Sports What Ifs.

[Colonel Zoidberg]

So LA wouldn't get the Lakers name, and Minnesota could have a Basketball team AND an NFL team in purple & yellow? Hmm.. all they'd need then is for the Twins to join suit & you'd have another Pittsburgh.... another city with a unified sports colour-scheme.

I’m having trouble picturing the Twins in purple and gold, though the North Stars could have worked assuming some asshole doesn’t move them to Dallas and they get an expansion team instead of fucking Miami or Anaheim.

That or the Lakers could stay in Minnesota (somehow) and adopt a nice hunter green a la the modern Minnesota Wild. A bold red and hunter green would work for everyone, even the Vikings and definitely the Twins.

 

[Colonel Zoidberg]

Also one missed opportunity or maybe not - what if Dan Marino never tears his Achilles in ‘93?

 

[Nivek]

Also one missed opportunity or maybe not - what if Dan Marino never tears his Achilles in ‘93?

we already discussed that back like 30 pages ago..or was in the nfl thread? https://www.alternatehistory.com/forum/threads/sports-what-ifs.49926/page-85#post-14591722 good memories.

I can see a ring that year and Don Shula staying or retiring as a champ

 

[Colonel Zoidberg]

we already discussed that back like 30 pages ago..or was in the nfl thread? https://www.alternatehistory.com/forum/threads/sports-what-ifs.49926/page-85#post-14591722 good memories.

I can see a ring that year and Don Shula staying or retiring as a champ

That was a while ago and my memory is such at this point that I barely remember my own name some mornings. I also think the Dolphins get to the Super Bowl (they would have been 11-5 at least and beat the Raiders, they would have gotten the better of the Bills, and they could always count on beating the Chiefs) but beating the Cowboys is probably 50-50.

 

[AltSptHst]

Saints got their name because the franchise was awarded on All Saints Day, and Archbishop Hannan signed off on the name not being offensive to Catholics. Raiders would have worked just fine in NOLA (Jean Lafitte).

Raiders would have been fine, but there may have been a decent chance that they changed the team name to Saints, anyway (they were going to do that with the Texans if they moved there).

 

[Colonel Zoidberg]

What if, instead of letting franchises fold if there was no buyer, the NFL decided to take a Packers-style approach and sell the team in shares to the fans? The most recent team would be the Dallas Texans, who were replaced by the Baltimore Colts. Could other teams be saved? Maybe some smaller cities save their teams?

 

[packmanwiscy]

What if, instead of letting franchises fold if there was no buyer, the NFL decided to take a Packers-style approach and sell the team in shares to the fans? The most recent team would be the Dallas Texans, who were replaced by the Baltimore Colts. Could other teams be saved? Maybe some smaller cities save their teams?

The Packers ownership model developed from a pretty unique circumstance. Green Bay joined what would now be called the NFL in 1921, and formed an immediate rivalry with the Bears (then called the Staleys). Despite being new, the Packers were among the best teams in the league and held a pretty high prestige, previously being the far and away best team in the state of the Wisconsin, and were competitive with the class of the NFL like the Akron Pros and the Staleys.

The Packers had an open secret. In fact, most of the teams in the NFL had an open secret. College players posing as pro players was a serious issue to the NFL at the time, and most teams skirted these rules liberally. Curly Lambeau himself only started the team because he wanted to play football while being kept home from the Notre Dame team for tonsillitis. The college game was still more popular than the pro league, and the league wanted as hard as they could to differentiate themselves from college football. But since oftentimes the players on college teams were fitter and thus more talented, unfairly playing college players was a serious offense.

The Bears and Packers got into a bidding war over a player joining the league. Chicago owner George Halas absolutely didn't want the Packers to get him, so after negotiations fell flat he played a trump card. He went to Commish Joseph Carr and gave evidence that the Packers were using college players. While the Bears were doing the same thing (as were most teams, I don't want to sound like a bitter Packers fan here), Halas kept a tight ship and nobody had any hard evidence, and without a rebuttal Carr was forced to expel the Packers from the league. The Bears then signed the player the teams were bidding on, and the Packers had to pay to rejoin the league.

Now, Halas didn't do anything to oppose the Packers from joining the league. In fact, he really liked having the Packers as a serious rival, it drew up interest for his team as well. But nobody from the Packers organization had the money necessary to pay the fee to rejoining the league AND keep the team sustainable, and Halas wasn't necesarily in the business to just giving money to the Packers to stay afloat. The Packers were able to cover the cost of applying back to the NFL, and were unanimously accepted, but the process severly tapped the team of funds. The next season, Curly Lambeau and a couple businessmen (known as The Hungry Five) came to the conclusion that instead of having a singular owner, it would be better financially if they sold stock in the team and members of the community sustained the team. The first sale of stock in 1923 allowed the team to be on firm financial footing until the Great Depression, and by then the institutions were in place to run more stock drives (one in 1935 and another in 1950), and enough people were interested in buying stock to keep the team alive.

What I'm trying to get at is that the reasons the Packers turned to shared ownership wasn't because the team was failing. Almost every other team that has folded was due to the league being too big for it's time and very few interest by locals to keep the team afloat. Even if they turned to shares, people wouldn't buy in enough numbers to save the team. The reason the Packers were able to turn to selling shares was because they had to pay ANOTHER added cost compared to the rest of the league at the time, and fans were able to produce enough money to cover and the team was able to survive the Great Depression that killed every other small teams (note, the second stock drive in 1935 was also caused by external issues, a fan was injured at City Stadium and won a lawsuit which almost bankrupted the team. Again, the team sold stock and the fans provided enough money to cover the cost). None of the financial troubles were due to lack of interest from the fans, the team was hugely popular in a way that the folded teams weren't. And of the teams that survived, their owners were rich enough to sustain their teams. I don't think there's another way for a Packers-style ownership to come about, it took a special circumstance for it to come about that would be extremely hard to replicate in another place.

 

[Spens1]

Not sure if anyone brought this up but what if Wimbledon fc, instead of moving to Milton Keynes, moves to Dublin like rumoured.

 

[Colonel Zoidberg]

**snip**

There’s likely no way a team gets that kind of ownership the same way, sure. And the fact that the Packers managed to stay afloat like this and no one else did indicates that the Packers were, and are, a special team. My point was this - a lot of teams in other countries have a very different ownership model, one that allows players or fans to own part of the team.

I also don’t see most of the teams from the 1920s who didn’t survive doing so anyway; that’s life. But if even one more team adopted a similar ownership structure - or some other unique structure - and managed to stay afloat, maybe there would be a precedent for doing so and other teams would consider it (still as something of an oddity but more present than one team in 123 in the four major pro sports.)

The team I had in mind that would work both for history’s sake and for practicality was the Canton Bulldogs. The fact that they would be a natural rival for the Steelers and Browns adds some intrigue, and the historical value of Canton, Ohio is unique as well. Plus it could work - Canton itself has a lower population than Green Bay but the metro area has four times as many. Not sure what would make the Bulldogs more stable, but in theory, this one works as well as the Packers - a number of possible nearby rivals, a lot of history, and nearby industry for support.

The biggest question is - what if “sell it to the fans and/or players” becomes a viable and widely used option for saving struggling teams?

 

[AltSptHst]

Also one missed opportunity or maybe not - what if Dan Marino never tears his Achilles in ‘93?

With Marino, they don't go worse than 3-2 down the stretch (I think they beat the Giants, Steelers, and Pats, at least), giving them a 12-4 record. Buffalo would have won the division due to a better division record (I still think they beat Miami in December in Miami because they had their number down there). They would have ended up as the 4-seed, with the Bills, Oilers, and Chiefs as the top three seeds.

The Fins would have hosted the 5-seed Raiders, while 6-seed Denver would have went to KC. I see both home teams winning, sending Miami to Buffalo and KC to Houston. After that, though, I don't see much difference. I think the Bills beat Miami and KC to go to the SB, where they get drubbed by Dallas.

 

[Colonel Zoidberg]

With Marino, they don't go worse than 3-2 down the stretch (I think they beat the Giants, Steelers, and Pats, at least), giving them a 12-4 record. Buffalo would have won the division due to a better division record (I still think they beat Miami in December in Miami because they had their number down there). They would have ended up as the 4-seed, with the Bills, Oilers, and Chiefs as the top three seeds.

The Fins would have hosted the 5-seed Raiders, while 6-seed Denver would have went to KC. I see both home teams winning, sending Miami to Buffalo and KC to Houston. After that, though, I don't see much difference. I think the Bills beat Miami and KC to go to the SB, where they get drubbed by Dallas.

The Bills and Dolphins split that year with Miami coming out on top in Buffalo - so anything is possible but Buffalo would be favored to win a close one.

Here’s one possibility, though - if he doesn’t get hurt in ‘93, he doesn’t retire and comes back for 2000. That season had potential to be magical. Let’s say Marino plays - there were two close games he could have won, so if he gets them there, they get the Ravens in the divisional round. Iiiiiiiiif they pull the upset, everyone else is beatable the rest of the way, Marino retires on top, and the Class of ‘83 is somewhat more redeemed.

 

[packmanwiscy]

There’s likely no way a team gets that kind of ownership the same way, sure. And the fact that the Packers managed to stay afloat like this and no one else did indicates that the Packers were, and are, a special team. My point was this - a lot of teams in other countries have a very different ownership model, one that allows players or fans to own part of the team.

I also don’t see most of the teams from the 1920s who didn’t survive doing so anyway; that’s life. But if even one more team adopted a similar ownership structure - or some other unique structure - and managed to stay afloat, maybe there would be a precedent for doing so and other teams would consider it (still as something of an oddity but more present than one team in 123 in the four major pro sports.)

The team I had in mind that would work both for history’s sake and for practicality was the Canton Bulldogs. The fact that they would be a natural rival for the Steelers and Browns adds some intrigue, and the historical value of Canton, Ohio is unique as well. Plus it could work - Canton itself has a lower population than Green Bay but the metro area has four times as many. Not sure what would make the Bulldogs more stable, but in theory, this one works as well as the Packers - a number of possible nearby rivals, a lot of history, and nearby industry for support.

The biggest question is - what if “sell it to the fans and/or players” becomes a viable and widely used option for saving struggling teams?

Canton is an interesting choice to try and make the Packers model work. The Bulldogs were sold and moved to Cleveland in 1924, but the popularity wasn't there and the team folded a couple years later, and while Canton got another team, it failed to escape the league culling teams in 1927. I think if they stay in Canton, they would probably survive until at least the Great Depression and possibly could devolve into a collective ownership if the funds weren't there despite the large amount of fan involvement

Again, I'm not sure if selling to the fans is a viable strategy, at least for American sports. When a team does bad, it's because fans aren't interested enough in their team to support them and pay money to see them. A team fails because of a lack of fan interest. That isn't something that a stock drive can fix. You need a base of devoted fans to actually pay for a part of the team, and if you don't have that then it won't work. The long background on reason behind the Packers ownership demonstrates how you need the fans to be involved for it to work, and for every single team that fails that's not there, because in order for a team to fail, the fans aren't there to support them. The Bulldogs might be the best chance in getting this to work elsewhere because it was a lot of external factors that caused it's demise, rather than because of lack of interest. For other teams it's not going to work because the fan support won't be there when they fail to support the team. There's no way to sell collective ownership to the fans because they already aren't buying tickets or merchandise from the team. That's why the teams are failing

If we're looking for teams to start with collective ownership rather than being forced to turn to it, that also would be a stretch. There's a much different dynamic between things like European soccer teams and American football teams, a lot of soccer teams formed very organically through local clubs that already relied heavily on community support to exist. The teams themselves became extensions of the clubs, hence why the teams are colloquially called "clubs". Football teams in America were usually formed by singular people wanting to make a team and finding other football players to join them. It's a lot less local and teams were free to move around, something which is near impossible for European teams. You'd have to fundamentally change how football developed in the United States to have more collective ownership.

If we're looking at American sports in general, I think it could work for baseball. A lot of early baseball formed through local clubs, very similarly to early European soccer. The teams were built locally and very tied with the city they formed in, but as time went on a lot of these clubs were pushed out by more successful, more professionally run programs that sought to attract talent from around the country (for example, the Braves started in Boston after someone convinced a guy from Cincinnati to come to the city). If you can somehow have baseball grow more organically and keep players from moving from club to club, then maybe you could see more collective ownership.

 

[Colonel Zoidberg]

Canton is an interesting choice to try and make the Packers model work. The Bulldogs were sold and moved to Cleveland in 1924, but the popularity wasn't there and the team folded a couple years later, and while Canton got another team, it failed to escape the league culling teams in 1927. I think if they stay in Canton, they would probably survive until at least the Great Depression and possibly could devolve into a collective ownership if the funds weren't there despite the large amount of fan involvement

Again, I'm not sure if selling to the fans is a viable strategy, at least for American sports. When a team does bad, it's because fans aren't interested enough in their team to support them and pay money to see them. A team fails because of a lack of fan interest. That isn't something that a stock drive can fix. You need a base of devoted fans to actually pay for a part of the team, and if you don't have that then it won't work. The long background on reason behind the Packers ownership demonstrates how you need the fans to be involved for it to work, and for every single team that fails that's not there, because in order for a team to fail, the fans aren't there to support them. The Bulldogs might be the best chance in getting this to work elsewhere because it was a lot of external factors that caused it's demise, rather than because of lack of interest. For other teams it's not going to work because the fan support won't be there when they fail to support the team. There's no way to sell collective ownership to the fans because they already aren't buying tickets or merchandise from the team. That's why the teams are failing

If we're looking for teams to start with collective ownership rather than being forced to turn to it, that also would be a stretch. There's a much different dynamic between things like European soccer teams and American football teams, a lot of soccer teams formed very organically through local clubs that already relied heavily on community support to exist. The teams themselves became extensions of the clubs, hence why the teams are colloquially called "clubs". Football teams in America were usually formed by singular people wanting to make a team and finding other football players to join them. It's a lot less local and teams were free to move around, something which is near impossible for European teams. You'd have to fundamentally change how football developed in the United States to have more collective ownership.

If we're looking at American sports in general, I think it could work for baseball. A lot of early baseball formed through local clubs, very similarly to early European soccer. The teams were built locally and very tied with the city they formed in, but as time went on a lot of these clubs were pushed out by more successful, more professionally run programs that sought to attract talent from around the country (for example, the Braves started in Boston after someone convinced a guy from Cincinnati to come to the city). If you can somehow have baseball grow more organically and keep players from moving from club to club, then maybe you could see more collective ownership.

Baseball is an interesting way to start things off, especially if either 1) ALL big league teams are based in communities like European soccer or 2) it’s kind of 50-50 with some teams started by single owners and others by communities.

So if the Cincinnati Reds start off that way - either as a fan-owned team, a player-owned team, or both - then do others follow? You can bet that big cities and even some medium-sized cities will have more than one team, and you can bet a lot of smaller cities will want in on it as well (most won’t survive but a few will) and teams may be clustered together. You may also see either promotion-relegation or a more wide-open minor league system (if baseball has more teams, an inevitability, then a different minor league structure will be necessary.) It probably means at least four teams in NYC and a huge fight to keep them all going, maybe three in Chicago, and a higher likelihood of cities such as Philadelphia keeping two teams. It also means Baltimore gets a team earlier. It ALSO means eccentric rich people like Bill Veeck go into another line of work besides owning pro baseball teams, but it also averts dipshits like the Robison brothers buying two teams in 1899 and leaving the Cleveland Spiders - a winner from 1892-98 - to become the worst team ever.

It may also mean that multiple leagues form organically rather than a rival league like the American League popping up. It also likely means the PCL survives and integrates into MLB. That probably makes for an interesting World Series - more than two leagues. Picture if the NL (a bunch of yahoos,) the AL (corporate shills,) the Southern League (minor-league rednecks,) and the PCL (coffee-sipping hipsters) all fought for the World Series and all saw each other as I described.

 

[AndyWho]

Baseball is an interesting way to start things off, especially if either 1) ALL big league teams are based in communities like European soccer or 2) it’s kind of 50-50 with some teams started by single owners and others by communities.

So if the Cincinnati Reds start off that way - either as a fan-owned team, a player-owned team, or both - then do others follow? You can bet that big cities and even some medium-sized cities will have more than one team, and you can bet a lot of smaller cities will want in on it as well (most won’t survive but a few will) and teams may be clustered together. You may also see either promotion-relegation or a more wide-open minor league system (if baseball has more teams, an inevitability, then a different minor league structure will be necessary.) It probably means at least four teams in NYC and a huge fight to keep them all going, maybe three in Chicago, and a higher likelihood of cities such as Philadelphia keeping two teams. It also means Baltimore gets a team earlier. It ALSO means eccentric rich people like Bill Veeck go into another line of work besides owning pro baseball teams, but it also averts dipshits like the Robison brothers buying two teams in 1899 and leaving the Cleveland Spiders - a winner from 1892-98 - to become the worst team ever.

It may also mean that multiple leagues form organically rather than a rival league like the American League popping up. It also likely means the PCL survives and integrates into MLB. That probably makes for an interesting World Series - more than two leagues. Picture if the NL (a bunch of yahoos,) the AL (corporate shills,) the Southern League (minor-league rednecks,) and the PCL (coffee-sipping hipsters) all fought for the World Series and all saw each other as I described.

Well, as being part of the "minor-league redneck" area, the idea of New Orleans going major via pro/rel would be a godsend (so long as we avoid the Baby Cakes decision).

Saints got their name because the franchise was awarded on All Saints Day, and Archbishop Hannan signed off on the name not being offensive to Catholics. Raiders would have worked just fine in NOLA (Jean Lafitte).

Algiers wouldn't work for the A's or Pirates. Algiers Point has a lot of historic architecture similar to the French Quarter. Further down DeGaulle wouldn't be able to handle game day traffic. Upriver near the old Mardi Gras World site would have the same issue, plus parking.

Have to share the Dome or build just upriver from the Convention Center, or on the site of the Iberville project (which would be highly controversial and might not go through).

The Raiders/Texans being called the Saints seems to me as a forgone conclusion. As for the A's, there was a site I found referencing the Dome's 2011 renovations and included a plan for a baseball remodeling that could go multipurpose (http://www.andrewclem.com/Baseball/Superdome.html#diag ; see hyp. combined). I could see it happening, but I wonder if that would call for a new roof altogether for the Dome. Other than that, the only other viable option seems to be the upriver from the Convention Center. Had a conversation once with family and we came to the conclusion that somewhere in Laplace would be a fit (a la Zephyrs, being a NOLA team in the metro area rather than within Orleans Parish).

In all this, I have no idea if this was included earlier, but I wanted to add some about the USFL (in light of the AAF starting their season soon):

• WI Dixon remained in the league and led a counter against Trump on the direct NFL competition (split USFL between pro-Trump and pro-Dixon)?
• WI Trump let his ego deflate an inch and had the lawsuit in Baltimore?
• Long term effects of a successful Trump USFL-NFL lawsuit?
• WI No Jim Kelly for the Houston Gamblers? (Either gets drafted for Miami with Marino to Pittsburgh, or taken in by the Saints)
• Long term effects of a surviving USFL and potential butterflies in future talent/expansion/etc.?
• WI Dixon was successful in the USFL starting earlier than the 1980s?

 

[Don Corleone]

In all this, I have no idea if this was included earlier, but I wanted to add some about the USFL (in light of the AAF starting their season soon):

• WI Dixon remained in the league and led a counter against Trump on the direct NFL competition (split USFL between pro-Trump and pro-Dixon)?
• WI Trump let his ego deflate an inch and had the lawsuit in Baltimore?
• Long term effects of a successful Trump USFL-NFL lawsuit?
• WI No Jim Kelly for the Houston Gamblers? (Either gets drafted for Miami with Marino to Pittsburgh, or taken in by the Saints)
• Long term effects of a surviving USFL and potential butterflies in future talent/expansion/etc.?
• WI Dixon was successful in the USFL starting earlier than the 1980s?

Split USFL would be interesting. The Trump faction would try to play in the fall and pursue the lawsuit. If the lawsuit is filed in Baltimore the fans will hammer the NFL out of spite - and the verdict might be reduced on appeal, but during the appeals process the USFL will be able to obtain a line of credit and have leverage to force a merger, or a Spirits style buyout.

The spring faction might continue as a niche sport. The Maulers don't fold, the Breakers stay in New Orleans, etc.

Obviously less expansion. The incoming teams cut off relocation options for the Cardinals (Outlaws already in Arizona) and Browns (Baltimore). No Jaguars since the Bulls are already there. Rams don't go to St Louis because the Cardinals can't move. What would really be awesome is if the Irsays were forced to give the Colts back to Baltimore and take the Stars for Indy. The Bandits force the Bucs out, maybe to Oakland. Orlando might end up moving to Charlotte or Nashville.

With 32 (and more likely 36) teams expansion is likely off the table.

 

[ThunderWolf53]

Hopefully the AAF lasts long enough to have multiple What Ifs of it's own, say 5 years down the line. Speaking of leagues that are upcoming within the next year or two, I know the big question of the XFL surviving for a second season has been asked here before, but what would the impact be on some of the players from the first season, especially if it improbably survived all the way into present day?

 

[Nivek]

would really be awesome is if the Irsays were forced to give the Colts back to Baltimore and take the Stars for Indy.

Or to reduce the ammount on the appeal, they offered the Colts name and brand/story in exchange of nothing for the starts, let the irsay get stuck in indy.

St Louis because the Cardinals can't move

For the best, maybe wait till get the Dome and later Bill to get old thus Mike can keep the ship straight.

 

[AltSptHst]

WI Dixon was successful in the USFL starting earlier than the 1980s?

I am looking at Jeff Pearlman's book Football For a Buck on Google Books. In the beginning, Jeff wrote about the origins of David Dixon's idea.

In 1963, David Dixon met with Paul Brown. After a nine-hour meeting, Brown told him to never let anyone talk him out of his spring football idea. So, three years later, after he got commitments from several Fortune 500 heads that wanted a team (Kemmons Wilson, the founder of Holiday Inn, was one of them), his new league was about ready.

It was announced on June 25, 1966, and it would be called the United States Football League. Everything looked to be all systems go.

And then, the merger happened, and New Orleans was awarded the Saints. After that, none of the TV networks were interested, and the investors all pulled out.

 

[Unknown]

WI the 1982 NFL strike leads to the cancellation of the 1982 season?

Effects on the 1983 draft, the USFL, et. al., anyone?

 

[AltSptHst]

WI the 1982 NFL strike leads to the cancellation of the 1982 season?

Effects on the 1983 draft, the USFL, et. al., anyone?

There could have been some big butterflies:

1. Coaches: Since there is no 1982 season, guys like Leeman Bennett in Atlanta and Marv Levy in KC aren't unfairly canned, and they get another shot in 1983. Also, Chuck Knox probably stays in Buffalo for one more year (at least), Ray Malavasi isn't fired for John Robinson with the Rams, Jack Patera stays with Seattle for another season, & Walt Michaels stays with the Jets.

As for Ray Perkins and Dick Vermeil, I still think they end up leaving even if there is no season. Vermeil enjoyed the time off from football with his family, and he was approaching burnout. And, Perkins wanted the Alabama job, so the Giants still end up promoting Parcells to HC.

2. Steelers: With no 1982 season, Terry Bradshaw doesn't hurt his elbow, and he comes back rejuvenated and ready to go. It's also possible that Lynn Swann and Jack Ham come back for one more year instead of retiring. I can really see them giving the Raiders a run for their money.

3. NFL Draft: With no 1982 season, they probably go back to the 1982 draft order. In 1982, the Pats had the #1 pick, and they had their 1983 first-rounder. They benefit greatly from the lack of a 1982 season because they are able to draft Elway.

As for picks 2-10, here's the order and the picks:

2. Colts: Dan Marino, QB, Pitt
* 3. Seahawks: (from Packers through Saints in Bruce Clark trade on 6-10-1982): Curt Warner, RB, Penn St.
4. Bills (from Browns in Tom Cousineau trade on 4-24-1982): Jim Kelly, QB, Miami
5. Rams (originally had the fifth pick in 82 before trading it to Baltimore for Bert Jones): Eric Dickerson, RB, SMU
6. Bears: Jimbo Covert, OT, Pitt
7. Packers (from Seahawks): Tim Lewis, CB, Pitt
8. Vikings: Bruce Matthews, OL, USC
9. Oilers: Chris Hinton, OL, Northwestern
10. Falcons: Billy Ray Smith, OLB, Arkansas

* The Saints originally had the third pick in the 1982 draft, but they used it on Dave Wilson in the 1981 Supp draft. I have the Packers trading down with Seattle because they wanted defense, and the Seahawks wanted Curt Warner.