No Western Teams?

[OneBetter]

From what the AAFL has released in terms of prospective cities, it appears that they plan on completely neglecting the western U.S. I think that is a horrible mistake. For one, the second biggest market in the country (LA) is without an NFL team. College football is HUGE in LA!!! There are always 90,000+ at the Colliseum for USC games as well as huge crowds at the Rose Bowl for UCLA games. Why neglect this market when there is no NFL competition?

I'm telling you, if you associate a team with USC, you are going to make a killing! USC is a cult phenonmenon. Their star players are like rock stars. How could you pass up that opportunity?

Also, I think Phoenix, AZ would be a great market (5th largest US metropolitan area) with ASU sports. I'm sure if it is done well and tie in the UofA and Northern Arizona, you'll get people driving to the games from Tucson and Flagstaff.

I WAS very excited about this league until I saw the complete lack of respect for the western U.S.

Wake up, AAFL. If you don't put at least 1-2 teams out West for the inagural season, you are going disenfranchise an entire potential fan base out here. Trying to come in later with a team will not be easily accepted or responded to well.

[Pounder]

They're hardly selling franchises in the east, frankly.

LA Coliseum will make more money hosting Mexican soccer friendlies.

Seattle, Bay Area, the fact that LA might be following the Chargers, and Matt Leinart's Arizona Cardinals in the new funky stadium mean there really IS competition for those dollars that you're not counting on. Even Bill Walton once observed that Pac-10 schools generally fight the issue of being in major markets with substantial competition.

Ask Provo. Outside of that, I don't think anyone out west thinks its a good venture. Given that there's 3 actual commitments, I doubt the rest of the country, too.

[AAFLfan]

well for one i think the cities they picked are great 2. texas is in the west and 3. me and my friends cant wait for the season to start

HERES a youtube clip http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vZCK96TLuOU

[Shootmaster_44]

I think if they want to look West, go for smaller centres. Perhaps the AAFL should look at playing on the Smurf Turf in Boise or in Pullham, Washington where Washington State is.

Its all nice and well to go into LA, but as various lacrosse and arena football teams (as well as the NFL) found out, LA sports fan are fickle. I somehow doubt the AAFL would fly as well there as it would in other cities. If they have designs on California, they should maybe look at Hornet Stadium in Sacramento. Seems to me non-NFL pro football did well there (the WLAF and CFL drew 25,000-30,000) and Hornet Stadium is on Sacramento State (or is it Cal State-Sacramento?)'s campus. The only drawback to this is I'm not sure the Hornets play in Division 1 Bowl Subdivision, which seems to be one of the driving points to the AAFL.

[Pounder]

The AAFL is trying to capitalize on college FAN bases.

You know, they'd do a lot better in Missoula, Montana than in Sacramento (BTW, both schools, same Big Sky Conference, and yes, it's Playoff Subdivision). Montana actually has a fan base. Sacramento is a commuter school with hardly any.

Boise... maybe, but I think they're targeting the big stadia. That means Montana is just as out as Boise. Pullman would also be out. Since Seattle already has the Seahawks, Eugene might be the place... but I don't see that working there, either.

[Shootmaster_44]

The AAFL is trying to capitalize on college FAN bases.

You know, they'd do a lot better in Missoula, Montana than in Sacramento (BTW, both schools, same Big Sky Conference, and yes, it's Playoff Subdivision). Montana actually has a fan base. Sacramento is a commuter school with hardly any.

Boise... maybe, but I think they're targeting the big stadia. That means Montana is just as out as Boise. Pullman would also be out. Since Seattle already has the Seahawks, Eugene might be the place... but I don't see that working there, either.

I totally understand that concept. However, in Sacramento's case why not go where there's a track record for non-NFL football? I think 25-30,000 is going to be the best this league will do attendance wise. I understand the concept behind trying to tap into the college fan base and it may work. But I have this feeling that of those 110,000 that attend Michigan games or the 90,000 that attends USC games etc., maybe 25-30,000 tops are football fans, another 25-30,000 are fans of the school and the rest are simply there because they are students at the school and figure its a good reason to get drunk.

From a business perspective, it would make sense to go into markets with a proven track record for non-NFL football. Unfortunately, in the US the only two markets that did exceptionally well were Sacramento and Baltimore. Baltimore is out since the CFLers/CFL Colts were only popular due to the lack of NFL in the city (plus I'm not sure there's a viable stadium nor any college to even "affiliate" with in the city of Baltimore).

I would think that for this league to fly, they may want to look outside of the BCS schools and into the former I-AA and even Division II schools. I think pro football would be very popular in places like Missoula, Montana and Grand Forks, North Dakota. This league should resemble the Arena League in its earlier days, a mix of big cities such as Detroit and smaller cities like Des Moines, Iowa. It could be like the CFL where teams like the Saskatchewan Roughriders draw from more than simply the city they play in. I think a professional team in North Dakota, Montana etc. would draw from the entire state and have a good sized attendance.

[firewolff]

My guess is if the AAFL does well in the South, they will expand rapidly and PAC-10 land will get our shot. If a team is placed in Oregon, I think it should be located in Portland where there is a large Oregon, Oregon State, and Washington grad population. Not to mention those of us who went to smaller schools (let's hear for those Western Oregon University Wolves!).