U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Sports > Pro Football
 [Register]
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 10-23-2010, 11:25 AM
 
12,671 posts, read 21,068,596 times
Reputation: 2625

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by bresilhac View Post
Try DirecTV's Sunday Ticket. That's how I watch the Redskins when they are not shown by a local TV station. It's great.
I am trying to go to the games. 49ers play Texans at Reliant once in a blue moon.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 10-25-2010, 05:28 AM
 
Location: Arlington, VA and Washington, DC
23,651 posts, read 33,462,505 times
Reputation: 32369
Quote:
Originally Posted by Timothy73401 View Post
I believe Oklahoma City is ready for another pro team considering the overwhelming success of the new basketball team (Oklahoma City Thunder). If I could make a name suggestion I would call the team the Oklahoma City Outlaws considering all the outlaws who hid in the witchita mountains in the past.
Oklahoma has the same problem as Alabama. College Football is supreme and most are satisified with the college thrill.

The NFL is bent on a team in Los Angeles but I think San Antonio is a much better idea.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-27-2010, 08:51 AM
 
Location: I-35
1,804 posts, read 3,699,379 times
Reputation: 715
LA JAGS where do they play at the colsieum??? I would be in favor of OKC or Portland.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-30-2010, 06:32 PM
 
Location: Chicago
5,918 posts, read 6,552,644 times
Reputation: 5392
Our largest markets deserve two teams each so that both Fox and CBS get the same quality t.v. deals. The revenue is in t.v. more than the stands. And unlike MLB, that revenue is shared.

To me that makes setting place three of the four new teams to bring the total up from 32 to 36 fairly simple:

FOX/NFC
New York Giants
Chicago Bears
Los Angeles Dons
San Francisco 49ers

CBS/AFC
New York Jets
Chicago Stags
Los Angeles Golds
Oakland Raiders

Both conferences/networks share New York, Chicago, Los Angeles, and Bay Area. What could be better?

Last franchise? Take your pick which one:

Las Vegas Aces
Honolulu Islanders
San Antonio Alamos
Portland Woods
Orlando Themesters
Toronto True Norths
Salt Lake Brines
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-31-2010, 12:24 AM
JJG JJG started this thread
 
Location: Fort Worth
13,248 posts, read 19,192,166 times
Reputation: 7010
Quote:
Originally Posted by edsg25 View Post
Our largest markets deserve two teams each so that both Fox and CBS get the same quality t.v. deals. The revenue is in t.v. more than the stands. And unlike MLB, that revenue is shared.

To me that makes setting place three of the four new teams to bring the total up from 32 to 36 fairly simple:

FOX/NFC
New York Giants
Chicago Bears
Los Angeles Dons
San Francisco 49ers

CBS/AFC
New York Jets
Chicago Stags
Los Angeles Golds
Oakland Raiders

Both conferences/networks share New York, Chicago, Los Angeles, and Bay Area. What could be better?

Last franchise? Take your pick which one:

Las Vegas Aces
Honolulu Islanders
San Antonio Alamos
Portland Woods
Orlando Themesters
Toronto True Norths
Salt Lake Brines
Well, there's a few things here....

1. Though I believe the NFL will once again expand to more than 32 teams, I don't think that's gonna happen in another 20 years..... and even so, I don't think Chicago or L.A. should have two teams. There's just way too much support of the Bears in Chi-town, and L.A..... L.A. should just stick with one if it gets one for the time being.

2. There is a chance the Raiders could move back to L.A., anyway.

And 3. I'd say San Antonio, with Toronto as a distant second. But, Alamos? If San Antonio get's a team, the best name would be Defenders.... at least, that's what I think.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-31-2010, 05:42 AM
 
Location: :~)
1,483 posts, read 2,918,442 times
Reputation: 1519
There seems to be lacking of enough representation in the central states. So, I would go for a team maybe in proximity of Okc to Omaha/Iowa because they are intense college fans. Which should translate well for a NFL team?

Adding more to Ohio, Fl, CA and Texas would be a waste because there are enough already.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-31-2010, 06:24 AM
 
Location: Chicago
5,918 posts, read 6,552,644 times
Reputation: 5392
Quote:
Originally Posted by JJG View Post
Well, there's a few things here....

1. Though I believe the NFL will once again expand to more than 32 teams, I don't think that's gonna happen in another 20 years..... and even so, I don't think Chicago or L.A. should have two teams. There's just way too much support of the Bears in Chi-town, and L.A..... L.A. should just stick with one if it gets one for the time being.

2. There is a chance the Raiders could move back to L.A., anyway.

And 3. I'd say San Antonio, with Toronto as a distant second. But, Alamos? If San Antonio get's a team, the best name would be Defenders.... at least, that's what I think.
Who knows what will happen? And certainly not my suggestions above.

But no matter what happens and strictly based on a windy city I know a thing or two about, as referenced in "here's just way too much support of the Bears in Chi-town,"...

Chicago may never get a chance to prove what it could do with a second NFL team, but let me assure you this:

that team would sell out every game just like the Bears do.

No question. This is a huge, sports loving city. Make that sports crazy. And it is one city where the sports craziness very much carries the image and aura and sense of place of Chicago which, here in Chicago (for better or worse...and with no suggestion that the feelings we have about our town has any influence on how others see us), a Chicago AFC team would be among the attendance leaders in the league.

Chicago was a two team NFL city for years, the only one that existed. The Cardinals left town not because attendance was low (it wasn't great, but 1960 was hardly the true era of pro-football and playing in Comskey Park and non-fixed-up Soldier Field didn't exactly help).

They left town because CBS which had the only t.v. rights couldn't give the Bears and Cardinals the coverage that applied to all NFL teams because Chicago alone had two franchises, so serving the others was a no brainer.

TV moved the Cardinals to St. Louis (and that one sure didn't work out, did it?)

Chicago could support the Bears and the proposed "Chicago Stags" far more like New York supports the Giants and Jets than like the Bay Area supports the 49ers and Raiders (the Bay Area supports the 49ers. Period.)

We may never know because the team I suggest will not come to be. But if it did, the NFL (and AFC and CBS) would do very well because of it, thank you very much.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-31-2010, 01:55 PM
JJG JJG started this thread
 
Location: Fort Worth
13,248 posts, read 19,192,166 times
Reputation: 7010
Quote:
Originally Posted by jbub22 View Post
There seems to be lacking of enough representation in the central states. So, I would go for a team maybe in proximity of Okc to Omaha/Iowa because they are intense college fans. Which should translate well for a NFL team?

Adding more to Ohio, Fl, CA and Texas would be a waste because there are enough already.
I'd strongly disagree with Texas. Two isn't enough for the second most populated state in the country.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-31-2010, 01:57 PM
 
16,437 posts, read 19,150,535 times
Reputation: 9518
My vote is none.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-31-2010, 05:19 PM
 
Location: San Antonio
927 posts, read 1,210,020 times
Reputation: 476
Quote:
Originally Posted by jbub22 View Post
There seems to be lacking of enough representation in the central states. So, I would go for a team maybe in proximity of Okc to Omaha/Iowa because they are intense college fans. Which should translate well for a NFL team?

Adding more to Ohio, Fl, CA and Texas would be a waste because there are enough already.
On the contrary. There is not enough pro-football in Texas. Namely South Texas. Texas is the second most populace state and should have at least one other team. That team of course should be in San Antonio.
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.


Reply
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
Message:

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