than Massachusetts. There are many, many issues with putting a team here, but the NFL as a TV product has grown massively since I was an eight-year old kid watching thirty second highlight clips of shitty Patriots teams in the early 90s.

Edited by Royal Reader, 03 February 2012 - 10:02 PM.

[crystalline]

I wouldn't have too many dilution concerns. The NFL is more popular than it's ever been, and the NFL is pulling better athletes than ever before. There are probably a lot of NFL caliber players currently not getting a shot, just because they're trapped on practice squads and in the CFL.

There are some forces pulling in the other direction: rosters are larger than the big three other US sports. And players play at a high level for much less time. QBs can last till 35, but superstars at RB WR etc are often done by 30 or before. So you need more players per year coming into the NFL compared to other sports.

Even if the overall level goes down a bit, I also think that expansion wouldn't be that problematic because individual expansion teams have a shot at playing at a high level early. Non-guaranteed contracts, the high level of roster turnover, the small number of games, and the fact that a bad record gets you an easier schedule next year all translate to opportunity for new franchises to post a good record in the first few years.

On the other hand it may be that playoff teams must have a good quarterback and there's only so many of those to go around. Brady, Brees, Rodgers etc. If that's the case, then like the NBA your expansion team's fortune turns on one or a few rolls of the dice in a draft or two and if that turns out badly you're screwed for a while.

[crystalline]

Please put the Anaheim team in the AFC so I can see my Pats every few years.

And here I was thinking you were from the Netherlands or worked at ING.