Adding 8 more teams/cities to the NFL would amount to a total of 40 teams, up from the current 32. The eight divisions would have 5 teams each instead of 4.
The question is, who should new franchises be awarded to?
Before discussing the cities, it’s important to discuss whether 8 more teams would be reasonable for the NFL, economically speaking.
Many analysts would scoff at the idea of bringing in so many more teams.
They would say that the abundance of teams will have a negative effect on the bottom line because the league would be spreading itself too thin.
It depends on perception. There could be less percentage of profits available for the 32 teams, but it also depends on how success is measured.
Jacksonville has fulfilled its obligations at every level, but the league demands more. They want more gate money and a flawless reputation.
If the NFL lowered standards to a degree where exceptional profits one year and average profits another is not the end of the world, then more teams could participate.
Greed plays a huge role in any expansion talks.
The league should adapt to be more reasonable and accepting of when an organization runs smoothly, but profits are not through the roof, yet not so bad either. Ultimately, more teams spread out through the country provides opportunity for more marketing and the potential for bigger profits in both the short-term and long-term.
The other argument against such progressive expansion is the dilution of talent. This is another fallacy. The college game provides plenty. The sport is at its height for participation in the U.S. at all levels.
With more teams, there may not be as many great one-handed catches per game, but the variety of teams should bring a freshness to playcalling and improved strategies for winning over more fans to the game.
The most likely choices for new franchises would be in Los Angeles, Portland, Las Vegas, San Antonio, Orlando, Omaha, Sacramento and Salt Lake City. Each of these cities are chosen for different reasons, some obvious, others not so obvious.
Los Angeles, San Antonio and Las Vegas seem obvious. Big metropolitan areas with the right organization shouldn’t have big problems bringing it all together. San Antonio has the Alamodome, LA is already preparing for a team, and Vegas (without any pro team) is always in the conversation.
Portland, Orlando, Salt Lake City, and Sacramento all support NBA teams without MLB and are big cities with enough infrastructure to rally their cities for a team. Omaha is growing, progressive, and a good geographical fit.
Now, the fun part: the nicknames.
**********
*Author is Managing Editor of www.AmericanizeSoccer.com
About Howard M Alperin
Terrible Idea. We'll have franchises shutting down every Monday and Thursday, or just switching cities as they fail to reach 50-60% attendance in their stadiums.
What about OKC?? I've actually thought this before, playoffs could be expanded to 16. A few of the cities you mentioned likely would not work. NFL will never go to Vegas, too much of SLC would say no to NFL on Sunday's, Florida has one team too many already.
And Goodell still has pipe dream about London – that novelty would wear off in three years, not even getting into logistics. When NFL plays their one game there it's buried deep in London papers, the other 98% is all about the other football.
I like the current 32-team format, makes scheduling easy. They'd have to expand to 40 to achieve that again, and I don't see that in foreseeable future.
@Kacsports I wrote article recently asking for NFL to eliminate playoff byes-look for it on my site or on MSF.
I did see that article, 16 of 32 seems slightly hockey-ish, I thought if you could double-bye like some of the college hoops tournaments, would never get approved…
@ Kacsports you may have misunderstood, btwn both articles, it would be 16 out of 40 teams to make the playoffs, well below half the league.
Adding a
team per division would add 2 games for each team to an 18-game season, which
is already in the talks (each division-mate is played twice). The 8 teams
should be Los Angeles, Austin, Louisville, Oklahoma City, San Antonio,
Portland, Omaha, and either a second Chicago (AFC to counter the Bears’ NFC) or
a Milwaukee Team. Since Wisconsin has a much lower population than Illinois and
already has the Packers, I lean more in the direction of an AFC Chicago
Team.
Now onto
why these 8 were chosen:
Los
Angeles has historically had a team and is the nation’s 2nd most
populous city. Hence, LA getting a team is a no-brainer. Texas and California
are the two most populous states, so each having 4 teams makes sense. Florida
already has 3, so it doesn’t need another, especially since Texas has much more
populated disenfranchised (without a team) cities than Florida. Since 4 of the
top 5 most populous states each have 2 teams, the other one (Illinois) should
too. Since Chicago is the 3rd most populous city in the US and no other
Illinois city has close to enough people to make sense as a football town,
placing the second team in Chicago makes logical sense. Omaha, Oklahoma City,
and Louisville are 3 cities (The latter 2 with populations over 500,000 and
Omaha with a population over 400,000) with dwindling economies in states that
have no football team. Adding a team would initially be costly, but would
ultimately generate revenue to these hard-stricken economies. The East Coast
has too many football teams already and doesn’t need another. Portland is a
major US City on the west coast. Hence, it should also have a team.
Now onto
where to put these teams:
San Diego
is in the AFC West. Being in close proximity to it, LA should hence be in the
NFC West. This would make Portland fit into the AFC West, which would also work
since nearby Seattle is in the NFC West. Since the Chicago Bears are in the NFC
North, the AFC North would be a good fit for the second Chicago team. The two
Texas teams are the 2 southernmost of these 8 teams, so each should go into one
of the two Southern divisions. There is no obvious choice that one should go
where, but the following logic may work. In areas with only 2 teams, opposing
conferences makes sense in order to promote divisional diversity within a
region. However, when a region has 4 teams, this need not apply. San Antonio
and Dallas seem like they would be an interesting match as rivals within the
same division. Hence, this would put San Antonio in the NFC South with Dallas.
This would leave Austin in the AFC South with Houston. Furthermore,
rivaling Dallas with Austin would create too much tension, so Houston is a
better match. Since Omaha is closest to the Kansas City, which is in the AFC,
it should go in the NFC. Since an NFC North team is needed and Omaha is further
north than Oklahoma City, the NFC North is an okay fit. This leaves Oklahoma
City and Louisville, both of which will therefore need to go into the 2 eastern
divisions. The NFC East (which includes Dallas) extends much more westward than
the AFC East. So the NFC East would be an okay fit for Oklahoma City. This
would leave Louisville in the AFC East, which is okay since Kentucky is not too
westward and would fill in a major geological gap between the Miami Dolphins
and the New York Jets.
The only
major geological deviations caused by these 8 placements would be Omaha (being
in a northern division) and Oklahoma City (being in an eastern division).
However, as Dallas shows, geological placements for divisions can’t always be
perfect. 2 deviations are okay, considering that other city choices could have
created many additional ones. After all, 5 of the 8 placements are perfect
fits, and Louisville is only a mild-to-moderate deviation (since it is
reasonably close to the Eastern US). So to recap:
Los Angeles=
NFC West Portland= AFC West
Omaha= NFC
North Chicago=
AFC North
San
Antonio= NFC South Austin= AFC
South
Oklahoma
City= NFC East Louisville= AFC East
By geological, I meant geographic. This was a typo.
Why dont trying out for Virginia Destroyers put NFL teams one day from UFL?
Please trying to get 4 teams from United Football League join the NFL be 36 teams then other 4 more teams add?