Friday, December 20, 2013

The NFL Should Add 8 More Teams

Adding 8 more teams/cities to the NFL would amount to a total of 40 teams, from 32.  The eight divisions would have 5 teams each, instead of 4.  The question is, what cities (metro areas) 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.

Originally published January of 2012


  1. More rivals,more rivals,more rivals.I love the ideal Every major city should have the privilage of loving and supporting their own franchise.I think Memphis and Louisville should be added to the list of top cities.

  2. Las Vegas? Won't happen: the casinos make a LOT of money on NFL betting, and there is a state law in Nevada prohibiting betting on or against Nevada-based teams.

    I think Chicago and L.A. could each support a 2nd team. Should they expand like this, I see teams in Mexico City, Toronto, and perhaps London.

  3. Chicago (2nd), Los Angeles, Portland, Austin, San Antonio, Louisville, Oklahoma City, and either Omaha or Virginia Beach. Given the proximity of Virginia to NFL teams, Omaha would be better. Las Vegas' economy does not need an NFL team as much as some of the other cities. Louisville and Oklahoma are heavily populated non-coastal cities that could use the economic boost. So could Omaha, which has about 400,000 people. Florida already has 3 teams, and doesn't need another. Neither does Tennessee, which already has the Titans. Milwaukee would have made sense if Wisconsin didn't already have the Packers. The NY area already has 2, so a New Jersey team is unnecessary. Teams in Sacramento, San Jose, a second Los Angeles, as well as El Paso would make sense too, but this would give Texas and California too many teams (my plan would already be adding 1 to each one, which is only justifiable for these 2 states given how immensely populous they area). Since Illinois is the 5th most populous state and Chicago is the 3rd most populated city, a second Illinois team makes more sense than from any state other than California and Texas. So that is why I have included a 2nd Chicago team. Finally, Salt Lake City would not make sense, since it has too small a population for an NFL team.

    So to recap: LA, San Antonio, Austin, Portland, Omaha, Louisville, Oklahoma City, and Chicago.

  4. San Antonio for sure... Hell no to LA, they had two teams already and lost them. How does a major city lose not 1 but 2 NFL teams. SA supported the Saints well when they played their 3 games at the dome.

    1. I absolutely agree Dave. SA should have a team. But, this is where the problem is with the NFL. They believe the Alamodome is not big enough in its seating capacity; it's about greed.

      SA is a no-brainer for the NFL, but, they won't figure it out for a while.

  5. You can't avoid having a team in L.A. It's the 2nd largest media market in the US and could easily support 2 teams. San Antonio is also a no-brainer. Texas is gridiron country and could easily support a third team. Nebraska, Oklahoma, absolutely. Look at how much they love their NCAA teams. NFL in the Great Plains? Why not? Mexico City would be awesome, but logistically, I think there's too many expensive and inconvenient intricacies. I think Monterrey in Northern Mexico would be a much better fit, be much easier on the travel schedule, and believe me, all of Mexico would support it just as if it were in Mexico City. Same argument goes against London. It's a nice idea, and I'm sure it would be a success, but logisitcally, it's just too tough. I think Canada is just fine with the CFL and gets along just fine without the NFL, but if Toronto wants an NFL franchise? why not? the CFL produces lots of talent, and MAYBE the influence of the CFL could provide some interesting CHANGE to play-calling, rules and strategy. A team in Sacramento would bring California to 5 teams (assuming LA jumps back in), plus, it would suck a lot of fan base out of San Francisco/Oakland. I don't think Sacramento is feasible. Likewise Vegas. The taint of gambling will never be accepted in the highest councils of the NFL. That leaves another franchise in or around Chicago. How about Milwaukee? There's Louisville, Salt Lake, and lastly, either Birmingham or Little Rock.

  6. I have a friend that just loves football season, not so much because he loves football as a sport, but because he gets to bet on his favorite NFL game picks.Buy MUT 18 Coins