Should the NFL add more teams?

[Patstopia]

Nothing outside the USA!

 

[Triumph]

Mexico City, Toronto, London could work since the time zone is not too far out.

At Super Bowl 42, I was at a bar sitting next to sports reporter fron Toronto. He told me that Bills to Toronto was in the works. Evidently a lot of big corporations have headquarters or offices in Toronto. The allure was selling corperate luxury boxes in the new Bills stadium. Bills tickets in Buffalo are cheep.

Then the recession hit.

 

[Triumph]

Since your avatar is Mel Gibson, an Aussie, why not put a team or two down under? The NFL could lay claim to covering the whole world and Australians would probably take to American football given their love of rugby.

Throw another shrimp on the barbie tailgating.

 

[TheRainMaker]

No, but I want to eliminate divisions. Rivalry's are non existent and I'm tired of watching teams play 40% of their schedule against the same teams every year. This will also eliminate 8-8 division winners get higher seeding than a 12-4 team.

 

[Hawaiianpatsfan2]

1/2 of the league already lacks talent Supply to Consistently build strong competitive teams.

The first move the NFL should make, would be to starting building the game up at the youth, HS, and college levels overseas. After about 10-15 years, the international talent supply could then take the game to an all new level, with the talent pool being expanded 10 fold. Without more talent, you’d just have more additional crappy teams.

 

[102 Pat]

Mexico City, Toronto, London could work since the time zone is not too far out.

I selfishly hope for a team in Toronto as it would be a hell of a lot cheaper to see the Pats in Toronto then traveling from NB to Mass. I really hoped the Bills/Toronto experiment worked out.

 

[Chevy]

Didn't think I'd have to drag this out again ...

 

[Chevy]

This will also eliminate 8-8 division winners get higher seeding than a 12-4 team.

There's nothing wrong with this. Win your Division, Win the Conference, Win the Super Bowl.

The current scheduling makeup is pretty balanced. Top-tier teams from the previous season meet other top-tier teams, rounded out by the 6 Division games.

Drop a Wilcard instead, and give the #1 seed the only bye.

 

[borg]

Mexico City would create a lot of problems with players not wanting to go there.

Who pays for the kidnapping insurance and private security each player would demand?

 

[PatriotsReign]

Since your avatar is Mel Gibson, an Aussie, why not put a team or two down under? The NFL could lay claim to covering the whole world and Australians would probably take to American football given their love of rugby.

No US team would fly to Australia or vice versa, or do you mean have their own league?

 

[Brandon_Cox]

Tom Brady votes yes. It would make it harder to reach his almost insurmountable record of 6 Super Bowl rings. Bill would agree.

 

[Brewskies]

If it isn't broke, why change it?

 

[Simpelton]

The sport is very popular and every year they are seeing huge profit, I think it would be a good idea adding more teams and expand the playoffs even further.

I think the Players association might go for it since it will create more jobs.

What do you guys think?

I'd be in favor of expansion to St. Louis and San Diego. Not much beyond that.

 

[PatriotsReign]

Not adding an international team would greatly ease my xenophobia.

Sad you don’t like foreigners in general Kontra.

I don’t want foreign teams because football is an american game. Besides that, there aren’t many foreign countries worth traveling to and from efficiently.

Some things are better left pure American and that’s ok....I also prefer the sport remain all male, and that’s ok too.

 

[Kontradiction]

Sad you don’t like foreigners in general Kontra.

I don’t want foreign teams because football is an american game. Besides that, there aren’t many foreign countries worth traveling to and from efficiently.

Some things are better left pure American and that’s ok....I also prefer the sport remain all male, and that’s ok too.

That was tongue-in-cheek.

 

[Steve85]

If it isn't broke, why change it?

thank you.

I was also against the playoff expansion & regular season expansion that passed this year as well. NFL has a great product, of course they’ll mess with it to make more money.

 

[Nikolai]

Let's see how the league recovers from Covid first. We don't even know how the viewership numbers will look.

In general, though, international teams provide too many headaches legally and financially for an American-centric league. On the other hand, I can't see too many European courts taking the same liking to Article 46 that the US does.

 

[PatriotsReign]

That was tongue-in-cheek.

Ok, I couldn’t tell. But you’re really not one to use xenophobia often, so I should have known

 

[Pape]

the way the league is now set up, if you keep the 4 division/2 conference set up, you'd have to add 8 teams to the league...

the biggest factor is what areas would pony up for a new stadium? that would be a non-starter for an expansion franchise if a region wouldn't provide hundreds of millions of dollars in corporate welfare...

there would be some re-tread cities vying for a franchise...

Toronto - fine and good when things are going well, but economics say no ... any canadian franchise would have to pay players in US Dollars... thats fine when the Canadian economy is good, but if the looney drops against the dollar, it makes it unfeasible... its the main reason why so many teams in the NHL left Canada... the strength of the NFL vs the NHL helps insulate a potential franchise, but it needs to be considered...

St Louis - already lost two teams, does the NFL really want to put a third there?

San Diego/Southern California - Wouldn't support the chargers when they were there... add to that I don't think the NFL would allow additional competition into the already saturated southern California market

Oklahoma City/Tulsa - football in the heart of college football territory... could work in both spots tbh...

Omaha - see above...

Portland, Or - think the crowded Northwest could handle another team with both SF and Seattle drawing on the regions fan base? Its a possibility... but doubtful

Salt Lake City - anyone really want to go to a game and not be able to buy beer?

San Antonio - football crazy texas could handle a third franchise... not sure Dallas or Houston would be thrilled to let another professional franchise into the state

London - the new reality we live in now makes this seems pretty unrealistic at the current time... the travel and logistics of a team on another continent would create a potential scheduling nightmare for some teams as well... not a full time realistic expansion location imo...

Birmingham - they are football crazy in Bama... would that attitude expand beyond the college game? probably... buts its a market not much larger than new orleans...

 

[mgteich]

MOVING TEAMS
Some teams should move. That isn't part of this discussion. Moving JAX to San Antonio, and/or BUF to Toronto doesn't change the numbers.

NORTH AMERICA
I suppose Montreal, Toronto and Mexico City are possibilities. Baseball has had international cities for years.

THE NUMBER OF TEAMS
This decision is a matter of money. As has been the case since the beginning, we can have more teams if the teams make money. Adding 2, 4, 6 or 8 won't be a huge problem for scheduling.

EUROPE
This is a major issue. I don't think that we are ready. This would take a full 4 team division in Europe, preferably two. Here, it is indeed the scheduling that is the issue.
========
And no, the opinion of fans who want to go back to the structure of 20, 30, 40 or 50 years ago matters very little. Any change is opposed by most. And, yes, the teams would be stronger if we reduced the number of teams by 8. So what? The issue is how many fans will watch and what the media will pay.