[RedinTexas]

Originally Posted by kccrow

There isn't much left out there.

You have Columbus, OH but already two teams in Ohio plus Indy and Pittsburgh in close proximity.
You have San Antonio or Austin, TX but already two teams in Texas
You have Orlando, FL but already two teams in Florida
Anything CA is basically worthless unless you locate back to San Diego

That leaves, basically, Portland, OR which would be similar to KC at least in terms of metro area size and city size of Atlanta and Las Vegas. It also has a notable amount of Chargers fans for whatever reason. But you have the earthquake factor for building a stadium. It makes the most sense overall and you're really only competing for Seattle fans.

or

Omaha, NE as the next biggest venture but the metro area included makes it actually smaller than Salt Lake City.

Some other cities like Louisville and St. Louis would be or are tough because of the proximity to other major franchises and established fandom... Chicago, Indy, Minnesota, or KC, especially. Same reason Milwaukee isn't really an option, everyone is a Green Bay or Chicago fan and you're not going to sway enough from 100 years of history. Similarly, OKC, but you're trying to pull fans from Dallas or KC.


It's a tough gig to move the team, honestly.

1. Move back to San Diego where they belong.
2. Move to Portland.
3. Move to Omaha or Salt Lake City.

I don't see too many other very realistic options.

I'm not debating about where or where not the NFL should locate a team, I'm just pointing out that comparing any locality to Green Bay isn't a great argument due to the nature of that particular franchise. The population there is around 100,000. The only reason there is a franchise there at all is the fact that it was located there in the very very early days of the NFL. The fact that the franchise hasn't been moved to a larger city is mostly due to the fact that the franchise is owned by the city of Green Bay. Those two situations make the Packers a clear outlier.