Several comments here: 1. NFL already has 32 teams. 2. I feel like the NFL would play at Tottenham Hotspur Stadium instead of Wembley if they ever expanded to London. As for Dublin, probably Aviva Stadium instead of Croke Park. 3. Scotland is not a city in England. Edinburgh is a city in Scotland, which is a country in the UK (basically a country within a country). 4. Oakland would never support another team of their own. 5. Columbus and Austin have very similar situations, in which their college football teams (Buckeyes and Longhorns respectively) are too big for the NFL to compete with. Give the NFL to San Antonio instead and just leave Ohio with Cleveland and Cincinnati.
Also, both Columbus and Austin have MLS teams. While their fanbases aren't monstrous they're still very loyal, specially Columbus Crew's ones. Edit: If MLS allows the Bay area to have a second team Oakland has a tiny chance. However, the Roots (or whatever the group would be) must find new investors.
@@ralphmtsu That fanbase also came from the team's previous incarnation from USL (the main minor league in the past), where the team was good for the series. The team suffered the "promotion" to the MLS, they were dreadfully last in their conference for at least the first two seasons. Now they're in a better place.
The same with Salt Lake City and Brigham Young University, so either a San Antonio or San Diego team would work. However, if there were any teams to place outside of the US, I would have to go with Toronto, with the caveat being that a future NFL team in Toronto, if they're playing against an AFC West or NFC West team, must play said games at the BC Palace in Vancouver (which is a domed facility and the home of the CFL's BC Lions).
@@rwboa22 The difference with that is that BYU is in Provo, which while is in the same media market and CSA as Salt Lake City, would probably not harm the NFL as much as UT would in Austin or Ohio State in Columbus, even though SLC already has the University of Utah there. Although I would also take the capacity of the stadiums into account. UT and Ohio State’s stadiums seat over 100,000, while the stadiums at U of U and BYU are in the 40-50,000 range.
I think maybe 36 teams would be the absolute most that the league could expand to, but even that I don’t think would happen. This could go one of two ways, either a European division does get created between teams based in London, Dublin, Berlin/Munich/Frankfurt (one of those 3 German cities) and as the 4th team could be based in either Paris, Rome, or Madrid. However, I think the 4 new teams would stay in the United States. Those 4 cities I believe would be Portland, Austin, Salt Lake City, and San Diego.
What if the NFL added four CFL teams, and had CFL-regulation fields used for their home games? Of course, that would never happen, but I like the idea.
Toronto is a problem. The Canadian govt supports the CFL including at times financially. I believe the Canadian govt would block NFL expansion to Canada. Especially Toronto which has a CFL team. Yes, I think Austin would be great. However, Austin is close to Dallas and Houston. I believe Jerry Jones would try to block a team near his Cowboys. I also believe the reason that San Antonio is not in the NFL.
Scotland is a country in the same manner every state in the US is a country. They aren't. It's a fluff, meaningless title. The country is the sovereign, and the sovereign is the United Kingdom.
@@apferrandoit’s still not in England. That’s like saying Pennsylvania, New York could get a team, because Pennsylvania has two good sized cities and they could both represent New York
This channels bread & butter is content relating to Stadiums (which was great) but it seems like the guy is running out of things to talk about within that. The political vids arent working, neither are the retro cell phone vids and you even milked the imploded sub tragedy like others did.
The NFL in Europe has to implement a limit of foreign players, the FIFA rules. 40 of those players would have to be born in their country, and they would have to pay way more for practice squad salaries for players to go overseas, and 2 year guarantee contracts with more signing bonus money would probably work.
Forget Europe. It has to be San Diego, San Antonio, Orlando and Sacramento. Portland, OR is big enough, but I can't imagine them supporting a football team.
In my opinion adding two new divisions should be like this. The NFC should get a European division with London (Monarchs), Munich (Boars), Manchester (Devils) and Frankfurt (Galaxy). and the AFC getting teams in St.Louis (River otters), San Diego (Dreadnoughts), San Jose (Silverbacks) and Austin (Wildcatters). With a new division realignment looking like this AFC East: New England, Buffalo, New York, Baltimore AFC North: Pittsburgh, Cleveland, Cincinnati, Indianapolis AFC South: Jacksonville, Miami, St.Louis, Tennessee AFC Central: Houston, Kansas City, Denver, Austin AFC West: Las Vegas, San Diego, Los Angeles, San Jose.
Portland Jacks(Lumberjacks) instead of San Jose Silverbacks... Look at the map huge void there... And Salt Lake City instead of St. Louis to fill the void
There are so many spelling mistakes in this video it's makes me wonder how much research you did. it's WEMBLEY stadium, not Wimbley. TORONTO is the correct spelling, not Tornoto. It's not Scotland, ENG. England is a separate country in the UK. It's Scotland, UK.
I don’t think Austin/UT will allow it to be there. San Antonio is a proven market. I lived in Austin, it’s a baseball city. So, it’ll make sense to give them an MLB team and San Antonio a NFL team. But i also see an “Arlington” situation where you build an MLB and NFL stadium in San Marcos Texas and attract both cities.
San Marcos is already a college town itself. New Braunfels would probably be a better location if they want something right in the middle, although I'd prefer just renovating the Alamodome for NFL.
Actually, England is a county-- technically a Kingdom. It is one of the 4 countries that make up the United Kingdom-- England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland. The official name of the U.K. is the United Kingdom of England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland.
Wait... The NFL has 32 teams so the league would need to add eight teams to make 40. If the NFL were to do that... And Looking at the map. It would be cool if some of the divisions and conferences got realigned. 9ers Raiders Chargers Rams Cardinals Are all right there and make up 5 teams. They all have history with each other. Oregon could def use a team. So could Utah and Idaho. At that to Seattle and Denver that's the north west division. That's 10 teams right there. Plus the other 25 so we would need another 5 teams. OKC is one. Alabama would be two. Texas could use a 3rd team since CA and Florida has 3 teams. We could always throw a team in St Louis as #4. And either Iowa or Nebraska as the 40th team. 😊
Oakland gets a team back but not San Diego? Snapdragon stadium was built with the ability to add seating if the NFL came back. A new team with a new owner would be welcomed with open arms.
All of these are bad choices with the exception of Austin. But I would give them baseball instead and give San Antonio football. The league is not expanding overseas SLC is too small and there is no way there will be 3 NFL teams in Ohio.
@@dvferyance : The Baltimore Ravens and Washington Commanders are separated by less than 40 miles and have no problems with their markets. The Chargers had a religious fan base throughout San Diego County’s 3.3 million people that actively supported the team for decades until Dean Spanos moved the team because of greed. The Chargers fans did not follow the team to Los Angeles… That may only be 120 miles to some, but they are completely different markets.
Not a fan of any NFL expansion but if we are playing the expansion game for fun, my choices would be Oakland, San Diego, San Antonio or Austin, St Louis, another team in Chicago, Toronto, Orlando, and Montreal or Hartford.
Before I expand to 40 I would move two teams. Chargers back to San Diego. Raiders back to Oakland. The 8 teams I would add... Austin Renegades to the AFC South with a black and red scheme and a cowboy hat logo. Portland Pouncers to the AFC West with a black and tan scheme and a cheetah logo Memphis Monarchs to the AFC East with a purple and gold scheme and a crown logo. Salt Lake City Racers to the NFC West with a black and white checker scheme. Las Vegas Rollers to the AFC North with a red yellow and black scheme with a flaming snake eyes dice logo with skulls in the one pip. St Louis Warriors to the NFC South with a silver and red scheme and a tomahawk logo. Des Moines Thrashers to the NFC North with a silver and red scheme and a screaming logo. Brimingham Brigands to the NFC East with a blue and black scheme and a menacing pirate grin logo with red eyes.
1:31 that would be impossible because not even soccer teams are allowed to have play their home games at wembley and spurs stadium already has a team and they wouldn’t let any other teams espacially from a different sports play there.
Your take on Monterrey is outstanding! Monterrey gets overlooked all the time and it's an outstanding city with a ton of wealth. Now for Austin you are right about everything but being that I'm from San Antonio my dream and everyone in the 7th largest city in the US are starving for NFL. I hope we don't get overlooked again for Austin.
Years ago, at the height of Nebraska college football's dominance, I heard someone speculate that they could get an NFL franchise and one idea would be to build a stadium somewhere between Omaha and Lincoln, that way they could maximize the fan numbers (the cities are only about an hour away from each other). Problem with some new teams added would be that you would be having some in close range to some others. My suggestions would be:New locales; San Antonio (they already have the stadium ready to go), Orlando (same), Nebraska (see above), Austin, Memphis. Cities that have had teams that could host again; San Diego, Oakland, St. Louis. I have 8 teams for the 8 divisions. I think they would have to re-align again (sorry Dallas, but you really don't belong in the East, and Miami shouldn't be with 3 teams in the far NE part of the country).
First off, the NFL currently has 32 teams. It is not a 30 team league. Second, Jerry Jones would NEVER allow Austin to get a franchise. That is Cowboys country, and I believe NFL owners can veto a city that encroaches on their territory. Austin is less than 3 hours from Dallas. Columbus would also not get a franchise. Cincy is 90 minutes to the South and Cleveland is 2 hours to the North. Pittsburgh is 3 hours to the East and Indy is 3 hours to the West. It is well known that Columbus supports both the Bengals and the Browns heavily, and of course, it is Buckeye Central. No way Columbus gets an NFL franchise. They probably don't want one. Other cities that should be considered-- Birmingham, Memphis and Orlando. Each could easily support an NFL team.
NFL charter establishes 'Territory' as 75 miles. Jerry Jones, an 80 year old man, would have 1 vote and would need 8 more to prevent Austin/San Antonio. He'd struggle to get to 3. Columbus could also get a team, but likely wouldn't because Ohio has questionable stadium track record and I doubt the NFL risks that with 3 teams.
Scotland England? Scotland is not a city in England, you probably mean Edinburgh in Scotland. Also adding 10 teams? There is already 32 teams so that would put it at 42.
Will let you know, there are issues with playing games in Croke Park is that it is a GAA stadium primarily. Like they wont let soccer or rugby national teams play there. Odds are it'd be the Aviva instead if a team is there.
i don't think Columbus and Austin will work mainly because they already have a huge college football teams in those cities (Ohio State and University of Texas). I think Portland, San Antonio and St. Louis are better choices
At a certain point, how many teams is too many? At some point you’re getting to the point where, all else being equal, your hometown team only has a ~2% chance of ever winning it all.
I agree that if the NFL wants a team in Europe, then they will need to have an entire division of 4 teams there. So that takes them up to 36 teams. To get to 40, then you'd add 4 more teams in the US. If I were to pick 4 new cities, then they'd be Austin, Salt Lake City, Toronto, and Vancouver. But there's also the 3 cities that recently lost teams to relocation that could also be in contention. There would need to be a realignment and new division, so there would be 10 divisions of 4 teams. As for scheduling, I would make the regular season 18 games. Each team plays the other three teams in their division twice, once at home and once on the road. Then they play each team once in 3 other divisions, half of which would be at home and half of which would be on the road. I would also have the European teams play all 6 of their road games in North America in a row. Additionally, any North American team that would be playing road games in Europe would play all of the teams 4 weeks in a row. This would minimize the number trips across the Atlantic and keep travel costs down. The playoffs would largely remain the same, but there would be 10 division winners and 4 wild cards rather than 8 division winners and 6 wild cards. They'd still be played at the stadium of the team with the better record, and the Super Bowl would still be played at a neutral site, and there would of course be the possibility of the European stadiums hosting it.
Honestly, there's not *really* a talent problem at any position. Or, at least, the situation is more complicated than that. Until you can say with certainty that a high end college team could beat the worst team in the league every year, I feel like you're probably fine on some fronts.
I think the league sucks at 32 teams, 40 would destroy it. The level of play is falling every year. The league is going toil itself. It will be a shame.
If it goes to 32, the markets are most likely portland, san antonio, san diego, and maybe a flyer on albuquerque. At 40 teams, we are running out of high population markets that don't already have a nfl team in close proximity. I don't think another texas team makes sense, or another tennesee team in memphis. I would go st. louis, salt lake city, oklahoma city and maybe a flyer on somewhere in alabama/mississippi. I tried to spread out the markets to help with realignment and reduce travel for especially seattle but other west coast teams as well.
What if the London team played the first half of its games at home and then went on the road for the second half of its games, or vice-versa? They could use some college stadium in the middle of the U.S. as their practice facility while on the road. Or they could split the season into quarters -- play 4 or 5 games at home and then go on the road for 4 or 5 games. Also, there is some talk reviving commercial Concorde flights by the end of this decade, which would cut the flight time to 3 1/2 hours.
Toronto is never getting NFL. And this viewpoint isn't cuz I hate TO. I think they should have had their CFL team fold years ago. They're a joke to the league. The CFL would do just fine without a team in the big smoke. they Prob could support a NFL team even tho NFL football isn't a way of life up here lie it is in the states. But the TO or Ontario Gov will NEVER finance a USD $2B stadium and I cant see some owner paying for it himself. That the stadium is mega issue number 1. Also the country would NEVER back a Toronto team. That shows you don't know Shat about Canada when you always say the whole country always backs Toronto's team as the countries team in MLB or NBA. Ppl in BC are hard core Seahawks fans. Ppl in Manitoba are Viking or Green Bay fans, They would NEVER cheer for a Toronto team.
Dude Salt Lake is a bigger market than you realize. Its the 29th largest tv market in the nation, 2.75 million CSA. The perception of it being not worthy is ridiculous. Bigger than Las Vegas, Austin, Cincinnati, Kansas City, Jacksonville, Buffalo markets to name a few.
In Europe, EU Colleges might like to participate with the CFB, leading to team drafts that can build on the Locals within a few years....USAFE league was huge in Germany when I was there in the '80s....
Sarasota which is my favorite Florida city it would have been very unlikely for NFL team given how Sarasota is too small of a city in addition the market size given the fact that Sarasota is extremely too close to Tampa. I would also say that both need new NFL teams since San Diego and Oakland lost their original teams (Raiders and Chargers) to Las Vegas and Los Angeles respectively
Expansion outside of North America won't happen. Do I think they could support a team? yes but its too far for teams to travel to. if expansion to 40 teams happens I would just add one team to each division 18 games and each team gets two bye weeks during the regular season. For the schedule use the 2002-2020 schedule formula.
Спорт
Several comments here:
1. NFL already has 32 teams.
2. I feel like the NFL would play at Tottenham Hotspur Stadium instead of Wembley if they ever expanded to London. As for Dublin, probably Aviva Stadium instead of Croke Park.
3. Scotland is not a city in England. Edinburgh is a city in Scotland, which is a country in the UK (basically a country within a country).
4. Oakland would never support another team of their own.
5. Columbus and Austin have very similar situations, in which their college football teams (Buckeyes and Longhorns respectively) are too big for the NFL to compete with. Give the NFL to San Antonio instead and just leave Ohio with Cleveland and Cincinnati.
Also, both Columbus and Austin have MLS teams. While their fanbases aren't monstrous they're still very loyal, specially Columbus Crew's ones.
Edit: If MLS allows the Bay area to have a second team Oakland has a tiny chance. However, the Roots (or whatever the group would be) must find new investors.
@@mattiasgarbi9470 BTW, Cincy's MLS team has rocketed to success with a fanbase.
@@ralphmtsu That fanbase also came from the team's previous incarnation from USL (the main minor league in the past), where the team was good for the series.
The team suffered the "promotion" to the MLS, they were dreadfully last in their conference for at least the first two seasons.
Now they're in a better place.
The same with Salt Lake City and Brigham Young University, so either a San Antonio or San Diego team would work. However, if there were any teams to place outside of the US, I would have to go with Toronto, with the caveat being that a future NFL team in Toronto, if they're playing against an AFC West or NFC West team, must play said games at the BC Palace in Vancouver (which is a domed facility and the home of the CFL's BC Lions).
@@rwboa22 The difference with that is that BYU is in Provo, which while is in the same media market and CSA as Salt Lake City, would probably not harm the NFL as much as UT would in Austin or Ohio State in Columbus, even though SLC already has the University of Utah there. Although I would also take the capacity of the stadiums into account. UT and Ohio State’s stadiums seat over 100,000, while the stadiums at U of U and BYU are in the 40-50,000 range.
_Scotland, England_
I don't know whether to cry or laugh!
That was def done on purpose lmao
No star free agent would sign with a team to play in Europe.
Those dang taxes
Fact plus owners would vote down on it. Traveling would be atrocious.
There are American basketball players who play in Europe right now. For pittance. Vaughn
Unless it in Sweden or Norway
Most players probably wouldn’t even afford to live in London. It’s much more expensive than any US city.
“Scotland, England” 😂
IKR? 😂
That would be a nightmare for travel.
Ginger needs to get out of his mom's basement more often and do some traveling himself for a change LOL
The NFL already has 32 teams 🤦. 10 more would be 42.
Then he calls Scotland, a city in England.
I think maybe 36 teams would be the absolute most that the league could expand to, but even that I don’t think would happen. This could go one of two ways, either a European division does get created between teams based in London, Dublin, Berlin/Munich/Frankfurt (one of those 3 German cities) and as the 4th team could be based in either Paris, Rome, or Madrid. However, I think the 4 new teams would stay in the United States. Those 4 cities I believe would be Portland, Austin, Salt Lake City, and San Diego.
I liked the idea but change one thing San Antonio instead of Austin
There’s already 32 teams so you only need 8 more teams
St. Louis and San Diego would like to have a NFL team again
What if the NFL added four CFL teams, and had CFL-regulation fields used for their home games? Of course, that would never happen, but I like the idea.
Kind of like the difference in baseball where National and American Leagues had different rules?
Toronto is a problem. The Canadian govt supports the CFL including at times financially. I believe the Canadian govt would block NFL expansion to Canada. Especially Toronto which has a CFL team. Yes, I think Austin would be great. However, Austin is close to Dallas and Houston. I believe Jerry Jones would try to block a team near his Cowboys. I also believe the reason that San Antonio is not in the NFL.
No way Canada would allow the NFL anywhere. St Louis, San Diego, Salt Lake City.
@@dandejoux2622True Canadian Government supports CFL and would outlaw NFL expansion but like the idea.
Scotland isnt in england scotland is a country itself realisticlly scotland has two cities that could host a nfl team edinbough and glasgow
Scotland is a country in the same manner every state in the US is a country. They aren't. It's a fluff, meaningless title. The country is the sovereign, and the sovereign is the United Kingdom.
The last time Scotland tried for independence the Brits sent the trouble makers to America and Australia from their prisons. Vaughn
@@apferrandoit’s still not in England. That’s like saying Pennsylvania, New York could get a team, because Pennsylvania has two good sized cities and they could both represent New York
@@Phlipper33 yeah, notice I said UK. The “Scotland, England” thing is inexcusable though seems to match the typical shit takes he has.
@@apferrandono scotland is a continent cou6
Ohio doesn't need a 3rd NFL team.
nfl will go wherever to make money
This probably my tenth episode with Mr. Ginger thus far, and I must say I love it! Great content my man keep it up!
You kept saying the NFL has 30 teams, it already has 32 teams.
Did you really just say Scotland, England?
This channels bread & butter is content relating to Stadiums (which was great) but it seems like the guy is running out of things to talk about within that. The political vids arent working, neither are the retro cell phone vids and you even milked the imploded sub tragedy like others did.
There are already 32 teams in the NFL, not 30.
If we stick to the states here’s my picks
Austin TX
Salt Lake City UT
Portland OR
Montgomery AL
Oakland CA
Omaha NE
Oklahoma City OK
Lexington KY
That's a real pipe dream fantasy expansion.
just so you know, Scotland is not in England. Both Scotland and England are part of the UK.
“Wimbly” stadium? Is that near Wembley Stadium in the Wembley section of London?
St. Louis? Portland?
The NFL in Europe has to implement a limit of foreign players, the FIFA rules. 40 of those players would have to be born in their country, and they would have to pay way more for practice squad salaries for players to go overseas, and 2 year guarantee contracts with more signing bonus money would probably work.
A player limit like that is a bad idea.
There is already 32 teams. You just made it 42!
Yeah, I was comparing leagues like the NFL have 32 teams.
For NFL fans unfamiliar with Texas; Austin is the little baby cousin of San Antonio. In a flexing contest; ain't no contest.
I’d say San Antonio over Austin because 1. San Antonio is bigger and 2. San Antonio has an NFL-sized stadium.
Forget Europe. It has to be San Diego, San Antonio, Orlando and Sacramento. Portland, OR is big enough, but I can't imagine them supporting a football team.
In my opinion adding two new divisions should be like this.
The NFC should get a European division with London (Monarchs), Munich (Boars), Manchester (Devils) and Frankfurt (Galaxy). and the AFC getting teams in St.Louis (River otters), San Diego (Dreadnoughts), San Jose (Silverbacks) and Austin (Wildcatters). With a new division realignment looking like this
AFC East: New England, Buffalo, New York, Baltimore
AFC North: Pittsburgh, Cleveland, Cincinnati, Indianapolis
AFC South: Jacksonville, Miami, St.Louis, Tennessee
AFC Central: Houston, Kansas City, Denver, Austin
AFC West: Las Vegas, San Diego, Los Angeles, San Jose.
Portland Jacks(Lumberjacks) instead of San Jose Silverbacks... Look at the map huge void there... And Salt Lake City instead of St. Louis to fill the void
Bro watching your channel grow is crazy lol I remember when you were at like 15-20k followers
It feels like he was at 15k followers yesterday
DG’s OGs
There are so many spelling mistakes in this video it's makes me wonder how much research you did. it's WEMBLEY stadium, not Wimbley. TORONTO is the correct spelling, not Tornoto. It's not Scotland, ENG. England is a separate country in the UK. It's Scotland, UK.
I don’t think Austin/UT will allow it to be there. San Antonio is a proven market.
I lived in Austin, it’s a baseball city. So, it’ll make sense to give them an MLB team and San Antonio a NFL team. But i also see an “Arlington” situation where you build an MLB and NFL stadium in San Marcos Texas and attract both cities.
San Marcos is already a college town itself. New Braunfels would probably be a better location if they want something right in the middle, although I'd prefer just renovating the Alamodome for NFL.
Austin Armadillos has a cool ring to it for an MLB team.
No way the NFL will expand outside the continental U.S. The traveling and scheduling would be a total nightmare.
ENGLAND IS NOT AN OFFICIAL COUNTRY. Murrayfield stadium is in Edinburgh Scotland btw
Actually, England is a county-- technically a Kingdom. It is one of the 4 countries that make up the United Kingdom-- England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland. The official name of the U.K. is the United Kingdom of England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland.
Montreal, Vancouver, Portland, St. Louis, and Orlando are crazy exclusions and Hartford would make some sense too
You're forgetting that columbus also has the crew of the mls besides the nhl's blue jackets
What about Jerry Jones and the Dallas Cowboys ? He will have a say because he thinks he’s everything.
Wait... The NFL has 32 teams so the league would need to add eight teams to make 40.
If the NFL were to do that... And Looking at the map. It would be cool if some of the divisions and conferences got realigned.
9ers
Raiders
Chargers
Rams
Cardinals
Are all right there and make up 5 teams. They all have history with each other.
Oregon could def use a team. So could Utah and Idaho. At that to Seattle and Denver that's the north west division.
That's 10 teams right there. Plus the other 25 so we would need another 5 teams. OKC is one. Alabama would be two. Texas could use a 3rd team since CA and Florida has 3 teams. We could always throw a team in St Louis as #4. And either Iowa or Nebraska as the 40th team. 😊
so portland, salt lake city, san antonio, OKC, birmingham, STL, omaha, and des moines?
Oakland gets a team back but not San Diego? Snapdragon stadium was built with the ability to add seating if the NFL came back. A new team with a new owner would be welcomed with open arms.
All of these are bad choices with the exception of Austin. But I would give them baseball instead and give San Antonio football. The league is not expanding overseas SLC is too small and there is no way there will be 3 NFL teams in Ohio.
@@dvferyance I would say SA for baseball and football
3.3 million people in San Diego County, a fervent NFL fan base (only dislike is Dean Spanos), and a tourism destination for a Super Bowl.
@@jamesreillytrains Southern California has enough sports teams already.
@@dvferyance : The Baltimore Ravens and Washington Commanders are separated by less than 40 miles and have no problems with their markets. The Chargers had a religious fan base throughout San Diego County’s 3.3 million people that actively supported the team for decades until Dean Spanos moved the team because of greed. The Chargers fans did not follow the team to Los Angeles… That may only be 120 miles to some, but they are completely different markets.
Not a fan of any NFL expansion but if we are playing the expansion game for fun, my choices would be Oakland, San Diego, San Antonio or Austin, St Louis, another team in Chicago, Toronto, Orlando, and Montreal or Hartford.
Hartford won’t. Chicago won’t cuz everyone’s leaving it & no second team is needed. I’d switch that with Nobody homestly
@@worldsgreatestdude1784 it’s an opinion and I’m not the only one who has suggested Chicago getting a second team.
the college games in Dublin are in Aviva Stadium
Did you just say Scotland is in England? That's insane, it's like saying France is in Spain, they're two different countries.
NFL already has 32 teams.. adding 10 would make the total 42. How could you not know this???
Did you make this whole video not aware that there’s 32 teams in the NFL right now?
Sorry mate, but it's Croke Park not Choke Park.
Texas Longhorns sports replace what would be a lot of the pro market in Austin.
Same with the Buckeyes for Columbus
There’s already two teams in Ohio there’s not gonna be a team in Columbus
Does the UK want American football though?
San Diego, Oakland, St. Louis, and San Antonio.
I think San Antonio makes more sense than Austin. Austin has Tx Longhorns football and San Antonio is further away from Dallas’ market.
Before I expand to 40 I would move two teams.
Chargers back to San Diego.
Raiders back to Oakland.
The 8 teams I would add...
Austin Renegades to the AFC South with a black and red scheme and a cowboy hat logo.
Portland Pouncers to the AFC West with a black and tan scheme and a cheetah logo
Memphis Monarchs to the AFC East with a purple and gold scheme and a crown logo.
Salt Lake City Racers to the NFC West with a black and white checker scheme.
Las Vegas Rollers to the AFC North with a red yellow and black scheme with a flaming snake eyes dice logo with skulls in the one pip.
St Louis Warriors to the NFC South with a silver and red scheme and a tomahawk logo.
Des Moines Thrashers to the NFC North with a silver and red scheme and a screaming logo.
Brimingham Brigands to the NFC East with a blue and black scheme and a menacing pirate grin logo with red eyes.
1:31 that would be impossible because not even soccer teams are allowed to have play their home games at wembley and spurs stadium already has a team and they wouldn’t let any other teams espacially from a different sports play there.
Your take on Monterrey is outstanding! Monterrey gets overlooked all the time and it's an outstanding city with a ton of wealth.
Now for Austin you are right about everything but being that I'm from San Antonio my dream and everyone in the 7th largest city in the US are starving for NFL. I hope we don't get overlooked again for Austin.
Ever think there is a reason oakland has lost 3 major teams?
Years ago, at the height of Nebraska college football's dominance, I heard someone speculate that they could get an NFL franchise and one idea would be to build a stadium somewhere between Omaha and Lincoln, that way they could maximize the fan numbers (the cities are only about an hour away from each other).
Problem with some new teams added would be that you would be having some in close range to some others. My suggestions would be:New locales; San Antonio (they already have the stadium ready to go), Orlando (same), Nebraska (see above), Austin, Memphis. Cities that have had teams that could host again; San Diego, Oakland, St. Louis.
I have 8 teams for the 8 divisions. I think they would have to re-align again (sorry Dallas, but you really don't belong in the East, and Miami shouldn't be with 3 teams in the far NE part of the country).
As a Nebraska fan I love the idea, but I’m scared it may be too close to KC to draw much fan support until the Chiefs stop winning
San Diego needs a team again and a new stadium
*Wembley *Toronto *32 Teams *The University of Utah
why not North Dakota, South Dakota, Montana, Maine, Kansas , Idaho?
Finally if NFL wants to go to south of the border , Mexico City is just a no , Monterey on the other hand is indeed a legitimate option .
Dude, Scotland is not in England. Don't say that to a real scot unless you want a broken nose. It's in the UK.
Are you gonna do one for the nba and nhl
Feel like San Antonio should get a team. 7th largest city in the US.
First off, the NFL currently has 32 teams. It is not a 30 team league. Second, Jerry Jones would NEVER allow Austin to get a franchise. That is Cowboys country, and I believe NFL owners can veto a city that encroaches on their territory. Austin is less than 3 hours from Dallas. Columbus would also not get a franchise. Cincy is 90 minutes to the South and Cleveland is 2 hours to the North. Pittsburgh is 3 hours to the East and Indy is 3 hours to the West. It is well known that Columbus supports both the Bengals and the Browns heavily, and of course, it is Buckeye Central. No way Columbus gets an NFL franchise. They probably don't want one. Other cities that should be considered-- Birmingham, Memphis and Orlando. Each could easily support an NFL team.
NFL charter establishes 'Territory' as 75 miles.
Jerry Jones, an 80 year old man, would have 1 vote and would need 8 more to prevent Austin/San Antonio. He'd struggle to get to 3.
Columbus could also get a team, but likely wouldn't because Ohio has questionable stadium track record and I doubt the NFL risks that with 3 teams.
Scotland England? Scotland is not a city in England, you probably mean Edinburgh in Scotland. Also adding 10 teams? There is already 32 teams so that would put it at 42.
Wembley, not Wimbley :)
but every division has at least 4 teams how do you think that would look
Dude, learn to spell Wembley and Toronto correctly
Will let you know, there are issues with playing games in Croke Park is that it is a GAA stadium primarily. Like they wont let soccer or rugby national teams play there. Odds are it'd be the Aviva instead if a team is there.
we already have 32 teams
i don't think Columbus and Austin will work mainly because they already have a huge college football teams in those cities (Ohio State and University of Texas). I think Portland, San Antonio and St. Louis are better choices
At a certain point, how many teams is too many? At some point you’re getting to the point where, all else being equal, your hometown team only has a ~2% chance of ever winning it all.
I agree that if the NFL wants a team in Europe, then they will need to have an entire division of 4 teams there. So that takes them up to 36 teams. To get to 40, then you'd add 4 more teams in the US. If I were to pick 4 new cities, then they'd be Austin, Salt Lake City, Toronto, and Vancouver. But there's also the 3 cities that recently lost teams to relocation that could also be in contention. There would need to be a realignment and new division, so there would be 10 divisions of 4 teams. As for scheduling, I would make the regular season 18 games. Each team plays the other three teams in their division twice, once at home and once on the road. Then they play each team once in 3 other divisions, half of which would be at home and half of which would be on the road. I would also have the European teams play all 6 of their road games in North America in a row. Additionally, any North American team that would be playing road games in Europe would play all of the teams 4 weeks in a row. This would minimize the number trips across the Atlantic and keep travel costs down. The playoffs would largely remain the same, but there would be 10 division winners and 4 wild cards rather than 8 division winners and 6 wild cards. They'd still be played at the stadium of the team with the better record, and the Super Bowl would still be played at a neutral site, and there would of course be the possibility of the European stadiums hosting it.
We don't have a starting QB problem we have a hoarding problem. There's teams over the last few years that have had 2-3 starting caliber QBs
We have an offensive line problem. Not enough quality OL to field the current 32 teams.
Honestly, there's not *really* a talent problem at any position. Or, at least, the situation is more complicated than that. Until you can say with certainty that a high end college team could beat the worst team in the league every year, I feel like you're probably fine on some fronts.
I think the league sucks at 32 teams, 40 would destroy it. The level of play is falling every year. The league is going toil itself. It will be a shame.
NFL has 32 already
#1: Omaha, Nebraska
There is no way, that three NFL teams be in Ohio or Texas.
The cowboys owner wouldn’t let it happen
Sacramento would be a great place to
Did you say Scotland england😂😂😂😂😂
Jerry Jones would never let a team squat in Austin. No way
LOL Tornoto, Canada?!?!?! you might want to edit your video hahaha
If it goes to 32, the markets are most likely portland, san antonio, san diego, and maybe a flyer on albuquerque. At 40 teams, we are running out of high population markets that don't already have a nfl team in close proximity. I don't think another texas team makes sense, or another tennesee team in memphis. I would go st. louis, salt lake city, oklahoma city and maybe a flyer on somewhere in alabama/mississippi. I tried to spread out the markets to help with realignment and reduce travel for especially seattle but other west coast teams as well.
What if the London team played the first half of its games at home and then went on the road for the second half of its games, or vice-versa? They could use some college stadium in the middle of the U.S. as their practice facility while on the road. Or they could split the season into quarters -- play 4 or 5 games at home and then go on the road for 4 or 5 games. Also, there is some talk reviving commercial Concorde flights by the end of this decade, which would cut the flight time to 3 1/2 hours.
logistics nighmare for NFL teams. Europe would have whole division on its own seperate from the NFL
Good video. GO PACK GO
Scotland is not in England, is in united kingdom.
After listening to your titan updates for the last week it’s strange hearing you talk about anything else.
Toronto is never getting NFL. And this viewpoint isn't cuz I hate TO. I think they should have had their CFL team fold years ago. They're a joke to the league. The CFL would do just fine without a team in the big smoke. they Prob could support a NFL team even tho NFL football isn't a way of life up here lie it is in the states. But the TO or Ontario Gov will NEVER finance a USD $2B stadium and I cant see some owner paying for it himself. That the stadium is mega issue number 1. Also the country would NEVER back a Toronto team. That shows you don't know Shat about Canada when you always say the whole country always backs Toronto's team as the countries team in MLB or NBA. Ppl in BC are hard core Seahawks fans. Ppl in Manitoba are Viking or Green Bay fans, They would NEVER cheer for a Toronto team.
San Antonio, St. Louis, Oklahoma City, Toronto, Portland, Birmingham, Salt Lake City, Sacramento.
I think 34 teams will be plenty. My vote would be for San Antonio and St Louis. London should not even be considered.
I don't know if I'd like a team playing in Choke Park.
You’re telling me that there would be a team in Oakland before a new team in St. Louis?
Saint Louis (Missouri) Archers, Portland (Oregon) Breakers, Louisville (Kentucky) Colonels, San Antonio (Texas) Outlaws? Bring them!
Dude Salt Lake is a bigger market than you realize. Its the 29th largest tv market in the nation, 2.75 million CSA. The perception of it being not worthy is ridiculous. Bigger than Las Vegas, Austin, Cincinnati, Kansas City, Jacksonville, Buffalo markets to name a few.
This guy is in fuego. How many te tomaste huevetz.
As an Ohioan, I'll come out and say, Ohio doesn't need 3 teams...
No.6 Tornoto, Canada. What city is that. I know Toronto, Canada. But Tornoto is new for me.
3:02 Scotland, United Kingdom or Edinburgh, Scotland. Definitely not Scotland, England
I would like to see Gollum come to life from the beginning up until the hobbit
In Europe, EU Colleges might like to participate with the CFB, leading to team drafts that can build on the Locals within a few years....USAFE league was huge in Germany when I was there in the '80s....
No teams outside America/Canada
Sarasota which is my favorite Florida city it would have been very unlikely for NFL team given how Sarasota is too small of a city in addition the market size given the fact that Sarasota is extremely too close to Tampa. I would also say that both need new NFL teams since San Diego and Oakland lost their original teams (Raiders and Chargers) to Las Vegas and Los Angeles respectively
Expansion outside of North America won't happen. Do I think they could support a team? yes but its too far for teams to travel to.
if expansion to 40 teams happens I would just add one team to each division 18 games and each team gets two bye weeks during the regular season. For the schedule use the 2002-2020 schedule formula.