If I Were NFL Commissioner, Part Three (Expansion Details)

The NFL needs to ensure franchise stability in order to preserve its success and longevity. Franchise stability is crucial, since it creates a larger, more enthusiastic and more loyal fan base in each venue, and nationwide.

It also maintains traditional rivalries, whose intensity and legendary richness add tremendously to the value of the NFL as a league and each franchise individually.

The key to franchise stability is to satiate the appetite for NFL franchises among viable venues that are currently without. As long as every venue that could have a franchise does have a franchise, there will be no need for vacant venues to purchase and move a franchise to their own city.

Since the merger, every city that has lost a franchise, has had that franchise replaced by expansion. That fact, should further reinforce the wisdom and practicality of a policy that makes expansion the only means by which a new venue can join the NFL.

The preceding paragraphs summarize our case from the previous article in this series, as regards franchise stability and expansion.

We are proposing an eight-city expansion ASAP, similar to the NHL's six-team expansion in 1966. We are also proposing that an additional eight venues be on deck for a future expansion of up to eight more teams five to 10 years after the first one.

Now we'll elaborate on the criteria we will use to identify the cities in line for the next NFL expansion.   

The cities listed are the largest metro areas that do not currently have NFL teams, that have at least a metro population of one million and are otherwise viable venues for the NFL.

Before giving you the complete list, there are exceptions where cities would otherwise qualify but extenuating circumstances exist.

First we will address the exceptions and then give you the list.

Toronto: There is increasing interest in Toronto to acquire a NFL franchise. For some in Toronto and in the NFL home office, Buffalo seems the ideal candidate. We submit that to move a storied franchise from Buffalo, even if it is only 90 minutes and a bridge away from downtown Buffalo, is not in the best interests of the NFL, Buffalo, or even Toronto.

On the other hand, it is possible that locating another franchise in Toronto could destabilize the Bills to the point of making the franchise no longer viable, since the Bills currently enjoy a significant if not overwhelming amount of support west (yes, in Buffalo Canada is west, not north) of the border.

We will address this situation in a separate article and therefore Toronto will not be on our expansion list.

Vancouver: Vancouver is close enough to Seattle to cause some concern, but Seattle is a larger market, so is not as vulnerable as Buffalo. We would not oppose expanding to Vancouver in the future should there be interest. Since there is no significant interest at this time, we will place them on the second tier even though the qualify for the first.  

Milwaukee: Compared to the Buffalo/Toronto conundrum, the Milwaukee issue is cut and dried. Although Milwaukee has two other major league franchises and supports them well, and by this criteria they would be in the first tier of potential expansion venues, they are not on the list due to their historic attachment to Green Bay.

Even though the Packers no longer play a portion of their schedule in Milwaukee, any attempt to expand to Milwaukee would threaten Green Bay's viability should it be successful, but much more likely would be doomed from the outset itself, due to the inbred loyalty of the entire state, but certainly southeast Wisconsin, to the Packers.

San Jose: For all intents and purposes, part of the Bay Area.

Newark: Same as above, New York.

Monmouth-Ocean, NJ: Same as above, Philadelphia.

Rochester: Same as above, Buffalo.

Columbus: Football in Columbus is dominated by Ohio State. It is possible Columbus could support a NFL franchise but it would likely be the ugly step-sister. Since there has been no outcry for a team in Columbus, and because they would be one of the smaller markets and thus less likely to be able to steal another franchise, we will defer them for now. 

Oklahoma City: The rationale applied to Columbus also applies to Oklahoma City where the Sooners are big-time football in the region. There is also a deep tradition of support for the Dallas Cowboys in OKC. They will also be deferred for now.

We think they have their hands full supporting the NBA Thunder (formerly Seattle Sonics). Still, OKC could be in play in the future for NFL expansion, and if they desire to enter the league at some point, should be given a realistic entry-track, but for now they are not on the list.

Austin: Same as Columbus and OKC. Too much "hook-em-horns" culture to compete with. Maybe someday.  

Las Vegas: While the boom has quickly busted in Sin City, Las Vegas has been demographically and economically in the big leagues for quite some time. The city's identification with gambling has served to keep everything except upstart expansion leagues and the Arena league out of town, in all sports, actually.

Their latest pro football incarnation is coming compliments of the United Football League. We will leave them to the UFL for now, especially since Las Vegas has not been considered a viable venue by the NFL to date for reasons already noted.

Orlando: Orlando could support a NFL franchise. However, they have not made any effort to obtain one, and they now have a UFL franchise. Without the UFL, they would be on the first tier list.

Like Oklahoma City, Orlando could be in play in the future for NFL expansion, and should also be given a realistic entry-track if there is interest, but for now they are not on the list.  

The following cities are viable candidates for an NFL franchise. Our definition of "viable" is that they have the population (within a two hour commute), the media market size, and the economic health to immediately and permanently support a NFL franchise given the current levels of revenue sharing and current salary cap, etc.

We will separate these cities into a first tier and second tier, depending on whether or not there is at least one other major league franchise (including Major League Soccer) in their market. The presence of another major league club demonstrates the region's ability to support a major league sport.

The absence of a competing franchise, however, could also be an asset in some cases. We will draw the line at metropolitan regions of fewer than 1,000,000 as listed by the U.S. Census Bureau for the Standard Metropolitan Statistical Area.

First Tier: Los Angeles-Anaheim, Sacramento, Portland, San Antonio, Memphis, Salt Lake.

The first-tier cities would be the first to be added to the league, assuming there is sufficient interest and resources to consummate the deal.

There are six first-tier cities and we would recommend expanding to eight teams all at once. Therefore the two strongest candidates from the second tier would also be admitted.

We believe Los Angeles has the capability and appetite to receive two NFL teams, just as New York has.

We also believe Chicago could support a second team. Those two cities will appear in the second tier, but will be given last priority at this point since L.A. needs to demonstrate they can support one team before receiving a second, and Chicago has expressed no interest up until now, in obtaining a second team.

Bears loyalty goes deep, but there is also a deep history of frustration with the Bears that could benefit a new franchise should it be well run and quickly successful.

Providence is viable as a second-tier city but has a long history loyalty to Boston area teams. They aren't quite as joined at the hip to the Patriots, as Milwaukee is to the Packers, so we list them near the bottom of the second tier.

Hartford is a better candidate to encroach in the Patriot’s back yard, and will be given preference to Providence.

Second Tier: Norfolk-Tidewater, Louisville, Hartford, Raleigh-Durham (combined with or separate from…) Greensboro/Highpoint/Winston-Salem, Providence, Los Angeles-Anaheim, Chicago.

Now that we have an idea how and which venues will be selected for expansion, we should address league realignment. I’m suggesting four conferences of two divisions of five teams each. That makes eight divisions. The league would move to an 18-game (plus two or three preseason) schedule.

Each team would play all conference teams once, and nine “weighted” games against teams based on the previous year’s standings. This would enhance parity as well as offering the benefits of expansion, since half a team’s schedule would be played against teams that finished with a similar rank the previous year.

One caveat would be when two traditional rivals are separated by conference. In such situations, the rivals would be scheduled to play each other every year, to maintain the rivalry.

A variation on this could actually designate that rivals in conference or out of conference play each other twice (home and home) to further maintain the rivalry, and they would thus be scheduled to play eight instead of nine so-called weighted games.

Given that it is the 50th anniversary of the American Football League (AFL) we suggest a nod to nostalgia. Reconstitute the original AFL in two five-team divisions. We could also reconstitute the original NFL teams that are still in their traditional venues as the Legacy Conference.

Other conferences and divisions would be created according to geography and existing rivalries except that the fourth conference would be all the expansion teams, plus two other teams.

Since all of this is speculation at this point, we will offer a speculative alignment scheme, as follows (projected expansion cities in italics):

The AFL Conference

Western Division: San Diego, Denver, Oakland, Kansas City, Tennessee

Eastern Division: Buffalo, New York Jets, New England, Cincinnati, Miami

The Legacy Conference

Western Division: Green Bay, Minnesota, Chicago, Detroit, San Francisco

Eastern Division: Philadelphia, Pittsburgh, NY Giants, Washington, Dallas

The Continental Conference

Eastern Division:  Tampa Bay, Atlanta, Jacksonville, Baltimore, Carolina

Western Division: Cleveland, Indianapolis, St. Louis, New Orleans, Houston

The Pioneer Conference

Western Division: Seattle, LA, Sacramento, Portland, Salt Lake

Eastern Division: Arizona, San Antonio, Memphis, Norfolk-Tidewater, Louisville

With this configuration, there would be 16 playoff berths, with no bye-week. Each division champion would host round one, versus one of the two wild-card teams from the same division.    

Round one winners would advance to conference championships in round two.

Semifinals would be seeded with home field going to the top two seeds.

This would eliminate the tradition of Conference champions going to the Super Bowl. But in lieu of the conference trophy, there would simply be a secondary trophy for the Super Bowl loser.

Although the Pioneer Conference is made up of eight expansion teams and two existing franchises, it is guaranteed that at least two expansion teams will make the playoffs in their first year.

We decided to group them all together since there is such a large expansion, in order to enhance the competitiveness of each team and each game until the new class has caught up with the existing franchises in relative strength.  

While it is an ambitious undertaking, we strongly urge that the league act now to bring its brand of football to eight or more cities in the United States that are hungry for the NFL product.

This will ensure the stability of existing franchises in their current venues and the growth of the league’s scope and production in ways that will reinforce smaller market franchises and the league as a whole.

This article is the third in a three part series.

See also Part One: http://bleacherreport.com/articles/177688-if-i-were-commissioner

and Part Two: http://bleacherreport.com/articles/238413-if-i-were-nfl-commissioner-part-two-expansion-relocation-parity