OT: NFL Expansion
In a "Hot Button Topic" on ESPN, they debated where the next likely NFL expansion city would be. The two cities being discussed are Mexico City and London, with the caveat of course being, after Los Angeles gets their franchse. For arguments sake however, the obvvious geographical choice would be Mexico City. Financially, London would be attractive for many reasons, even with the nightmare travel scenarios it would cause for west coast teams. I think the earning potential that London presents outweighs the travel difficulties. Mexico City is the natural choice, I just don't think it's financially prudent. London gets you into more time zones, and that as they say, is everything.
http://espn.go.com/nfl/hot?id=6965230
September 14th, 2011 at 5:10 PM ^
Toronto gets my vote.
September 14th, 2011 at 6:16 PM ^
stick with the cfl or take the bills... preferably into the cfl.
September 14th, 2011 at 5:11 PM ^
As long as they're called the London Sillynannies.
September 14th, 2011 at 5:13 PM ^
I would like to see both of the Dakotas get a team.
September 14th, 2011 at 5:18 PM ^
Why would LA get another team? Seriously they have had several and they can't stay profitable. The Rams make more money in St. Louis, than in LA. No stadium, no fans, no way. NFL has lost on that city before, I don't see it happening. California has 3 other teams, I don't feel bad.
Do people in Mexico even watch US football? or other than the exhibition game, do people in London?
September 14th, 2011 at 5:24 PM ^
I agree, LA needs the NFL more than the NFL needs LA.
Mexico City? London? What player is going to want to play overseas on a permanent basis? Can either of those cities sustain attendance for a non one-off gimmick game?
Toronto? That's a bills market already. Another team provides no real net gain invalue.
I see no point in expanding now. The market is saturated, and football has never been more popular. Expansion should wait until there actually is a point in expanding, from both a talent standpoint and a market standpoint. Let's leave what is successful alone.
September 14th, 2011 at 6:18 PM ^
what player is going to want to play in buffalo on a permanent basis???
September 15th, 2011 at 1:15 AM ^
I know Green Bay has more "small town charm" going for it, as well as about forty more years of history - but the Bills have a passionate fanbase, a long history, a modern, cosmopolitan city located closeby in Toronto, and while Buffalo is suffering hard times - well, so are Detroit and Baltimore, right? I know Buffalo has some disadvantages compared to the last two as well, but I don't feel like they'll have a hard time getting a group of good players together. The toughest thing for Buffalo is to attract corporate sales of their luxury boxes. Not by any means something to ignore, but Buffalo is capable of putting together a good football team, and even if they don't they'll still sell out their stadium. The question is can they make enough money doing it.
September 14th, 2011 at 7:05 PM ^
The NFL wants LA more than you think. Changes the entire TV contract. #BigMoney.
September 14th, 2011 at 7:38 PM ^
The NFL didn't really fail in LA, the league and the owners just mismanaged things and then the owners decided to leave for sweetheart deals elsewhere.
The Rams moved to Orange County (totally not LA) because the blackout rule required them to sellout the 100,000 seat Coliseum to stay on TV. Then the wife of the longtime owner ran the team into the ground and left town because St. Louis agreed to build her a stadium with public money and guarantee revenue.
The Raiders showed up in the early 80's and divided the LA market. They also had to deal with the craptasticness of the Coliseum (which is run by a quasi-government organization that makes renovations difficult). Then even after the Rams had left town (and members of the Rams organization said they never would have left had they known the Raiders would as well), Davis got another sweetheart deal in Oakland (massive stadium renovation and a $500,000 a year stadium lease with all expenses covered by the stadium owners).
A well run franchise in an actual NFL stadium located within Los Angeles would still be incredibly lucrative for the NFL and the team's owner.
September 15th, 2011 at 8:40 AM ^
I understand what you are saying (I lived in Orange county for a few years) but to anyone not living out there, Orange county is close enough to set it equal to LA. If there is a new stadium and they could find a way to sell it out, yes it would be a good deal, but frankly I have my doubts, too many people in the area are ambivalent and I don't think it works. There are a hundred other things to do on a Sunday afternoon in southern California, not so much in Green Bay or Buffalo. This is one of the reasons the NFL has struggled.
Heck like I said the NFL has 3 other teams in California, one in San Diego is only a few miles away from LA. Southern California is one giant city from San Diego to well north of LA, only broken up by Camp Pendleton.
September 15th, 2011 at 10:41 AM ^
Being a native So Cal resident for my entire life there us a huge difference between a team in LA vs. Orange County.
<br>
<br>Yes, the distance is not that great, but when you consider the traffic it typically takes at least an hour to go the 30 miles from LA to Orange County. If you are leaving from the San Fernando Valley/Ventura County/North LA County (population over 2 million) you are looking at a 2+ hour drive each way. Already BAD traffic will get much worse.
<br>
<br>Staples Center is amazing, it is centrally located, has tons of parking, has easy freeway access in all directions and the surrounding areas is going through major renovations that include the brand new J W Marriott and others.
<br>
<br>The poster above did an excellent recap of the mess we had when Georgia Frontiere took over the Rams and the disaster known as Al Davis. I just want to add that no one I knew would ever take their kids to a Raiders game due to their thug/gang fan base. Their fans are legendary for the number of fights that took place in the stands during the game.
<br>
September 14th, 2011 at 8:12 PM ^
LA is about to finalize a huge new stadium program that people out there are very excited about. It's hard to understand how it hasn't worked yet but if Buffalo, Nashville, Seattle, etc can support a football team LA should certainly be able to. I just hope the Vikings aren't the one to leave because I like the NFC North the way it is.
September 14th, 2011 at 5:23 PM ^
Are there significant problems with any of the following cities that currently support at least one professional franchise?
Portland, Salt Lake City, San Antonio, Toronto, Vancouver, Oklahoma City, Milwaukee (too close to GB?), Orlando (too many FL teams?)?
I ask this seriously. I can't imagine Mexico City would be that great of an option.
September 14th, 2011 at 6:00 PM ^
I can tell you that a team in Orlando would be similar to Tampa's woes in regards to attendance. Too many transplants here watching their favorite team on TV. Split the I-4 corridor in half and you can basically call it a zero percent chance of that ever happening. I had to drive there to see the Lions play on Sunday because TB was the only team to have a blackout for week one.
September 14th, 2011 at 6:04 PM ^
Orlando - Florida has shown they are a college football state. See Jacksonville. See Tampa Bay. See Miami, post- Marino. Orlando would be an unmitigated disaster.
San Antonio - They're all Cowboys fans already.
Vancouver - No real interest in football, to be honest.
Portland - Is under the delusion they're in Europe and soccer matters.
OK City - I'd question the total population, but strangely the Thunder have worked, so maybe.
Toronto - Already has a team, they're named the Buffalo Bills.
Milwaukee - Already has a team, they're named the Green Bay Packers.
I'd see SLC as a realistic option, and snark aside, San Antonio and Portland probably are too. I still have never understood why someone doesn't try putting a pro team in the Va Beach/Tidewater are of Virginia, but the NBA would probably be a better option.
September 14th, 2011 at 6:16 PM ^
I agree with all of your points. A few more cities that popped into my mind: Memphis, a second team in Chicago (like that would be successful, the Bears own that town), even Grand Rapids has the population, but I question the committment to an NFL franchise.
I'm not sure if teams could plant themselves in cities like Birmingham or Lincoln/Omaha and call themselves Alabama or Nebraska teams to capture state-wise support (like the Tennessee Titans have done from Nashville). Even then, despite being football states, is there large interest in NFL football?
The northeast is solidly NE fans, the southeast is NFL oversaturated and Texas probably is too. LA can't hold a franchise and other cities (SLC, Portland, OKC) may be weary of adding a franchise and not have the support from the smaller market.
Really, the NFL should just stay put. Why is this even being discussed as an option?
September 14th, 2011 at 9:58 PM ^
No! I wish they would, but they wouldn't be able to support a team. They don't really care about the NFL down here. It's all college football.
September 14th, 2011 at 7:01 PM ^
I have friends and family in Toronto and Toronto couldn't care less about the Bills. The CFL is much more followed than the Bills. The only issue with Toronto is space - Toronto has no room for a stadium unless they play at Skydome.
September 14th, 2011 at 7:05 PM ^
I think his point is that the Bills are going to move to Toronto because Buffalo couldn't care less about the Bills.
September 14th, 2011 at 9:54 PM ^
You are both wrong. Buffalo loves the Bills but is a declining small market city. The fact that they can sell out any game is a testament to their love of the team - especially since they have sucked for about 20 years now.
As a previous season ticket holder, at least 1/3 of the Bills games are people from Ontario, its actually probably more like half. And Toronto can barely get 20K people to a CFL game! TV ratings are misleading because they show only the Canadian station ratings when games are available on US networks in Canada - so when you see stats showing that viewership for the CFL is above that of the NFL, you aren't getting the whole story.
Its a terrible sports city but the corporate interests alone could support an NFL team, even if the fans don't deserve it.
September 15th, 2011 at 1:09 AM ^
Orlando is a considerably larger city than Jacksonville, and while Miami has fallen off post-Marino it's not like all their games are getting blacked out. Orlando is definitely worth looking at.
September 14th, 2011 at 6:37 PM ^
Milwaukee is slightly closer to Chicago than it is to Green Bay, but most Milwaukeeans (?) already root for the Bears or the Packers. I think ESPN ran an article back in January about Milwaukee being a divided city in that rivalry.
September 14th, 2011 at 8:43 PM ^
Milwaukee's probably about 90% packer fans, 5% bear fans, and 5% others. Packer's games draw like a 40% TV share there.
September 15th, 2011 at 11:30 AM ^
I feel like all of those markets are essentially tied to other franchises. Portland has SF, Oakland, and Seattle. SLC has Denver and is a small, scratch that, very small, market. San Antonio is big enough but would struggle to corral fans from Dallas and Houston. OKC, with the success of the Thunder might be somewhat viable.
London just poses some serious travel issues, especially for teams on the west coast. I personally don't see a need for expansion.
September 14th, 2011 at 5:26 PM ^
They are both just horrible options. What about Omaha football crazy state!
September 14th, 2011 at 5:38 PM ^
Most likely place to get shot, Oakland/San Fran or Mexico City?
September 14th, 2011 at 5:39 PM ^
Portland is a terrible choice. Portland just recently kicked out its minor league baseball team so that it could go to a soccer only format. Besides that Ducks are Oregon's team. s/
I would love to see any other pro team in Portland (baseball or football) but I think Paul Allen and the Blazers would fight it.
September 14th, 2011 at 5:40 PM ^
London? That is the most ridiculous idea I've ever heard. The only people that would be interested are people that moved over from the states.
Only viable espansion options for the NFL: San Antonio and possibly Toronto. And that latter is really pushing it.
September 14th, 2011 at 6:10 PM ^
London is a brutal idea. Travel might suck for visiting teams from the West Coast, but how about the London Chimneysweeps? Crossing the Atlantic that often would be brutal. No one would ever want to go there
September 14th, 2011 at 6:11 PM ^
Las Vegas?
September 14th, 2011 at 6:21 PM ^
When I think of professional football in Las Vegas, I can only really picture an XFL team. Vegas is 'Vegas' because people travel there to spend money. I'm not sure they could support their own team without a loyal, local contingent. But who knows really. I never thought Jackonville would be able to hold onto a franchise for 15+ years. Or Charlotte for that matter.
September 14th, 2011 at 6:48 PM ^
I could see loyal fans from other teams building a trip to Vegas with the excuse of seeing their team. I mean, if I wanted to go to Vegas, I would check to see if the Lions were playing there on a weekend that worked for me. I can't think of another city that I'd want to travel to on its own, though.
September 14th, 2011 at 6:25 PM ^
I was thinking Vegas too, but it sounds like they've tried before and there are too many politics to push a real bid through:
http://www.vegasinc.com/news/2011/apr/18/dont-we-want/
The board of Las Vegas Events, which organizes and promotes such wide-ranging and profitable Vegas events as the National Finals Rodeo and NASCAR Weekend, is filled with resort officials who have skin in the arena game. Aria President and Chief Operating Officer Bill McBeath is joined on the LVE board by Caesars Entertainment Western Division President Tom Jenkin, Gaughan and Palms owner George Maloof.
September 14th, 2011 at 6:28 PM ^
I think one of the main reasons that we don't hear about Las Vegas getting a franchise is the idea of sports betting. I don't think the NFL wants to be the first out of the big four to expand a professional team to Las Vegas and to have the influence of the local book keepers weighing on the player's minds.
September 14th, 2011 at 6:32 PM ^
We finally have an NFL team in Detroit this year. :p
Seriously though, London or Mexico City?
That's just retarded and would pose logistical nightmares of the highest order.
And would a team in Mexico even be profitable at all?
September 14th, 2011 at 6:48 PM ^
team in mexico could work but would have to be almost a college fball style arena, more seats so they don't have to charge as much
September 14th, 2011 at 6:50 PM ^
Is a very viable option. American Football is becoming wildly popular in England. The London games sells out in an hour, so you can't tell me it's only former Americans in England that watch it.
September 14th, 2011 at 7:33 PM ^
I can understand one/couple games selling out really fast. How much of that is actual support for football or demand because it is a novelty to them.
September 15th, 2011 at 11:32 AM ^
I get that it might make money, but the home field advantage there would so much bigger than anywhere else due to travel. Think of the travel for a team like San Francisco.
September 14th, 2011 at 6:51 PM ^
and London wil be possible. Otherwise the only way travel would make sense is to split the schedule into one giant home stand and one giant road trip
September 14th, 2011 at 6:52 PM ^
yay, my first double post
September 14th, 2011 at 7:01 PM ^
If they were to put a team in London, I think they'd have to put an entire division over there. Teams would have to play at 8 there if they want anyone in the states to watch it and that would be a noon game on the west coast. And, who would watch the team on MNF since it would be starting after midnight? London won't work.
Mexico City is interesting, though. They have one of the largest stadiums in the world and it would be the largest stadium in the NFL by over 20,000. They could practically give away tickets and still make money on it. Once the popularity picks up, steadily raise ticket prices.
September 14th, 2011 at 7:39 PM ^
Having a team in Mexico City would be like another Denver. That is based just on the elevation of Mexico City. It would be like playing in Denver, but with really bad air quality.
September 14th, 2011 at 8:40 PM ^
You also need to keep in mind the political environment in Mexico....Could you imagine having rich NFL players who are prone to take chances in Mexico...Kidnapping could be a big possibility
September 14th, 2011 at 8:52 PM ^
They have one of the largest stadiums in the world and it would be the largest stadium in the NFL by over 20,000. They could practically give away tickets and still make money on it. Once the popularity picks up, steadily raise ticket prices.
There is a reason no NFL team plays in a stadium anywhere near that big. It's not that cost-effective to have such enormous supply. Moreover, Mexican sports fans aren't accustomed to paying anywhere remotely near NFL-level ticket prices for sporting events. If you steadily raise ticket prices, you'll quickly price out much of the fanbase.
September 14th, 2011 at 7:11 PM ^
The NFL enjoys excellent competitive balance, divisional symmetry, and probably 20-25 strong franchises. Think back the last 5 years and only a handful of teams come to mind as mostly bad. There is really no better reason to expand, that extra money wouldn't bring in enough to not dilute the product.
The better conversation may be to consider the best city to relocate to for the next team who decides to do so. The only two franchises likely considering relocation are the Chargers (if LA comes calling with a proposal they cannot refuse) or Jacksonville. Salt Lake City and Toronto seem like the most intriguing options to me, but I'm no expert on the subject.
September 14th, 2011 at 7:37 PM ^
It's no secret that the NFL for many years has coveted LA and has actively looked to transplant one of its less sucessful franchises there. Even Tagliabue pushed really hard to make it happen, and from what I remember even pushed to name them the RHINOS, with a purple color scheme. Personally, I'm mildly amazed that the Jags aren't Hollywood's team by now.
September 15th, 2011 at 1:06 AM ^
As far as other cities go, I think the important things to look at are (1) population of the metropolitan area and (2) the size of the corporate presence in the city. Size of the city itself isn't as important - although San Antonio has a large population, its metro area is considerably smaller. I also remember reading on ESPN that the biggest reason the Saints didn't relocate there after Katrina after the bad PR but the lack of a corporate presence in the town.
If you look at the largest metropolitan areas without a football team (after LA), you'll find CA's Inland Empire, Portland, Sacramento, San Antonio, Orlando and Las Vegas all in the nation's top 30 markets. If we assume the Inland Empire is too close to LA, that Sacramento is too close to Oakland/SF, that San Antonio is still not desirable for the same reasons as five years ago and that the NFL will not want to go to Las Vegas, it looks like two viable options are Portland, and the Orlando Breakers.