View Full Version : Poll: Who Gets An Ufl Franchise?
10-10-2007, 11:05 AM
Ok, the list of potential cities is out:
LOS ANGELES -- Los Angeles was among 12 cities announced Wednesday as possible sites for teams in the United Football League, a professional football league scheduled to begin play in August.
The other cities under consideration are Austin, Texas; Birmingham, Ala.; Columbus, Ohio; Las Vegas; Louisville, Ky.; Memphis, Tenn.; Oklahoma City; Orlando; Raleigh, N.C. Sacramento and San Antonio. Eight cities will receive teams, a league official said.
Who get's in? Who get's left out? The plan is apparently 8 teams in 2008, and 12 in 2009
Since I am limited to ten choices on the poll, I did not include Los Angeles (which will likely be in if the UFL wants TV revenue) and Raleigh, NC (limited stadium options)
I also believe New York will receive a team in 2008, meaning seven teams will likely be in for next year. My guess:|
EXPANSION FOR 2009 - Louisville (East), London (East), Mexico City (West), Austin (West)
10-11-2007, 10:04 AM
I think that you are spot on for the East. I would place Sacramento in place of Oklahoma City just because it is closer to LA and Las Vegas.
In 2009, I hope they look at Portland and replace my long gone Breakers.
Minor League Man
10-11-2007, 10:40 AM
All the minor football leagues, from the USFL to the CFL-USA to the XFL have had teams in these markets:
No reason to think they won't be in the UFL.
10-13-2007, 07:44 PM
New York won't have a team. The UFL's "motto" is playing in non-NFL markets, and I don't see them going away from that. That being said, I don't think the league would be considered if the NFL was in L.A. Having Los Angeles available makes the league viable for at least some level of national TV coverage.
Unfortunately for the league, every broadcast network either shows NFL football (CBS, FOX, NBC) or has a sister station that shows NFL games (ABC->ESPN, CW->CBS, MyNetworkTV->FOX). Obviously, ESPN won't show games either. So, that leaves two options from what I can see... Turner (TNT or TBS) or Versus. Versus is owned by Comcast, which would love nothing more than to pull the NFL a notch or two, but, the UFL would be better served for availibility by being on TNT or TBS.
Anyway, my thoughts on the markets:
Will have teams:
Los Angeles - LA being available is 75% of why the league is starting to begin with.
Las Vegas - Cuban's team will be here.
Likely to have teams:
Sacramento - 2nd largest market the league is considering
Orlando - Another fairly large market, popular "B-level" league (USFL, WLAF, XFL)
San Antonio - Fared well with the Saints, also popular in the past (USFL, WLAF, CFL)
Oklahoma City - Showed they wanted a pro level league with the Hornets
Unlikely to have a team:
Columbus - They already have Ohio State, which might as well be an NFL team there as far as popularity
Louisville - Although there football level isn't like an Ohio State, I think it's still high enough to make a UFL team unlikely to work.
That leaves 2 spots and 4 cities on the "bubble":
Birmingham & Memphis - Another two popular B-level league
Austin - Is Texas football too much to war with there?
Raliegh - As was said, hard
I think the cities with popular college football (Columbus, Austin, Louisville) are almost as foolish to go into as the NFL markets.
A few markets not being considered that have the size to have a team:
Virginia Beach, VA
10-13-2007, 09:33 PM
Id look for something similar to the original WLAF....without NY, but with LA.
The Peak Towers Condo (http://pattayaluxurycondos.com)
10-16-2007, 10:08 PM
The commish said he expects Orlando to have a team, in an article in the Orlando Sentinel
11-06-2007, 03:49 AM
I don't see Raleigh having a stadium problem at all. Raleigh metro (The Triangle) has three possible stadiums within 15 miles of each other.
Keenan Stadium- UNC football - upgrading to 75,000 in Capacity
Carter finley Stadium N.C State - 65,000 in Capacity
Wallace Wade Stadium - Duke - 33,000 in Capcity
The commish has already visited wallace wade stadium. It would be perfect since the UFL is eying stadiums between 25-30,000.
In his article Nation Hahn has also implied that Raleigh is right behind LA and Vegas in ticket sales.
11-06-2007, 09:27 AM
Are any of them allowed to serve beer?
I wouldn't be surprised if Carter-Finley is (it's off campus IIRC). I doubt Wallace Wade is, even if it is the perfect size.
Every stadium in which you're merely "a" tenant is a problem.
11-06-2007, 12:14 PM
There is interest in bringing the UFL to Miami and the Orange Bowl. The UM has moved to Dolphin Stadium which means the building is available or they will tear it down.,
11-06-2007, 01:52 PM
What about these possibilities...?
--Toronto, ON (with the possibility of the Bills playing there, whether part- or full-time)
--Salt Lake City, UT (UFL on Fri., Utah/BYU Sat., NFL Sun.)
--El Paso, TX (maybe?)
--Albuquerque, NM (there were rumors of the Saints possibly headed there, though not seriously considered)
--Omaha, NE (UFL on Fri., Huskers on Sat., NFL Sun.)
11-06-2007, 04:07 PM
OK, list of considerations...
Miami- NOPE. The Florida Marlins targeted the Orange Bowl site once The U announced it was moving. The Marlins going here allows for funds dedicated to the Orange Bowl site to be used for their proposed stadium. I'm quite sure the Orange Bowl is coming down.
Toronto- NOPE. The stadium you'd want, BMO Field (supposed to be Canada's soccer stadium) is already in the sights of the Argonauts. Non-starter... and probably a bad bet, too. Toronto thinks it's a major American city, and while they pine for NFL, they won't see this as superior to the CFL.
Richmond- Hmmm... U of Richmond Stadium could be a little small for the UFL, but maybe not. That's a thought.
(BTW- shame on you. Don't "merge" cities 100 miles apart. Bad idea.)
Norfolk- Questionable. I'm not sure they even have anything near a suitable facility. There's the 6,000-seat Virginia Beach Soccerplex, which looks like it has room for expansion, but you're not going to get VB to fund an expansion.
Charleston- Very questionable. They can't have any more of a facility than the Hampton Roads. Their soccer facility doesn't look like it has room to expand, and their team actually exists. Not sure if either of the Charleston colleges have a stadium.
Salt Lake City- What's that about NFL? Real Salt Lake is getting out of "the U's" Rice-Eccles Stadium, and I doubt UFL would get the rent discount they got. The new RSL stadium (when finished about August) will probably be a little small for Mr. Cuban's needs. MAYBE the market will take to it
Hartford- To me, Rentschler would be great. Better than New York City options, IMO.
Rochester- I think Frank DuRoss is in enough of a hole that he might consider allowing a team into PaeTec Park... but it only seats 13,000. If UFL wants something bigger, I doubt Rochester is involved. Since I think DuRoss burned bridges with the city, and since PaeTec isn't in the best of neighborhoods, I wouldn't hold anyone's breath here. Oh, BTW- it's a Buffalo Bills market, not a football market.
El Paso- The Sun Bowl is too large, theoretically. The other options are too small. The trick here, as bad as UTEP's football reputation has been over a few dozen years, the Miners draw relatively quite well. It is therefore just a matter of whether that's Miner support or football support. It's a very Hispanic market, mind you, but it still might work.
Albuquerque- UNM might let a pro team into University Stadium, and might even work with the league on beer. Not quite on campus, therefore possible IMO. That could work.
Omaha- Facility? I highly doubt it, inclusive of the baseball stadium that's oversized for AAA but great for the College World Series. Doubt this one works. I think they're in College Football World anyway.
vBulletin® v3.8.6, Copyright ©2000-2013, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.