Total Posts:24|Showing Posts:1-24
Jump to topic:

Cities where an NFL team might do well

Ore_Ele
Posts: 25,980
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/22/2014 10:21:11 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
In this regards, "do well" refers only to its financial abilities, which would most likely be determined by fan base and tax laws. Obviously we can look at some things like traffic.
"Wanting Red Rhino Pill to have gender"
Ore_Ele
Posts: 25,980
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/22/2014 10:42:54 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
Of course I'll be arguing for the Portland area.

The national Median income is just over $51,000 while the Portland Metro area is almost $57,000 [1]. Now, the Seattle area is over $65,500, however the Portland area grew by 1.8% to Seattle's 0.4% (these numbers are for 2011, so a few years outdated). The Portland Metro is also only 2.3 million to Seattle's 3.5 million. Though Portland does get another 400,000 from the Salem area (that really depends on where a stadium is built for how well those have access).

When discussing the potential fan base, I believe that it would be quite substantial. Right now, there is a huge following for both Oregon and Oregon St for college programs, despite both being over 80 miles away (OSU is 84 miles, and UO is 111 miles). There are countless fans that make the trek on Saturdays and they cause legendary traffic (at least local legends).

The big question for the Portland fans will be how dedicated they remain when the programs are not doing well. OSU has maintained an average of over 56,000 fans (the stadium is only built for 53,800 since 2002) since 2002. This includes seasons that were as bad as 3-9 in 2011. After that horrible season, they only saw an attendance drop of about 3%, not bad.

Now, for placing, we have some questions. I would think that placing the stadium south of Portland (like near the I-5 and I-205 interchange) would be ideal, since that would give easy access to Salem fans (and also easier for the college students to get to). Though that may make it hard for Vancouver and Hillsboro to get their, since they would have to go all the way through the city to get there.

The only other option would really be either inside the I-5, I-26, and I-217 triangle, or over near the airport. While those may not create as much traffic for people coming from a distance, they would be nightmares in the local area when thing bog down and only spread out. So I do think the south side would be best (the south side is also were more of the "wealth" is, so more customers able to afford the high price box seats or season tickets).

[1] https://www.census.gov...
"Wanting Red Rhino Pill to have gender"
Ore_Ele
Posts: 25,980
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/22/2014 11:42:27 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
Let's take a fun look at Las Vegas (so many players would just fit in so well).

Their population is almost 1.4 million. That is a bit on the low end, but still definitely doable. Though the median household income is only $52,600. That does present some risk, however the show value of it may make it workable. Probably not as much attendance, but involvement with gambling (not sure what kind of limits the NFL would put on that).
"Wanting Red Rhino Pill to have gender"
Danielle
Posts: 21,330
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/23/2014 11:52:40 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
I agree with Portland and Vegas. Another city (or state) to consider is Alabama. I suppose Birmingham or Tuscaloosa if you had to choose a city. The obsession over the Crimson Tide could perhaps spill over to the NFL. Plus some states that border Alabama include Arkansas, Mississippi and Georgia, all of which have no pro football teams. Therefore we can assume that many of the people from those states ought to be included in the stats. Even if their incomes aren't necessarily high, those southerners are passionate football fans and are willing to sacrifice a lot for love of the game. Plus the sheer volume of them ought to be taken into consideration.

If Hawaii and Alaska can be considered despite location, I would suggest them also since neither of them have any pro sports teams that I can think of. I also think Toronto could be a good choice. I'm not sure how expansion to Europe or Asia would work or be feasible (assuming they played American teams...).
President of DDO
Danielle
Posts: 21,330
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/23/2014 11:58:32 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
Oh and I forgot to mention the Dakotas (kinda like the Carolina Panthers... you could have the Dakota Dragons or some ish), the Virginias (including W. Virginia) and perhaps even Connecticut, since the Patriots are the only team representing a pretty big geographical and populated area. New England technically constitutes 6 states: Maine, Mass, New Hamp, Vermont, RI and Connecticut. Hmm.
President of DDO
Ore_Ele
Posts: 25,980
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/24/2014 12:46:28 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 4/23/2014 11:58:32 PM, Danielle wrote:
Oh and I forgot to mention the Dakotas (kinda like the Carolina Panthers... you could have the Dakota Dragons or some ish), the Virginias (including W. Virginia) and perhaps even Connecticut, since the Patriots are the only team representing a pretty big geographical and populated area. New England technically constitutes 6 states: Maine, Mass, New Hamp, Vermont, RI and Connecticut. Hmm.

Yeah, that is something I was thinking, The NE needs another team. The Dakotas might be hard. The oil fields where most the prosperity is, is in the west, along with Montana, though the current population would be in the east closer to Minnesota.

I'd have a hard time with Alaska or Hawaii, for reasons being the time zones with Hawaii and weather with Alaska (though if they promise to follow Green Bay and have a roofless stadium to play in January, I'd be inclined to agree if they play for the "North" rather than the "West," that would piss off so many teams in their division).

I was reading a Bleacher Report that also mentioned LA and having a team actually in New York, rather than New Jersey (maybe make a New Jersey team to take Metlife stadium).
"Wanting Red Rhino Pill to have gender"
Jifpop09
Posts: 2,243
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/24/2014 10:34:22 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 4/22/2014 10:21:11 PM, Ore_Ele wrote:
In this regards, "do well" refers only to its financial abilities, which would most likely be determined by fan base and tax laws. Obviously we can look at some things like traffic.

Thinking southern California. Its silly that they don't have one already.
Leader of the DDO Revolution Party
TN05
Posts: 4,492
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/28/2014 11:32:55 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
That's a tough question. The NFL is in vicinity of most major cities, and Virginia is the only state in the top 22 most populous states (excluding Maryland and New Jersey, which technically host teams) without a team but has no NFL-level cities. Alabama and Oregon represent the only two reasonable expansion states IMO (excluding Nevada, no pro team will ever go there), and out of those Oregon seems the most reasonable due to Portland. Alabama could work if they established themselves as the team of the Deep South, but where would the team play? It's a college state. Outside of the US, Toronto is the only rational place for an NFL teams.
dtaylor971
Posts: 1,907
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/29/2014 5:52:43 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
Los Angeles...
"I don't know why gays want to marry, I have spent the last 25 years wishing I wasn't allowed to." -Sadolite
Ore_Ele
Posts: 25,980
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/29/2014 8:13:27 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 4/29/2014 5:52:43 PM, dtaylor971 wrote:
Los Angeles...

Had their chance twice... and failed twice. Though perhaps the culture around the NFL has changed enough that it will work now.
"Wanting Red Rhino Pill to have gender"
Smithereens
Posts: 5,512
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/1/2014 1:33:33 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 4/30/2014 10:05:30 AM, birdlandmemories wrote:
At 4/30/2014 8:00:33 AM, Smithereens wrote:
Melbourne.

never. That's around 16 hours ahead

well then, catch up and it won't be a problem.
Music composition contest: http://www.debate.org...
Danielle
Posts: 21,330
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/1/2014 6:39:27 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 4/24/2014 10:34:22 PM, Jifpop09 wrote:
Thinking southern California. Its silly that they don't have one already.

San Diego Chargers...
President of DDO
Danielle
Posts: 21,330
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/1/2014 6:44:59 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 4/28/2014 11:32:55 PM, TN05 wrote:
That's a tough question. The NFL is in vicinity of most major cities, and Virginia is the only state in the top 22 most populous states (excluding Maryland and New Jersey, which technically host teams) without a team but has no NFL-level cities.

Washington DC is so small. The Red Skins need those Virginia fans.

Alabama and Oregon represent the only two reasonable expansion states IMO (excluding Nevada, no pro team will ever go there), and out of those Oregon seems the most reasonable due to Portland.

Yeah, I think Portland would be a good market. Fans from (northern) Nevada can cheer for them. Only San Diego and Arizona are NFL markets close to Vegas.

Alabama could work if they established themselves as the team of the Deep South, but where would the team play? It's a college state. Outside of the US, Toronto is the only rational place for an NFL teams.

I mentioned Tuscaloosa, but if that's too crimson, then perhaps Birmingham. Yes it's a college town, but many college towns remain that way because they don't have a strong pro presence. Again there are other states that border Alabama without pro teams (Georgia, Arkansas, Mississippi...).
President of DDO
TN05
Posts: 4,492
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/1/2014 6:59:02 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 5/1/2014 6:44:59 PM, Danielle wrote:
At 4/28/2014 11:32:55 PM, TN05 wrote:
That's a tough question. The NFL is in vicinity of most major cities, and Virginia is the only state in the top 22 most populous states (excluding Maryland and New Jersey, which technically host teams) without a team but has no NFL-level cities.

Washington DC is so small. The Red Skins need those Virginia fans.

Good point, forgot their base expands to Virgina. So basically all of the top 22 states are covered.

Alabama and Oregon represent the only two reasonable expansion states IMO (excluding Nevada, no pro team will ever go there), and out of those Oregon seems the most reasonable due to Portland.

Yeah, I think Portland would be a good market. Fans from (northern) Nevada can cheer for them. Only San Diego and Arizona are NFL markets close to Vegas.

Yeah, I think there would also be good potential for a rivalry with Seattle as well.

Alabama could work if they established themselves as the team of the Deep South, but where would the team play? It's a college state. Outside of the US, Toronto is the only rational place for an NFL teams.

I mentioned Tuscaloosa, but if that's too crimson, then perhaps Birmingham. Yes it's a college town, but many college towns remain that way because they don't have a strong pro presence. Again there are other states that border Alabama without pro teams (Georgia, Arkansas, Mississippi...).

Georgia does have a team, the Atlanta Falcons, although you could argue Atlanta is a northern enclave. :P

As for Tuscaloosa, they have less than 100,00 citizens in city proper (less than Green Bay), not sure that could support a team. Birmingham is much bigger, and would probably be a better spot (it's just one county over from Tuscaloosa). I don't think it's a bad idea on paper, it's just that the Deep South is traditionally college territory. If they play their cards right it could work - I mean, the Carolina Panthers were able to get support quickly even though NC is a traditional basketball state and SC is a traditional college state.
Ore_Ele
Posts: 25,980
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/2/2014 2:02:36 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 5/1/2014 6:59:02 PM, TN05 wrote:
At 5/1/2014 6:44:59 PM, Danielle wrote:
At 4/28/2014 11:32:55 PM, TN05 wrote:
That's a tough question. The NFL is in vicinity of most major cities, and Virginia is the only state in the top 22 most populous states (excluding Maryland and New Jersey, which technically host teams) without a team but has no NFL-level cities.

Washington DC is so small. The Red Skins need those Virginia fans.

Good point, forgot their base expands to Virgina. So basically all of the top 22 states are covered.

Alabama and Oregon represent the only two reasonable expansion states IMO (excluding Nevada, no pro team will ever go there), and out of those Oregon seems the most reasonable due to Portland.

Yeah, I think Portland would be a good market. Fans from (northern) Nevada can cheer for them. Only San Diego and Arizona are NFL markets close to Vegas.

Yeah, I think there would also be good potential for a rivalry with Seattle as well.

The Ducks and Huskies are a pretty solid rivalry, so it would go well.


Alabama could work if they established themselves as the team of the Deep South, but where would the team play? It's a college state. Outside of the US, Toronto is the only rational place for an NFL teams.

I mentioned Tuscaloosa, but if that's too crimson, then perhaps Birmingham. Yes it's a college town, but many college towns remain that way because they don't have a strong pro presence. Again there are other states that border Alabama without pro teams (Georgia, Arkansas, Mississippi...).

Georgia does have a team, the Atlanta Falcons, although you could argue Atlanta is a northern enclave. :P

As for Tuscaloosa, they have less than 100,00 citizens in city proper (less than Green Bay), not sure that could support a team. Birmingham is much bigger, and would probably be a better spot (it's just one county over from Tuscaloosa). I don't think it's a bad idea on paper, it's just that the Deep South is traditionally college territory. If they play their cards right it could work - I mean, the Carolina Panthers were able to get support quickly even though NC is a traditional basketball state and SC is a traditional college state.

It isn't just the city proper size but the surrounding area, both in terms of people coming to watch the games, TV markets, and mechanize potential.

Alabama and Mississippi are kinda doing nothing on the NFL level, while being balls deep in college football. Those don't pull away from each other too much.
"Wanting Red Rhino Pill to have gender"
R0b1Billion
Posts: 3,733
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/3/2014 10:23:58 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 4/29/2014 5:52:43 PM, dtaylor971 wrote:
Los Angeles...
Beliefs in a nutshell:
- The Ends never justify the Means.
- Objectivity is secondary to subjectivity.
- The War on Drugs is the worst policy in the U.S.
- Most people worship technology as a religion.
- Computers will never become sentient.
birdlandmemories
Posts: 4,141
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/19/2014 7:33:07 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 5/18/2014 9:18:57 PM, ChadIrvin wrote:
San Antonio would do well with a pro football team. Low taxes and a decent fan base

But we haven't seen the Spurs do bad in a long time, so we have no idea how they'll react to a losing team.
Ashton
birdlandmemories
Posts: 4,141
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/19/2014 10:17:16 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 5/19/2014 9:00:09 AM, ChadIrvin wrote:
lol

Seriously dude, they last missed the playoffs in the 1996-97 season, have won 4 NBA championships in 15 years, and have made it to the Western Conference Finals 3 years in a row. Sounds to me like they haven't experienced losing in a while. Combine that with the fact that they are a relatively small market, especially when compared to Los Angeles or Toronto, putting a team in San Antonio sounds like a very large risk by the NFL.
Ashton