U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Sports > Pro Football
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Old 07-13-2007, 09:25 AM
257 posts, read 1,010,928 times
Reputation: 93


Originally Posted by JJG View Post
I'm just curious, but if your interested, would you give me a list of cities that should have NFL teams in order from most deserving to least? Here's mine:

1. San Antonio
2. L.A.
3. Las Vegas
4. (the only non-American city that actually deserves one) Toronto
5. Columbus, OH
6. Austin
7. Louisville,KY
8. Orlando, FL
9. Portland, OR
10. Oklahoma City
11. any other American towns without one.
What do you think?
no Cities....VA needs one, we have the so called WASHINGTON redskins...located....in Maryland. and the Baltimore Ravens....We need one in Richmond. Plenty of Population, right smack in the middle of teh state and if you put it north people would complain about it being to close to Skins....So richmond needs one....more than any of those.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

Old 07-13-2007, 10:20 AM
Location: Indianapolis
3,675 posts, read 7,843,264 times
Reputation: 2333
Richmond is a very good pick, I think.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Old 07-18-2007, 07:25 AM
Location: South Seattle Suburbs
3,350 posts, read 5,953,781 times
Reputation: 3528
I can think of a lot of cities where it would be neat to have a team, but I see problems with making a lot of them work.

Toronto -- Not as long as the Argos are around. The NFL supports the CFL. Plus, the Bills would fight it.

Louisville -- Too small, and too close to Cincy and Indy.

Hartford -- Too many teams in the Northeast already.

Columbus -- Buckeye country.

L.A. -- the NFL may want a team there, but I don't think people will support it. They've lost three franchises (Chargers, Rams, Raiders). USC and UCLA are huge there, anyway.

Omaha -- I know the Huskers are in Lincoln, but I just think Nebraska is too rabid about its college football to care much about the NFL.

Orlando -- Florida is saturated.

Birmingham -- Just not an appealing market. Probably a lot of Falcons, Saints, and Titans fans there anyway.

Oklahoma City -- I could be wrong about this one, but I think college ball is too big here too, plus the Texas teams probably hold a pretty big fan base here.

Wichita -- Probably wouldn't happen, with the Chiefs nearby.

Las Vegas -- It'll never happen, for all the obvious reasons.

Cities where I think a team could work:

Portland -- The PNW needs more pro sports, and especially more football.

San Antonio -- No-brainer. Huge metro, big stadium. Texas is a big enough state to accommodate three teams.

Virginia Beach metro -- Here in Northern VA, it's Redskin country, but I doubt that's the case down south. The Panthers may have an issue with this, though.

Quad Cities -- If the Bears would allow it.

Salt Lake City -- the West just needs more teams, and SLC seems to support a basketball team just fine.

Albuquerque -- Not sure it's a big enough market, though.


It'd be nice for the north-central U.S. to get a team -- Montana, Idaho, the Dakotas, Wyoming. But I can't think of a market big enough to support a franchise. Alaska and Honolulu would be fun, too, but after the novelty wore off, I'm not sure it would work. Travel costs would really be expensive.

Some people have asked about the Packers and how Green Bay ended up with a team. Well, they're a holdover from the early days when football was centered in the Midwest. Back then, lots of small towns had teams, like Muncie and Evansville in Indiana, and Canton and Dayton in Ohio. Most of those teams moved to bigger cities or went out of business. The Packers were the only one from a small market to survive, mostly because of their fan support. They put good teams on the field, and the city rewarded them for it. They're still publicly owned (I'm a shareholder!), and because of that, the team would more likely go out of business than ever move away. It's true that the proceeds from liquidating the team were originally set up to go to a local American Legion, but that's since been amended. Now the money would go to the charitable Green Bay Packers Foundation.

As for not playing football in the heat, why not? Cold-weather games are my favorite to watch, but the great thing about football is that it can be played in any kind of weather condition -- pouring rain, a blizzard, or a 110-degree heat wave! IMO, the only thing that should be banned are domes.

Last edited by Adrian71; 07-18-2007 at 08:34 AM..
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Old 07-24-2007, 11:42 AM
Location: Richmond, VA
54 posts, read 184,833 times
Reputation: 31
Again Richmond, VA. Say no to the Skins. OH and PA have 2 teams, DC is really not Virginia. So lets get Richmond a team already.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Old 07-24-2007, 01:37 PM
Location: Wind comes sweeping down the...
1,586 posts, read 6,161,313 times
Reputation: 822
Football country= Oklahoma. OKC and Tulsa have a combined metro of 2.3 million. Tulsa is only a hour and a half away....driving slow. The state/cities could easily build a stadium in between OKC and Tulsa. OKC could probably support a NFL franchise with a 1.3 metro.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Old 07-30-2007, 02:36 AM
Location: Seattle
6,954 posts, read 9,051,070 times
Reputation: 3788
I think Portland
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Old 08-02-2007, 08:59 PM
2,359 posts, read 8,188,292 times
Reputation: 1102
Originally Posted by YoAdrian View Post
Quad Cities -- If the Bears would allow it.
Don't agree with this one.

Quad Cities = Davenport-Moline-Rock Island, IA-IL MSA = Population of only 377,291
Davenport-Moline-Rock Island, IA-IL Metropolitan Statistical Area (CBSA) Population and Components of Change

Metros under 500,000 would have a very hard time supporting an NFL team.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Old 08-04-2007, 11:30 PM
74 posts, read 346,231 times
Reputation: 47
Well I think the Hall Of Fame City (Canton, OH) should get an NFL team.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Old 08-07-2007, 10:03 PM
Location: Oak Park, IL
404 posts, read 545,218 times
Reputation: 51
The Las Vegas Gamblers!!!
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Old 08-08-2007, 07:06 AM
Location: Avondale, Chicago
14,415 posts, read 26,241,071 times
Reputation: 9458
How about....nowhere?

32 teams is enough.

Relocation? San Antonio. LA can't get its act together.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.

Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply

Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Sports > Pro Football
Follow City-Data.com founder on our Forum or

All times are GMT -6.

2005-2019, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35 - Top