Can More Franchises Join The NFL?

[FuzzyLumpkins]

Aquaculture and hydroponics are two different things. thats like rice farming.

 

[5Stars]

Aquaculture and hydroponics are two different things. thats like rice farming.

A rice farmer too? I am so impressed..!

You never cease to amaze me....



(numbers before letters...please...again)

 

[jackrussell]

Aquaculture and hydroponics are two different things. thats like rice farming.

I bet your fun at parties.

 

[5Stars]

I bet your fun at parties.

I bet he is too! Everyone would be laughing....


:laugh2:

 

[jackrussell]

I bet your fun at parties.

Edit...

I bet you're fun at parties.......provided you're invited to any.

(I had an obtuse moment there)

 

[5Stars]

Edit...

I bet you're fun at parties.......provided you're invited to any.

(I had an obtuse moment there)

You are so obese...

 

[peplaw06]

Yes, I do. I also realize that during the regular season, only division opponents would have to make that trip more than once. Every other team would have to make the same lengthy trip that would comparable to teams making a trip to Toyko. Or to Mexico City. Or to London. It would be a long trek as you say, but it has been done before without much fanfare.

I don't see why anyone would have to make that trip more than once in the regular season. Even division opponents would only play one game there, unless there was a preseason or postseason repeat. And as far as it being comparable to a trip to Tokyo or London, etc.... those trips are usually in the preseason, and the teams don't play for 10-14 days upon returning. The first regular season game overseas IIRC will be in London this year, and I believe the teams (NYG and MIA) are getting byes before or after that game. You can't give every team a bye after a trip to HI. There would be 8 games there, and there are no byes after week 13... unless you just changed the way the schedules worked. And then what do you do about having Monday night games out there? Not to mention times the games would be scheduled to start. There are just too many headaches IMO.

But hell, if they want to expand globally, eventually they may have to deal with this. I just can't see it with the NFL currently as it is. And I wonder if there is enough population in HI to even support a franchise. The '05 census estimated 1.275 million people out there. And you've seen how empty the stands are at the Pro Bowl.

Eventually though this is what I could envision happening. If the NFL expands globally, there would be two conferences, and much like baseball, the two would rarely play inter-conference games. The North American and the world conference say. Most teams from the world conference would probably be in Europe, and maybe some in Far East Asia. That said, I still think the population issues preclude Hawaii, unless they have over say 5-7 million people.

 

[DallasEast]

I don't see why anyone would have to make that trip more than once in the regular season. Even division opponents would only play one game there, unless there was a preseason or postseason repeat. And as far as it being comparable to a trip to Tokyo or London, etc.... those trips are usually in the preseason, and the teams don't play for 10-14 days upon returning. The first regular season game overseas IIRC will be in London this year, and I believe the teams (NYG and MIA) are getting byes before or after that game. You can't give every team a bye after a trip to HI. There would be 8 games there, and there are no byes after week 13... unless you just changed the way the schedules worked. And then what do you do about having Monday night games out there? Not to mention times the games would be scheduled to start. There are just too many headaches IMO.

I get what you're saying, even about the headaches, but if Honolulu was rewarded a franchise, what would any of that matter???

And how does any of this affect the timing of the games? If there is a game schedule, it has to be played, right???

But hell, if they want to expand globally, eventually they may have to deal with this. I just can't see it with the NFL currently as it is. And I wonder if there is enough population in HI to even support a franchise. The '05 census estimated 1.275 million people out there. And you've seen how empty the stands are at the Pro Bowl.

Honolulu has three times the population of Green Bay, Wisconsin.

Eventually though this is what I could envision happening. If the NFL expands globally, there would be two conferences, and much like baseball, the two would rarely play inter-conference games. The North American and the world conference say. Most teams from the world conference would probably be in Europe, and maybe some in Far East Asia. That said, I still think the population issues preclude Hawaii, unless they have over say 5-7 million people.

I understand and somewhat agree with most of what you've describe, with the except of the population thing (see above).

 

[peplaw06]

I get what you're saying, even about the headaches, but if Honolulu was rewarded a franchise, what would any of that matter???

And how does any of this affect the timing of the games? If there is a game schedule, it has to be played, right???

Timing of the games matters as it regards to when they kick the ball off. For example, say New England travels out there. Honolulu is 6 hours behind Boston. When does the game start? Is every game going to be a 4:15 EST start? That means it starts at 10:15 am in Honolulu. On a Sunday morning what kind of crowd are you going to get especially if there are only 1.2 million in the whole state, and they can't fill the stands for the Pro Bowl? I guess a primetime game would be ideal (as it would be normal time back east and mid-day in HI, but are they going to have 8 primetime home games?

Honolulu has three times the population of Green Bay, Wisconsin.

Well the state of Wisconsin has 5 times the population of Hawaii. If you think the only people who go to Packer games are citizens of Green Bay proper, or for that matter natives of Wisconsin, then I don't know what to tell you. Who's going to travel from the continental US to Hawaii for a NFL game, unless they're a fan of the visitor? And then how many people are going to be able to afford to do that?

 

[Aikbach]

Maybe Guam deserves a team or Puerto Rico.

I honestly wouldn't be surprised to see the NFL try to put a franchise in Vancouver or Toronto.

 

[5Stars]

I want to see a NFL team in Lizard Spit, Idaho...


:

 

[Aikbach]

I want to see a NFL team in Lizard Spit, Idaho...


:

There is a better chance of seeing the Lubbock Buddy Hollys come into existence than that.

 

[lspain1]

I want to see a NFL team in Lizard Spit, Idaho...


:

5Stars, that's ridiculous......now Ashepoo, SC....that's a football town.


On the larger question.....how many NFL franchises are enough? I live in Florida with a population of approx 18 million. We have three NFL franchises. Texas, with a population of 25 million has two. NY with a population of 19 has three....or does it because two teams actually play in NJ? Ohio with 11 million has two but Georgia, with 9 million, has only one. The NFL markets are completely driven by television Designated Market Areas (DMA's) but the #2 DMA is LA and it doesn't have a team. Would cutting back the number of teams (but otherwise keeping the current system including the cap and FA) result in better play? I doubt it.

 

[Hostile]

Personally, I like 32 teams and 8 four team divisions and how the schedule perfectly lines up so you know what it will be for all the coming years. I like symmetry. I like order. The current 32 team format has that perfectly.

 

[DallasEast]

Personally, I like 32 teams and 8 four team divisions and how the schedule perfectly lines up so you know what it will be for all the coming years. I like symmetry. I like order. The current 32 team format has that perfectly.

The current format is appealing to many fans, especially those living in cities where there are already one or more teams. But what of the fans in cities that don't have an NFL franchise and would like pro football in their hometown? Aren't they as equally deserving of adopting a pro team as any other fan who already resides in a present NFL city?

That's the question that no one has really answered yet. Some profess that the current level of parity is absolutely great for pro football. That stance is 'strengthen' with the assertion that all fans, everywhere, should (unquestionably) appreciate the changes which have been implemented by the NFL over the past decade-and-a-half. If the system of pro football has been fortified as some have claimed, then it would be correct in assuming that the NFL could expand into other markets and continue to exhibit 'great football' because the playing field would remain level for all teams to be competitive.

 

[Hostile]

The current format is appealing to many fans, especially those living in cities where there are already one or more teams. But what of the fans in cities that don't have an NFL franchise and would like pro football in their hometown? Aren't they as equally deserving of adopting a pro team as any other fan who already resides in a present NFL city?

That's the question that no one has really answered yet. Some profess that the current level of parity is absolutely great for pro football. That stance is 'strengthen' with the assertion that all fans, everywhere, should (unquestionably) appreciate the changes which have been implemented by the NFL over the past decade-and-a-half. If the system of pro football has been fortified as some have claimed, then it would be correct in assuming that the NFL could expand into other markets and continue to exhibit 'great football' because the playing field would remain level for all teams to be competitive.

Some of us get saddled with a team we don't want. Not every city deserves a team. Root for the college teams. Every city has those.

 

[DallasEast]

Some of us get saddled with a team we don't want. Not every city deserves a team. Root for the college teams. Every city has those.

But, Hos, how can you think that some feel that way when the football everyone watches each weekend is so gooooood everywhere?

I have a few issues with college football also. Too many teams who should regulate themselves to Division I-AA have pushed up into Division I-A. They end up with schedules that mirror murder row.

While playing a big dog can fill a university's coffers at the ticket booth, it doesn't provide the little dog's fan with much appreciation at the games. Of course, there are the true upsets that still occur at the college level that makes me respect those teams that overachieve in a win. Those tend to be great football games which anyone would enjoy.

 

[David276]

There are already too many teams.

they should just get rid of the texans .

 

[peplaw06]

The current format is appealing to many fans, especially those living in cities where there are already one or more teams. But what of the fans in cities that don't have an NFL franchise and would like pro football in their hometown? Aren't they as equally deserving of adopting a pro team as any other fan who already resides in a present NFL city?

That's the question that no one has really answered yet. Some profess that the current level of parity is absolutely great for pro football. That stance is 'strengthen' with the assertion that all fans, everywhere, should (unquestionably) appreciate the changes which have been implemented by the NFL over the past decade-and-a-half. If the system of pro football has been fortified as some have claimed, then it would be correct in assuming that the NFL could expand into other markets and continue to exhibit 'great football' because the playing field would remain level for all teams to be competitive.

I don't know where you got that from, but I don't think anyone is saying you shouldn't question what the NFL does.

As for the rest of the post, parity and level of talent are two different issues. You can have a level playing field (i.e. the cap) but still be at a critical mass as it pertains to talent level. When you pass that point -- we're either at that point or past it according to most fans opinions -- the talent level is so watered down no amount of parity will guarantee a good product on the field. If the NFL were to expand, guys that normally wouldn't be in the league would then have jobs, and even if it were a level playing field in the small markets, the teams would be less talented.

Personally, I think the league is okay at 32... it could stand to lose 2-4 teams, but with the popularity of the sport, eventually the talent level will catch up. Right now, there aren't enough starting caliber QBs for example. But give it a few years and you may see it even out... that is when you can talk about expansion. As for now, when I see guys like Aaron Brooks, Tarvaris Jackson, Brooks Bollinger, Charlie Frye, etc. competing for/ starting as QBs in the league, I don't think expansion is something to be seriously considered.

 

[conner01]

the only two cities who have a chance of getting a nfl team any time soon is l.a and las vegas.
but i don't see any expansion anytime soon. there simpley is not enough quality qb's for 32 teams so expansion would make that worse.
my thinking is if it ain't broke don't fix it. if a team can't make money, move then but we have enough teams right now