Sports What Ifs.
- Thread starter Dave
- Start date
Here's a WI: WI the Houston Oilers manage to draft Bo Jackson with the #1 pick?
Here's my idea: looking over the Houston Oilers 1985 football season OTL, the Oilers had a 5-11 record (Here's a link: 1985 Houston Oilers season - Wikipedia)--but 3 of those wins (against the Miami Dolphins in Week 1, against the Kansas City Chiefs in Week 9, and against the San Diego Chargers in Week 12) were by 3 points or less. Putting those wins in the loss column gives Houston a 2-14 record, similar to the 1985 Tampa Bay Buccaneers--but gives the Oilers a 1-11 conference record against the Buccaneers' 2-10 record for that season, meaning that they get the #1 pick, which they would use to draft Jackson (the Oilers would probably see Jackson as the next Earl Campbell)...
IMO, Bud Adams won't ruin Bo's baseball eligibility with a plane ride, similar to what Hugh Culverhouse did...
Here's my idea: looking over the Houston Oilers 1985 football season OTL, the Oilers had a 5-11 record (Here's a link: 1985 Houston Oilers season - Wikipedia)--but 3 of those wins (against the Miami Dolphins in Week 1, against the Kansas City Chiefs in Week 9, and against the San Diego Chargers in Week 12) were by 3 points or less. Putting those wins in the loss column gives Houston a 2-14 record, similar to the 1985 Tampa Bay Buccaneers--but gives the Oilers a 1-11 conference record against the Buccaneers' 2-10 record for that season, meaning that they get the #1 pick, which they would use to draft Jackson (the Oilers would probably see Jackson as the next Earl Campbell)...
IMO, Bud Adams won't ruin Bo's baseball eligibility with a plane ride, similar to what Hugh Culverhouse did...
Not to mention (unless somebody has a better argument against it) that it could mean that the Astros could have the incentive of drafting him, making Bo a dual-sport sensation within the same city
The Buccaneers and Falcons would have had the #2 and #3 picks, and probably end up taking Tony Casillas and Jon Hand. Then, the Colts would have gotten Jim Everett, who they wanted to get that year in the draft before the Oilers took him in OTL.
So we all know when the football gods cruelly decided to give the Jets hope in 09 and 10 season reaching back to back AFC championship games and then made them lose their last game of the season in 2011 to stop them from going to the playoffs. So I was thinking since both the Colts, Steelers and Patriots lost their SUPER BOWL games in 09-11 seasons. WI the Jets had gone to the big game thrice in a row and lost by the same score. First to the Saints, then narrowly the Packers and finally in a heartbreaking manner to their next-door neighbour's Giants.
How would this effect the Franchise in the early 2010's, would they go for broke and throw money in the free agency market to get over the hump?
Would Rex Ryan receive more coaching (Heck Jeff Fisher turned 1 yard into 16 more years as a coach)?
How would this effect the Franchise in the early 2010's, would they go for broke and throw money in the free agency market to get over the hump?
Would Rex Ryan receive more coaching (Heck Jeff Fisher turned 1 yard into 16 more years as a coach)?
If the Jets make three SB's in a row, that probably means that the Giants don't make the playoffs because the Jets would have defeated them in Week 16 (either Dallas or the Eagles win the East). And, it would have required the Jets beating Miami in Week 17 as well (to finish 10-6).
Then, they would have had to beat the Texans, Pats, and probably the Ravens to advance to the Super Bowl. A tall order, but if they do, they are probably playing GB again or the 49ers.
Also, if this happens, Coughlin and Eli probably leave NY sooner if they still have the same track record after 2011 as in OTL. And, if the Eagles win the East, and win a playoff game, Andy Reid may not be out in 2012. If they somehow draft Russell Wilson, Reid may have been the one to lead Philly to the promised land.
Basketball What If
In the Secret Base Beef History for Barkley-Pippen, they mention Barkley was pushing for the Suns to trade for Pippen in the 94 offseason. Let's say this happens with AC Green, some bench players including an ancient Danny Ainge for the memes and some picks (probably including one of Phoenix's 95 1st rounders) going to Chicago for Pippen.
The Suns are a pretty formidable team with prime Barkley and Pippen and even with not much in the way of a supporting class for Barkley, they got 59 wins in 94-95. ITTL, I can see something between 60 and 65 being achievable which probably gets them the number one seed in the West. The Bulls here have a starting lineup of Anderson-Harper-Green-Kukoc-Wennington which lacks a superstar/leader and won't make the playoffs, with Milwaukee getting in instead.
The Suns breeze past Denver in Round 1 and get through the Lakers in the semis before coming up against the reigning champion Rockets in the WCF. I think this series goes to 7 games but I'm gonna give Houston the edge. The matchups on the eastern side of the bracket are a little different but the Finals still end either in a sweep or Rockets in 5.
This won't affect the MLB lockout so Jordan will still make his (first) comeback. However, I don't think he goes to the Bulls which will start rebuilding, shipping off any remaining three peat veterans such as Armstrong and Wennington. Instead, he will join his two closest friends in Phoenix.
The 1995-96 Phoenix Suns will be one of the greatest teams in NBA history (better than the 96 Bulls) and will certainly win over 70 games. They also win a ring, maybe without losing a single game but that would be hard. That level of success wouldn't be sustainable due to the personalities of their big three with Barkley inevitably falling out with at least one of (probably both) Pippen and Jordan. Depending on how well the Suns handle it, they lose anywhere from one to all of their Big Three.
Meanwhile in Chicago, they tank just in time for the 96 Draft. They probably aren't bad enough to get Iverson but, as they are in need of Guards, they should end up with at least one of Ray Allen, Kobe or Nash which will give them a solid building block and if Krause handles it well they could end up with some championships in the late 90s and early 2000s. Or not.
In the Secret Base Beef History for Barkley-Pippen, they mention Barkley was pushing for the Suns to trade for Pippen in the 94 offseason. Let's say this happens with AC Green, some bench players including an ancient Danny Ainge for the memes and some picks (probably including one of Phoenix's 95 1st rounders) going to Chicago for Pippen.
The Suns are a pretty formidable team with prime Barkley and Pippen and even with not much in the way of a supporting class for Barkley, they got 59 wins in 94-95. ITTL, I can see something between 60 and 65 being achievable which probably gets them the number one seed in the West. The Bulls here have a starting lineup of Anderson-Harper-Green-Kukoc-Wennington which lacks a superstar/leader and won't make the playoffs, with Milwaukee getting in instead.
The Suns breeze past Denver in Round 1 and get through the Lakers in the semis before coming up against the reigning champion Rockets in the WCF. I think this series goes to 7 games but I'm gonna give Houston the edge. The matchups on the eastern side of the bracket are a little different but the Finals still end either in a sweep or Rockets in 5.
This won't affect the MLB lockout so Jordan will still make his (first) comeback. However, I don't think he goes to the Bulls which will start rebuilding, shipping off any remaining three peat veterans such as Armstrong and Wennington. Instead, he will join his two closest friends in Phoenix.
The 1995-96 Phoenix Suns will be one of the greatest teams in NBA history (better than the 96 Bulls) and will certainly win over 70 games. They also win a ring, maybe without losing a single game but that would be hard. That level of success wouldn't be sustainable due to the personalities of their big three with Barkley inevitably falling out with at least one of (probably both) Pippen and Jordan. Depending on how well the Suns handle it, they lose anywhere from one to all of their Big Three.
Meanwhile in Chicago, they tank just in time for the 96 Draft. They probably aren't bad enough to get Iverson but, as they are in need of Guards, they should end up with at least one of Ray Allen, Kobe or Nash which will give them a solid building block and if Krause handles it well they could end up with some championships in the late 90s and early 2000s. Or not.
How do people think the Rams winning Super Bowl XXXVI would have impacted them and the Patriots? Could they have been well positioned to make it 3/4 in 2002?
i imagine the Brady-Belichick mythos doesn’t quite take off in the same way. Especially if it’s a heartbreaking loss, say a late pick on that last drive or the field goal missed only to lose OT on the 1st possession to the Greatest Show
i imagine the Brady-Belichick mythos doesn’t quite take off in the same way. Especially if it’s a heartbreaking loss, say a late pick on that last drive or the field goal missed only to lose OT on the 1st possession to the Greatest Show
Also, this butterflies away the 2000-02 Flukers. Yeah!!
I heard that Phil Jackson wanted (in Jan. 1995) to see the three-peat team to be broken up to stay, and this happens. So, he probably stays in Chicago for several more years.
Also, maybe Shaq thinks twice before going to the Lakers (staying out of MJ's conference), and he re-ups with Orlando for seven years.
Or maybe he decides to sign with one of the best teams in the league which is in need of a Centre and we get Kobe and Shaq under Phil Jackson in Chicago. Maybe that's too similar to OTL.
Apparently, George Young almost replaced Bill Parcells with Howard Schnellenberger for the 1984 season:
The butterflies off of that could have been blinding:
1. Probably no SB titles in 1986 and 1990.
2. Parcells coached in college at one time before he ended up with the Giants as a LB coach. Maybe he goes back there.
3. Belichick and Ernie Adams probably don't stay with the Giants. In the documentary The Two Bills, I think that Belichick was ready to accept a job with the Vikings until Young decided to bring back Parcells. If he doesn't, Belichick has a totally different career (and Adams probably goes with them. They are buddies, and they work together).
The butterflies off of that could have been blinding:
1. Probably no SB titles in 1986 and 1990.
2. Parcells coached in college at one time before he ended up with the Giants as a LB coach. Maybe he goes back there.
3. Belichick and Ernie Adams probably don't stay with the Giants. In the documentary The Two Bills, I think that Belichick was ready to accept a job with the Vikings until Young decided to bring back Parcells. If he doesn't, Belichick has a totally different career (and Adams probably goes with them. They are buddies, and they work together).
So I just read this today on a wikipedia page. So apparently when Metropolitan Stadium in Minnesota (the stadium that preceded the Metrodome) was built, the idea was not only to attract baseball, but football. Obviously, they got the Senators to move and become the Twins, but I read that before the Vikings were created in 1961, the league was interested in having Violet Bidwill, the widow of Cards owner Charles Bidwill , move the team as Chicago was seen as too small for two nfl teams. For a few years the Cards did play two home games in Minnesota in 1959 and often had preseason games there, but eventually the team was moved to St. Louis, most likely due to her 2nd husband being from St. Louis.
So what if the Cards had ended up in Minnesota in St. Louis? Does St. Louis get a better team in 1961 and more football success? Do the Cardinals leave for Phoenix in 1982 if the Metrodome doesn't work out, or do they leave even later if US Bank stadium isn't built? Lastly, if the Cards are still terrible does the University of Minnesota somehow stay a football power or is their decline inevitable? Can't think of too many cities that have well supported college and NFL franchises except maybe Seattle and Miami when Marino was in town and the Hurricanes were rolling. Typically its either a college football town like Jacksonville, Atlanta, or Nashville (I kind of count LA too, as USC is well supported, but they also had no pro football for years, and UCLA isn't exactly a power)or the pros are much more beloved like in Minnesota, Colorado, Pittsburgh or the Bay area.
So what if the Cards had ended up in Minnesota in St. Louis? Does St. Louis get a better team in 1961 and more football success? Do the Cardinals leave for Phoenix in 1982 if the Metrodome doesn't work out, or do they leave even later if US Bank stadium isn't built? Lastly, if the Cards are still terrible does the University of Minnesota somehow stay a football power or is their decline inevitable? Can't think of too many cities that have well supported college and NFL franchises except maybe Seattle and Miami when Marino was in town and the Hurricanes were rolling. Typically its either a college football town like Jacksonville, Atlanta, or Nashville (I kind of count LA too, as USC is well supported, but they also had no pro football for years, and UCLA isn't exactly a power)or the pros are much more beloved like in Minnesota, Colorado, Pittsburgh or the Bay area.
Last edited:
Alternate Stanley Cup playoffs Winners, team compositions and Bracketts:
1953: Chicago Blackhawks over Boston Bruins in 6.
The Blackhawks beat the habs in game 2 4-3, before winning the next ones to win the series 4-1. They have the tools necessary to beat boston that year IMO.
1976 to 1979: the new york rangers don't trade Jean ratelle and brad park for Phil esposito,meaning that the rangers remain competitive for a bit longer before the 80s rebuild. Habs dynasty still happens.
1978 and 1980: Toronto Maple leafs
John Basset buys the Leafs insteqd of Harold Ballard. In turn, the Leafs keeps Bernard Parent, their scouting and coaching staff and thus becomes much more competitive from the 70s to the late 80s. Players like Daryl sittler, Lanny Mcdonald and Borje Salming stay leafs for much longer, until the eventual rebuild in the late 80s before becoming competitive again in the early 90s until Bassett's death. In turn, the leafs fare better as contenders in the modern age.
1975: Buffalo Sabres over Philadelphia flyers in 6 games.
The Sabres make the Gilles Meloche trade that almost happened IOTL. This means that the frnch connection wins a cup. Also motable is the pittsburgh penguins actually defeating the New York Islanders instead of blowing the lead. Mainly because Michel Brière doesn't die...which leads to:
1982: Vancouver Canucks defeat Quebec Nordiques in 5.
Pittsburgh actually beats the islanders in OT of game 5 (the first round was Best of 3 back then), which leads to Quebec beating them in 6. Vancouver thus wins the cup. They also keep Rick Vaive and other players, which makes their path to the cup easier.
1984: Quebec Nordiques beat Minnesota in 6 games.
So many PODs here:
-The rangers finish the job and upsets the isles in 5. Which means the isles only win 2 cups instead of 4 straight.
-Quebec beats montreal in game 3 before winning in 7 games in a hotly contested series that is seen as the peak of their rivalry. They would beat the ramgers in 5 games in the conference finals.
-Calgary Beats Edmonton in game 3, which leads to them winning in 6 games. They lose, however, against the minnesota north stars in 6 games in the conference finals.
1986 stanley cup: Hartford Whalers beat st louis blues in 7 games.
-Hartford stuns the habs in 7 Games, while st. Louis does the same to calgary. Mike Liut wins the conn smythe, while the likes of ron francis and ulf samuelsson doesn't get traded to pittsburgh in 1991.
1987: Philadelphia Flyers defeat Edmonton oilers in 6.
-Flyers win in OT in game 2, ehich leads to them having more confidence and close it out in 6. This also means that edmonton only wins 2 cups ITTL.
-Also, Quebec and Toronto makes the conference finals agaisnt the flyers and edmonton respectively.
1992: New york Rangers beat Winnipeg Jets in 6 games.
-New york shocks the world of hockey bemy beating pittsburgh in 5 games before winning the cup against an equally surprising Winnipeg Jets team in the finals. With his cup win in new york and in toronto, roger neilson is considered an iconic coach, and he stays in new york for much of the 90s.
1993: Montreal over toronto in 6 Games.
Kerry Fraser actually calls gretzky's high stick on gilmour, which leads to a dramatic goal from wendel clark. This leads to canada's wet dream: the 100th stanley cup final featuring the two original NHL franchises. The finals is the highest rated sports event in canadian television history. Oh, and Toronto doesn't make that godawful tom kurvers trade, meaning they get Eric Lindros. Quebec still gets something, though: Scott Niedermayer.
EDIT: 1994: Vancouver Canucks beat new york rangers in 7 games.
The difference here is that The rangers keep both roger neilson and their youngsters such as doug weight, tony amonte, Mark Tinordi and darren turcotte, while they still acquire stephane matteau, only earlier in 1991 in a similar deal to the calgary trade IRL. Combine with keeping sergei zubov, todd marchant, Alex Kovalev, Mike Knuble, Kim johnsson and Matthais Norstrom As well as signing pavel bure in 1998, as such, they remain top contenders for much of the 90s and early 00s.
EDIT: rangers wins the cup in 92, so the price they pay is losing the 94 cup final to vancouver. Vancouver still riots. In canada, we riot even when we win.
1995: Philadelphia Flyers over detroit red wings in 6 games.
-Since Quebec doesn't get lindros ITTL, That means that they keep talent like peter forsberg, Steve duchesne, Mike Ricci and chris simon. Since they still make the trades for Rod Brind'amour, Eric Desjardins and Peter Svoboda, this means that Philly is a really deep team, and peter forsberg becomes an overnight sensation, winning both the calder and the stanley cup in his first season, while the legion of doom he forms with Leclair and Mikael Renberg is the envy of the league.
2000: Philadelphia over Dallas in 6 games.
Philly actually acquires raymond bourque, and he brings some much needed leadership and veteran presence. That, combined with prime forsberg, allows the flyers to actually sweep the devils and win the cup.
2001: Colorado Avalanche over pittsburgh Penguins in 7 games.
2002: Detroit red wings over Toronto Maple leafs in 5 games.
-Montreal actually gets to the conference finals.
2003: Calgary Flames over Ottawa Senators in 7 games.
-The flames keep martin st. Louis, Valeri Bure, Cory stillman, marc savard and jean-sebastien Giguere. They also still acquire chris drury. Giguere wins the conn smythe, and calgary repeats the following year.
2004-2005: Ottawa senators over Vancouver Canucks in 5 games.
-The CBA negotations goes much more smoothly, and there is a 2004-2005 season, with the new rules being effective as of 2005-2006. With dominik hasek in goal and the deepest team in the league, ottawa easily beats the west coast express canucks in 5.
2006 stanley cup: edmonton wins.
2007: Buffalo Sabres. Briere and co. Deserves a cup.
2010: Chicago Blackhawks over montreal canadiens in 5 games.
2011: Vancouver canucks over montreal canadiens in 7 games.
2013: Chicago Blackhawks over toronto maple leafs.
2014: Montreal over los angeles in 7 games.
-Chris kreider gets drafted by montreal, and the habs never trade ryan mcdonaugh.
2017: Ottawa over Nashville in 6 games.
-chara stays, and the taylor hall for cody ceci deal actually happens...yes, you read that right.
1953: Chicago Blackhawks over Boston Bruins in 6.
The Blackhawks beat the habs in game 2 4-3, before winning the next ones to win the series 4-1. They have the tools necessary to beat boston that year IMO.
1976 to 1979: the new york rangers don't trade Jean ratelle and brad park for Phil esposito,meaning that the rangers remain competitive for a bit longer before the 80s rebuild. Habs dynasty still happens.
1978 and 1980: Toronto Maple leafs
John Basset buys the Leafs insteqd of Harold Ballard. In turn, the Leafs keeps Bernard Parent, their scouting and coaching staff and thus becomes much more competitive from the 70s to the late 80s. Players like Daryl sittler, Lanny Mcdonald and Borje Salming stay leafs for much longer, until the eventual rebuild in the late 80s before becoming competitive again in the early 90s until Bassett's death. In turn, the leafs fare better as contenders in the modern age.
1975: Buffalo Sabres over Philadelphia flyers in 6 games.
The Sabres make the Gilles Meloche trade that almost happened IOTL. This means that the frnch connection wins a cup. Also motable is the pittsburgh penguins actually defeating the New York Islanders instead of blowing the lead. Mainly because Michel Brière doesn't die...which leads to:
1982: Vancouver Canucks defeat Quebec Nordiques in 5.
Pittsburgh actually beats the islanders in OT of game 5 (the first round was Best of 3 back then), which leads to Quebec beating them in 6. Vancouver thus wins the cup. They also keep Rick Vaive and other players, which makes their path to the cup easier.
1984: Quebec Nordiques beat Minnesota in 6 games.
So many PODs here:
-The rangers finish the job and upsets the isles in 5. Which means the isles only win 2 cups instead of 4 straight.
-Quebec beats montreal in game 3 before winning in 7 games in a hotly contested series that is seen as the peak of their rivalry. They would beat the ramgers in 5 games in the conference finals.
-Calgary Beats Edmonton in game 3, which leads to them winning in 6 games. They lose, however, against the minnesota north stars in 6 games in the conference finals.
1986 stanley cup: Hartford Whalers beat st louis blues in 7 games.
-Hartford stuns the habs in 7 Games, while st. Louis does the same to calgary. Mike Liut wins the conn smythe, while the likes of ron francis and ulf samuelsson doesn't get traded to pittsburgh in 1991.
1987: Philadelphia Flyers defeat Edmonton oilers in 6.
-Flyers win in OT in game 2, ehich leads to them having more confidence and close it out in 6. This also means that edmonton only wins 2 cups ITTL.
-Also, Quebec and Toronto makes the conference finals agaisnt the flyers and edmonton respectively.
1992: New york Rangers beat Winnipeg Jets in 6 games.
-New york shocks the world of hockey bemy beating pittsburgh in 5 games before winning the cup against an equally surprising Winnipeg Jets team in the finals. With his cup win in new york and in toronto, roger neilson is considered an iconic coach, and he stays in new york for much of the 90s.
1993: Montreal over toronto in 6 Games.
Kerry Fraser actually calls gretzky's high stick on gilmour, which leads to a dramatic goal from wendel clark. This leads to canada's wet dream: the 100th stanley cup final featuring the two original NHL franchises. The finals is the highest rated sports event in canadian television history. Oh, and Toronto doesn't make that godawful tom kurvers trade, meaning they get Eric Lindros. Quebec still gets something, though: Scott Niedermayer.
EDIT: 1994: Vancouver Canucks beat new york rangers in 7 games.
The difference here is that The rangers keep both roger neilson and their youngsters such as doug weight, tony amonte, Mark Tinordi and darren turcotte, while they still acquire stephane matteau, only earlier in 1991 in a similar deal to the calgary trade IRL. Combine with keeping sergei zubov, todd marchant, Alex Kovalev, Mike Knuble, Kim johnsson and Matthais Norstrom As well as signing pavel bure in 1998, as such, they remain top contenders for much of the 90s and early 00s.
EDIT: rangers wins the cup in 92, so the price they pay is losing the 94 cup final to vancouver. Vancouver still riots. In canada, we riot even when we win.
1995: Philadelphia Flyers over detroit red wings in 6 games.
-Since Quebec doesn't get lindros ITTL, That means that they keep talent like peter forsberg, Steve duchesne, Mike Ricci and chris simon. Since they still make the trades for Rod Brind'amour, Eric Desjardins and Peter Svoboda, this means that Philly is a really deep team, and peter forsberg becomes an overnight sensation, winning both the calder and the stanley cup in his first season, while the legion of doom he forms with Leclair and Mikael Renberg is the envy of the league.
2000: Philadelphia over Dallas in 6 games.
Philly actually acquires raymond bourque, and he brings some much needed leadership and veteran presence. That, combined with prime forsberg, allows the flyers to actually sweep the devils and win the cup.
2001: Colorado Avalanche over pittsburgh Penguins in 7 games.
2002: Detroit red wings over Toronto Maple leafs in 5 games.
-Montreal actually gets to the conference finals.
2003: Calgary Flames over Ottawa Senators in 7 games.
-The flames keep martin st. Louis, Valeri Bure, Cory stillman, marc savard and jean-sebastien Giguere. They also still acquire chris drury. Giguere wins the conn smythe, and calgary repeats the following year.
2004-2005: Ottawa senators over Vancouver Canucks in 5 games.
-The CBA negotations goes much more smoothly, and there is a 2004-2005 season, with the new rules being effective as of 2005-2006. With dominik hasek in goal and the deepest team in the league, ottawa easily beats the west coast express canucks in 5.
2006 stanley cup: edmonton wins.
2007: Buffalo Sabres. Briere and co. Deserves a cup.
2010: Chicago Blackhawks over montreal canadiens in 5 games.
2011: Vancouver canucks over montreal canadiens in 7 games.
2013: Chicago Blackhawks over toronto maple leafs.
2014: Montreal over los angeles in 7 games.
-Chris kreider gets drafted by montreal, and the habs never trade ryan mcdonaugh.
2017: Ottawa over Nashville in 6 games.
-chara stays, and the taylor hall for cody ceci deal actually happens...yes, you read that right.
Last edited:
If Briere is on that Pens team, I could also maybe see them winning it.
Apparently, the Bills were in the market for Tony Mandarich in 1989:
WR Chris Burkett, Darryl Talley, and CB Derrick Burroughs were rumored to be going to Green Bay in a trade for Mandarich. I don't know what else was included, but I imagine that at least one first-rounder would also have been part of the equation (it would have been their 1990 pick. They traded away their 88 and 89 first-rounders to the Rams in the three-way Dickerson deal).
WR Chris Burkett, Darryl Talley, and CB Derrick Burroughs were rumored to be going to Green Bay in a trade for Mandarich. I don't know what else was included, but I imagine that at least one first-rounder would also have been part of the equation (it would have been their 1990 pick. They traded away their 88 and 89 first-rounders to the Rams in the three-way Dickerson deal).
One WI I've been pondering for a while is a different trajectory for Australian winter sports in the 1990s.
What if Australian Football (AFL) goes through a split & rebel league (similar to what happened in Australian Rugby League) some time in the 1990s? Run the whole gamut of what happened with OTL Superleague - big money from Broadcasting tycoons, players being split between two competitions, some clubs going under & causing heartache for fans... and the whole mess setting the code back.
Is this possible? How would it effect the sporting landscape?
What if Australian Football (AFL) goes through a split & rebel league (similar to what happened in Australian Rugby League) some time in the 1990s? Run the whole gamut of what happened with OTL Superleague - big money from Broadcasting tycoons, players being split between two competitions, some clubs going under & causing heartache for fans... and the whole mess setting the code back.
Is this possible? How would it effect the sporting landscape?
I researched Minnesota Gopher football's post-1960 decline in this thread: https://www.forums.gopherhole.com/boards/threads/post-1961-football-program-decline.42930/
Here is a good take on the situation:
Since Minneapolis has built new stadiums for the Vikings in OTL, I can also see the Cardinals benefiting from that, and they are still in Minnesota to this day. They had good teams in the 1960's with Charley Johnson at QB (they almost went to the NFL Title Game twice), and they had four strong years in the mid-70's under Don Coryell. In this world, the Cards probably would have been in the Central Division, and that would have helped them in 1968 (to get into the playoffs) and in the 70's (with the non-existence of the Vikings, they probably make a Super Bowl in the Don Coryell era.
As for St. Louis, they almost definitely get an expansion team in the 60's at some point. I don't know if it would have been an AFL or NFL team, though.
Thanks for the deep dive into the Gophers and their woes. I heard that in a lot of the Big Ten and even some Big 8 schools there was a deemphasis of football and thus you see Minnesota go from a powerhouse to being a nobody, and teams like Iowa go through 20 years of struggles, and Wisconsin struggling to find its way until they got Alvarez running the program. I think this is also part of the reason Nebraska (my favorite team) got better. They invested in football and really wanted to do well in it. They still do though I don't know if they can ever come back to what they were. Anyways Bob Devaney did a heck of a lot in building the Nebraska program, but I do think they kind of became the strong plains team after Minnesota started to struggle and Iowa and Wisconsin were in rough patches. Not to mention Kansas is more of a basketball state and while Mizzou had a strong team in the 60's (actually had the highest winning percentage that decade) they kind of struggled and more or less became a basketball school with sometimes okay football.
Also, I guess you'd be right about the Minnesota Cardinals doing better in a Central division. I still feel like they'd struggle though by the 90's and even the Vikings were rumored to have wanted to move at times, which is sad, but that's just the NFL. At the end of the day a team can do whatever the hell they want. No reason to be loyal to a community. Thus we have the LA Chargers in a soccer stadium, St. Louis without a team that won a Super Bowl, and the Raiders playing in Vegas which just seems wrong.