2007-05-14 12:15:07 · 25 answers · asked by Avelar 3 in Sports ➔ Football (American)
I think the NFL teams are fine where they all are. Maybe put into a couple of new stadiums in places like San Francisco, Miami, Oakland (so they don't have to share with baseball teams) and Minnesota. But as far as moving, No NFL team needs to move. LA has failed with two different teams. No other revenue is big enough from an owner's standpoint. It would be fun to see NFL teams all over, but no city needs and NFL team. Personally, i think the Arena Football League should expand and spread out.
2007-05-14 12:29:11 · answer #1 · answered by packersmackers24 2 · 1⤊ 0⤋
Austin couldn't support a team of the NFL, unless they were the size of Phoenix, they'd be competing WAY too much with the Longhorns for fans, and I asked a question a day ago concerning San Antonio and a franchise football team. They said that there's a very small chance of San Antonio getting a franchise, just because of the reason that they'd be competing with the Longhorns and that they'd be spending a lot of money on a college game and then a NFL game a day later, so yea. Not enough money, and the town couldn't support that. So if San Antonio can't have one, then Austin won't either. Besides, Texas has plenty of teams. I am from Texas, and I would love for San Antonio to have a professional franchise football team, but I don't know, I don't think we need it. We have two teams already, although Florida does have three. The Bucs, Dolphins and the Jaguars, so it could happen. But I think the city, or cities that need professional franchise football teams would probably be anywhere in the Nebraska, the Dakotas, and anywhere in the west, but yet again, not sure if towns can support them either, all those towns are booked for collge games.
2007-05-14 13:50:47 · answer #2 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
Vegas would be likely but remember the gambling perspective that some ppl have-sure NFL gambling is big business but the business of Vegas is gambling.
A team in Vegas has the potential to give the league a big black eye.Controversy will sure to follow a team to Vegas.
LA is the largest market without a team.
Virginia?There's talk about that.
Toronto,Canada does not support the Blue Jays and wouldn't in the long run support a NFL team after the novelty wears off.
Mexico City-lots of population but I don't know if they have the money to support a team.
2007-05-14 12:45:50 · answer #3 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
The last city that should get a team is Los Angeles ... how many times can a city have an NFL team and then throw it away because the fans are not happy with them? L.A. had more than one chance (three chances actually) ... so they no longer deserve to have a franchise in their city.
Looking at financial prospects, Orlando, Florida and Las Vegas, NV would be strong candidates for a potential NFL franchise. Also,
2007-05-14 13:28:19 · answer #4 · answered by icehoundxx 6 · 0⤊ 0⤋
I can't see Austin getting one before San Antonio. With Texas already having two teams, you have to look elsewhere in the country. Unfortunately, it seems that most major cities without an NFL team either couldn't support a professional sports team in general, or the market suggests that the other sport(s) already in the city would maintain their dominance in attendance. However, being from Texas, I wouldn't mind seeng San Antonio getting one.
2007-05-14 12:19:42 · answer #5 · answered by tombdaddy504 1 · 0⤊ 0⤋
The NFL is still trying to get a team back to Los Angeles, which hasn't hosted a team in over a decade now. After Los Angeles, the next cities I would consider are San Antonio, Salt Lake City, and Columbus, Ohio. You'll never see the NFL expand into Toronto because of their agreement with the CFL. Nor will you see them expand into Mexico - are you kidding me with that? Las Vegas is never going to get an NFL, MLB, NBA, or NHL franchise because of its ties to gambling.
2007-05-14 18:34:03 · answer #6 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
People are saying Vegas, but we all know that can't happen. Vegas is too controversial. Its growing like crazy though. So are other cities out west. So, I am going to half-heartedly say Columbus, Ohio, but really I think a better pick would be something like San Jose, or LA or ahhh, heck looking ahead population wise, give Phoenix another team. Arizona, and its growing population can probably support an NFL team.
2007-05-14 13:08:54 · answer #7 · answered by fields r 2 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Los Angeles
2007-05-15 02:43:45 · answer #8 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
I dont know that any particular city NEEDS an NFL team that doesnt have one. Everyone says LA but theyve tried that with the Rams and Raiders.
2007-05-14 12:18:40 · answer #9 · answered by sunsfanlls 2 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Lincoln Nebraska
2007-05-14 12:17:34 · answer #10 · answered by mar m 5 · 0⤊ 0⤋