The Gipper Posted May 18, 2012 Report Posted May 18, 2012 Here is a new 36 team NFL lineup that I have come up with in my fantasizing. I have completely realigned the league into 6 divisions of 6 teams each in terms of Geographic Pods, ignoring the traditional AFC/NFC alignment and added 4 expansion teams in what I perceive as the 4 most viable future NFL markets based on their designations as DMAs by Nielsen: Atlantic or Thorpe/Mara Division: New York Giants New York Jets New England Patriots Philadelphia Eagles Washington Redskins Baltimore Ravens Southeast or The Shula Division: New Orleans Saints Carolina Panthers Atlanta Falcons Tampa Bay Buccaneers Jacksonville Jaguars Miami Dolphins Central or Brown/Rooney Division: Buffalo Bills Pittsburgh Steelers Cleveland Browns Cincinnati Bengals Indianapolis Colts Tennessee Titans Midwest or The Halas/Lambeau Division Detroit Lions Chicago Bears Minnesota Vikings Green Bay Packers St. Louis Rams Kansas City Chiefs The Southwest or Hunt/Landry Division The Dallas Cowboys The Houston Texans The Denver Broncos The Arizona Cardinals The San Antonio/Austin ???? The Salt Lake ???? The Pacific or The Davis/Walsh Division: The Seattle Seahawks The San Diego Chargers The Oakland Raiders The San Franciso 49ers The Los Angeles ???? The Portland ????
PoeticG Posted May 18, 2012 Report Posted May 18, 2012 I like it, regardless though- Baltimore needs moved out of our division. They aren't even in close proximity to us at all. I think they should be moved and I think that it would help to ease the pain and suffering of Browns Fans memory of the team being taken. Plus, it gives us a better shot of winning the division.
The Gipper Posted May 18, 2012 Author Report Posted May 18, 2012 A few notes on the above: 1. I chose 6 team division so that you really had the best team making the playoffs. Under this alignment I don't think we would ever see a 7-9 or 8-8 team win a division. 2. I arranged it to preserve certain existing rivalries and to create new natural rivalries. OK, sure, the Kansas City vs. Oakland rivalry may not continue, but the KC vs. St. Louis is a more natural one anyway. The NYC rivalry would be played twice annually. As would the DC/Baltimore, Baltimore/Philly rivalries. The three Texas and the three Florida teams would hammer at each other. Oakland/San Fran twice a year. Seattle and Portland would be a new one. As would Cinci and Indy who are actually as close as Pitt/Cleveland. Also, this new lineup would save the NFL a lot in jet fuel. 3. I chose to expand to LA, San Antonio/Austin, Portland, and Salt Lake City because these are the largest "Stand alone" Designated Market areas out there. LA is obvious as it is #2 overall. Portland alone is growing and is the 22d largest TV market in the US as it is. When you combine the San Antonio and Austin DMAs together they come out in the Top 12-15 markets. Salt Lake City is larger than many current NFL markets....and to me seemed fairly enough remote from any other to warrant an expansion team. A few DMAs were bigger than SLC, but they were in such close proximity to other NFL markets as to be really part of those teams markets. Examples: Orlando which is right between Jax and TB. Columbus between Cinci and Cleve. Raleigh I included as part of "Carolina's" market base. And Sacramento is really an adjunct to the Bay area. The closest current NFL market to SLC is Denver, and that is over 500 miles away. And it is a growing area. 4. Actually, what I would envision for this would be where the "Conferences" would not be stagnant, but would actually rotate on a 3-5 year basis. Example, lets say that for the period of from 2015, 2016 and 2017 Conference A would consist of the Atlantic/Central/Southeast Divisions and Conference B would consist of the Midwest/Southwest/Pacific Divisions. But then starting in say 2018 the conference alignment would shift so that Conference A would consist of the Atlantic/Midwest/Central Divisions, and Conference B would consist of the Southwest/Southeast/Pacific Divisions. And continue on a rotating basis say every 3 years after that. This way you could really get some interesting matchups in the Super Bowl...or whatever it would be called.
The Gipper Posted May 18, 2012 Author Report Posted May 18, 2012 I like it, regardless though- Baltimore needs moved out of our division. They aren't even in close proximity to us at all. I think they should be moved and I think that it would help to ease the pain and suffering of Browns Fans memory of the team being taken. Plus, it gives us a better shot of winning the division. I understand why they are in here now. And its not as bad as Dallas being in the NFC East. I know that Pitt/Baltimore have a rivalry going, and that is fine. But all kinds of rivalries don't always happen. Cleveland vs. Detroit was one of the biggest rivalries going once upon a time....and it is still one of the closest geographical matchups that could happen. Cleveland and Detroit are closer than any other two NFL matchups except Balt/Wash, SF/Oak, Philly/NYC and Philly/Balt, and of course New York/New York. It is closer than NY/NE, Cleve/Pitt, Cleve/Cinci or any other matchup you can think of. Baltimore is closer to Wash/Philly/and NYC than to Pitt. So, if Cleveland/Detroit died as a rivalry (other than in preseason), so can Pitt/Balt. Pittsburgh is closer to both Cleveland and Buffalo than to Baltimore.
Sheepdog Posted May 18, 2012 Report Posted May 18, 2012 Very interesting concept. I like it a lot. I would think San Antonio would do better than Austin since the Longhorns are in Austin. Would the NFL stay with the 16 game schedule? Play division opponents twice as normal and then play one other division, that would add up to 16 games. Here are my ideas or at least ideas in what direction they would go in relation to names for the expansion clubs; Los Angeles- This one would prove to be the most difficult. Obviously the Rams and Raiders are already taken. Portland- Has to be related to the wilderness. Salt Lake- maybe the Utah Raptors as the Raptor is the official state dinosaur. San Antonio- perhaps something related to the Alamo. On one side it projects defeat but on the flipside is projects a strong spirit of fighting and defense.
The Gipper Posted May 18, 2012 Author Report Posted May 18, 2012 Also, I would continue playing each team in your division on a home and away basis. So 10 games would be played within a division...so you really would have a real division champ. I would also foresee the season expanding to 18 games. And I suppose of the 8 games, 6 could be played against one of the other divisions. So a schedule could look like this for the Brown for example: 10 games: home and home vs. Steelers/Bills/Bengals/Colts/Titans (the old Houston Oilers come home?) 6 games say vs. the Thorpe division: Giants/Jets/Pats/Eagles/Redskins/Ravens All other Central Division (Brown/Rooney) also play these 6 teams. 2 games against the corresponding placer in the other two divisions in that years curren "conference" just like they do now. 1st place vs. first, second vs. second etc.
The Gipper Posted May 18, 2012 Author Report Posted May 18, 2012 Very interesting concept. I like it a lot. I would think San Antonio would do better than Austin since the Longhorns are in Austin. Sure, it would probably be in SA. They could probably play in the Alamodome right now...I only included Austin because it is only 75 miles away and Austin would probably be within a San Antonio NFL team natural market area. Would the NFL stay with the 16 game schedule? Play division opponents twice as normal and then play one other division, that would add up to 16 games. See my followup post. I suspect things would go to 18 games. Here are my ideas or at least ideas in what direction they would go in relation to names for the expansion clubs; Los Angeles- This one would prove to be the most difficult. Obviously the Rams and Raiders are already taken. Yea, but the Vikings were on the cusp of moving to LA just last week, and the NFL definitely wants an NFL team in LA. (they just don't want to expand there right now and split up the money pot any more than 32 ways. That is the one thing that would stop things going to 36..these guys wanting to keep the $$ in their pockets. Yet, I would imagine that the NFL owners would probably want a $750 million minimum "expansion fee" payment from any expansion team. Portland- Has to be related to the wilderness. Salt Lake- maybe the Utah Raptors as the Raptor is the official state dinosaur. Raptors taken by Toronto NBA team. Try to find something more original, though the dinosaur theme is a start. San Antonio- perhaps something related to the Alamo. On one side it projects defeat but on the flipside is projects a strong spirit of fighting and defense. We could revive some USFL or XFL names, what were those?
The Gipper Posted May 18, 2012 Author Report Posted May 18, 2012 Yes. Come up with suggestion for new team names: Los Angeles____________ Salt Lake ____________ San Antonio ____________ Portland ________________
The Gipper Posted May 18, 2012 Author Report Posted May 18, 2012 Possible names: Portland: Rosebuds (they call themselves the Rose city...and there is a minor league team with that name, but, yea, "Rosebuds" is not too manly for a football team, now is it) Pioneers. Good alliteration, and it fits historically. Salt Lake City: Miners. SLC was a big gold mining area Templars Golden Spikes Pioneers could work here too Sundancers Skiers Blaze is the name of their Arena League team San Antonio: Defenders ( of the Alamo) Riverwalkers (sound to much like "hooker"?) Vaqueros Gauchos Buckaroos (last 3 for Mexican/American Cowboys) Wranglers use in USFL Los Angeles Could be anything: Pueblos Friars Earthquakes Freeways Dragons.
The Cysko Kid Posted May 18, 2012 Report Posted May 18, 2012 I like it, regardless though- Baltimore needs moved out of our division. They aren't even in close proximity to us at all. I think they should be moved and I think that it would help to ease the pain and suffering of Browns Fans memory of the team being taken. Plus, it gives us a better shot of winning the division. Baltimore is approximately a six hour drive from Cleveland. Not particularly far, but it kinda makes more sense for Detroit to be in our division.
Gafreleets Posted May 18, 2012 Report Posted May 18, 2012 the LA "Riots" the Salt Lake "Polygamists" the San Antonio "Coyotes" (not the animal) the Portland "Stoners"
Harry Buffalo Posted May 18, 2012 Report Posted May 18, 2012 Could just as easily see 4 expansion teams in international area's as well. London wants to get in on the NFL action, Berlin has been growing a bigger and bigger american football fan base every year. Toronto wants a team now and Mexico City has hosted several games. I don't think it would be out of the question to see Canada get a team here within the next 5-10 years along with London. The only problem with putting teams in Europe is figuring out how to work divisions and travel time every single week.
BadNewsBrowns Posted May 19, 2012 Report Posted May 19, 2012 Los Angeles Douchebags San Antonio Fence Hurdlers Portland Potheads Salt Lake Samoans
Butler Browns Posted May 19, 2012 Report Posted May 19, 2012 Portland and Salt Lake City with NFL teams? No. Los Angeles and San Antonio should be next if they expand. If the Raiders move back to L.A., I'd like to see the NFL put a team in Las Vegas.
Sheepdog Posted May 19, 2012 Report Posted May 19, 2012 Portland and Salt Lake City with NFL teams? No. Los Angeles and San Antonio should be next if they expand. If the Raiders move back to L.A., I'd like to see the NFL put a team in Las Vegas. I don't know if the NFL has this rule but I know the NBA does. A professional team is not allowed in Las Vegas due to all the gambling. It was a big deal when the NBA All-Star game went to Vegas. I am in the US Air Force and was stationed in Vegas for year, I would love to see a pro team there.
Harry Buffalo Posted May 19, 2012 Report Posted May 19, 2012 I don't know if the NFL has this rule but I know the NBA does. A professional team is not allowed in Las Vegas due to all the gambling. It was a big deal when the NBA All-Star game went to Vegas. I am in the US Air Force and was stationed in Vegas for year, I would love to see a pro team there. I don't think that the NBA has any rule stating that a team cannot be located in a town with Gambling. Cleveland is getting a casino and I haven't heard anything about it conflicting with the Cavs. The only rule I can think of for professional sports involving gambling is that Owners are not allowed to own casinos if they own NFL teams. As in as much as Dan Gilbert wants to buy the Browns if part of the team or the whole team was put up for sale he would first have to sell his rights to his casino or at least sign his rights over to a family member.
Sheepdog Posted May 19, 2012 Report Posted May 19, 2012 I don't think that the NBA has any rule stating that a team cannot be located in a town with Gambling. Cleveland is getting a casino and I haven't heard anything about it conflicting with the Cavs. The only rule I can think of for professional sports involving gambling is that Owners are not allowed to own casinos if they own NFL teams. As in as much as Dan Gilbert wants to buy the Browns if part of the team or the whole team was put up for sale he would first have to sell his rights to his casino or at least sign his rights over to a family member. You're right. I must have gotten my wires crossed somewhere. In some ways I wouldn't mind Gilbert owning the Browns, seems like Lerner cares more about his soccer team.
baybrownsfan Posted May 19, 2012 Report Posted May 19, 2012 You're right. I must have gotten my wires crossed somewhere. In some ways I wouldn't mind Gilbert owning the Browns, seems like Lerner cares more about his soccer team. I'd rather have Gilbert own the Indians, where he can make a difference with money via free agency.
jnuh Posted May 19, 2012 Report Posted May 19, 2012 I don't know how much I would like to see division totally realigned even if they make sense geographically. I just don't know if it would be the best thing to break up some of those great rivalries that have around for 20 or 30 or 40 or even 50 years. Like Cowboys vs all 3 other NFC East teams. Those rivals are strong because of there history on the field and battles for the division since the 70s. Why try and force a Cowboys rival with a terrible new expansion team with no history and will mostly likely be a terrible team like expansion teams have been in recent memory. Even if there is a "natural" geographic rival it doesn't really mean anything if the teams are playing meaningful games against each other. And even if they play meaningful games ... it takes a few years of meaningful game for the rival to really start getting strong. Of if not meaningful games atleast some sort of unique history that makes the franchise dislike each other (I.E. Ravens/Browns Old vs new) You are also breaking up Jets/Phins which is a big rival along with the other good rivals in the AFC East. Just seems like you are almost startiing from stratch. Also if you add 4 more teams and 2 more games ... the talent is going to become very saturated. The NFL would certainly expand the roster. Lets say they expand from a 53 man to a 60 man (which might even be conservative) and from 32 to 36 teams. You are going to have 464 more players in the NFL that shouldn't be. You are going to have a lot less talented football players on the field. All that expansion is going to ultimately lead to putting a crappy product on the field (maybe not crappy but not as good)
ballpeen Posted May 19, 2012 Report Posted May 19, 2012 I do think a lot. It can go any number of ways. I could see a Great Lakes division......Chicago, Detroit, Cleveland, Buffalo, Pitts, Indy. I also think about cities that could support a NFL team. You are adding 4. LA, no brainer, San Antonio,good option. You say Salt Lake.....I say Oklahoma City. I also think the deep south could support another team in Alabama...Birmingham might be a good location..Memphis is another location that has the population and they have tried in the past. There are a lot of people living in Memphis, north Mississippi, and east Arkansas that would support a team. That also hits a geographic void in the center of the country, as does OKC.....you could place them in several division that make sense.
Bob806 Posted May 20, 2012 Report Posted May 20, 2012 I think their may not be enough talent at the QB position to warrant a 36 team league. Look at it now, 32 teams & many teams hurting at QB. I don't want the best sports league in the USA to get diluted, like the NBA. I DO agree about getting the Ratbirds out of our division though.
The Gipper Posted May 20, 2012 Author Report Posted May 20, 2012 Could just as easily see 4 expansion teams in international area's as well. London wants to get in on the NFL action, Berlin has been growing a bigger and bigger american football fan base every year. Toronto wants a team now and Mexico City has hosted several games. I don't think it would be out of the question to see Canada get a team here within the next 5-10 years along with London. The only problem with putting teams in Europe is figuring out how to work divisions and travel time every single week. I considered International expansion....I just don't really see how it could work. North America, sure, like Toronto or Mex City (they better have a dome) but not all the way to London and Berlin.
The Gipper Posted May 20, 2012 Author Report Posted May 20, 2012 Portland and Salt Lake City with NFL teams? No. Los Angeles and San Antonio should be next if they expand. If the Raiders move back to L.A., I'd like to see the NFL put a team in Las Vegas. ???? Did you read my post? LA and SA were included. Hello!! And here is the dope: Portland and Salt Lake are in fact larger markets than Las Vegas. Portland ranks 22d, SLC 33, while Vegas is only #40. It if it eyeballs on TVs that you want, then those two outrank Vegas. Plus, there is the gambling factor. The NFL is never going to go where gambling on their games is illegal.
The Gipper Posted May 20, 2012 Author Report Posted May 20, 2012 I don't know how much I would like to see division totally realigned even if they make sense geographically. I just don't know if it would be the best thing to break up some of those great rivalries that have around for 20 or 30 or 40 or even 50 years. Like Cowboys vs all 3 other NFC East teams. Those rivals are strong because of there history on the field and battles for the division since the 70s. Why try and force a Cowboys rival with a terrible new expansion team with no history and will mostly likely be a terrible team like expansion teams have been in recent memory. Even if there is a "natural" geographic rival it doesn't really mean anything if the teams are playing meaningful games against each other. And even if they play meaningful games ... it takes a few years of meaningful game for the rival to really start getting strong. Of if not meaningful games atleast some sort of unique history that makes the franchise dislike each other (I.E. Ravens/Browns Old vs new) You are also breaking up Jets/Phins which is a big rival along with the other good rivals in the AFC East. Just seems like you are almost startiing from stratch. Also if you add 4 more teams and 2 more games ... the talent is going to become very saturated. The NFL would certainly expand the roster. Lets say they expand from a 53 man to a 60 man (which might even be conservative) and from 32 to 36 teams. You are going to have 464 more players in the NFL that shouldn't be. You are going to have a lot less talented football players on the field. All that expansion is going to ultimately lead to putting a crappy product on the field (maybe not crappy but not as good) Yes, I am sacrificing some current rivalries like the Jets/Dolphins...but I think I am creating many more better more natural rivalries. Like Jets/Giants Dolphins/Bucs to use those two teams. And Raiders/49ers. Old rivalries have been discarded over the years. Quite frankly, the Browns biggest rivals at one time were the Lions and Giants, but those went by the wayside. As for the expanded rosters, I think the NFL can handle it. There is decent talent out there right now that doesn't play. The USA is a nation of over 300 million people. 36 teams of 60 man rosters means there would be 2160 players in the NFL. I think this population base...plus what we get from other countries can come up with 2160 decent football players.
The Gipper Posted May 20, 2012 Author Report Posted May 20, 2012 I do think a lot. It can go any number of ways. I could see a Great Lakes division......Chicago, Detroit, Cleveland, Buffalo, Pitts, Indy. I also think about cities that could support a NFL team. You are adding 4. LA, no brainer, San Antonio,good option. You say Salt Lake.....I say Oklahoma City. I also think the deep south could support another team in Alabama...Birmingham might be a good location..Memphis is another location that has the population and they have tried in the past. There are a lot of people living in Memphis, north Mississippi, and east Arkansas that would support a team. That also hits a geographic void in the center of the country, as does OKC.....you could place them in several division that make sense. I considered Birmingham and Memphis. Two things led me to choose Portland/SA, and SLC: most importantly, size. Those are the biggest markets without a team that were not already basically on top of other NFL markets. In fact here is the order of DMAs that do not have NFL teams: 2 LA 19 Orlando 20 Sacramento 22 Portland 24 Raleigh-durham 30 Hartford 32 Columbus 33 Salt Lake 36 San Antonio 39 Birmingham 40 Las Vegas 43 Norfolk/Va Beach 44 OKC 45 Albequerque 47 Austin 49 Memphis As mentioned, adding Austin/SA together however makes them like the 14th larges market. Orlando is only @75-80 miles from Tampa. The same with Sacramento from Oakland. Hartford is about 100 miles from NY and Boston...and I guess technically, since Connecticut is in "New England", the already have their team. The Panthers bill themselves as Carolina's team so I discounted Raleigh Durham. So, Portland and SLC were the largest and most remote markets left. Though, I think Birmingham would viable as another "southern" team and probably comes in right after the ones I chose. The other southern option would be the "Tidewater" team in Virg.
The Gipper Posted May 20, 2012 Author Report Posted May 20, 2012 I think their may not be enough talent at the QB position to warrant a 36 team league. Look at it now, 32 teams & many teams hurting at QB. I don't want the best sports league in the USA to get diluted, like the NBA. I DO agree about getting the Ratbirds out of our division though. You don't think Seneca Wallace could go somewhere and be a starting NFL QB?
Bob806 Posted May 20, 2012 Report Posted May 20, 2012 You don't think Seneca Wallace could go somewhere and be a starting NFL QB? Lol....nope.
Mark O Posted May 20, 2012 Report Posted May 20, 2012 Could he be a starting QB? sure he could...just not a very good one.
The Cysko Kid Posted May 20, 2012 Report Posted May 20, 2012 Seneca could be a starting QB. Colt was a starting QB and seneca is no worse than him, for god's sake. I like how people are against team expansion by fearing it will become diluted. So you're saying that with 32 teams out there we've tapped out the countries entire supply of football players? All of them? Every single guy that could play football on the pro level is already signed to an NFL team. Wow.
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.