No AFL, No Super Bowl?

With Super Bowl XLV only ten days away, I'd like to pose a hypothetical: what if the American Football League (AFL) hadn't come into being? In particular, if Lamar Hunt had been able to buy an existing NFL franchise or be awarded a new one in 1959, the AFL would probably not have come into existence.

One possibility: the NFL steadily grows while fending off potential rivals, eventually reaching the current 32-team size, but keeping Eastern and Western Conferences as the NBA and NHL currently have. In such a scenario, it is unlikely that a neutral site league championship (subsequently nicknamed the "Super Bowl") would have been come into being, and would likely not be the American institution it is today.

However, there could also be a counterfactual: As the NFL grows in the 1960's, Commissioner Pete Rozelle recognizes the potential for the league airing simultaneously on two networks on Sunday afternoons, and convinces the league owners to reorganize into "National" and "American" conferences, each with teams in New York, California, Texas and (eventually) Florida, with other major markets also divided up. This would allow for two large TV contracts with different networks. It would eventually increase the visibility of the league, and make greater the possibility of the championship becoming a national "event".

Any thoughts?
 
I doubt it would have grown to its current size without some sort of competition/merger. Already it had sustained a challenge from the AAFC, which failed due to lack of competitive balance, but did well enough to get three teams moved into the NFL and introduced some innovations of its own. Sooner or later someone would have had the idea to try again. In any case, the owners were satisfied with the current situation, where they had total control of the labor market and didn't have to split revenues as many ways. You might only get to 20 total teams by the present day, maybe a few more (26 or so) if a decent rival league is threatening to form. But 32 teams? No way.

What you're proposing is essentially the status quo without a merger or the challenge of the AFL. It strikes me as a bit implausible to expect such an occurrence. Without the AFL I'd expect the NFL to remain smaller in size. It might have a larger fanbase, but it won't have completely national appeal. It might expand along the lines you're suggesting, but I don't see it as likely that they'd try to get on two networks, and hence don't see the league dividing into two conferences.
 
I doubt it would have grown to its current size without some sort of competition/merger. Already it had sustained a challenge from the AAFC, which failed due to lack of competitive balance, but did well enough to get three teams moved into the NFL and introduced some innovations of its own. Sooner or later someone would have had the idea to try again. In any case, the owners were satisfied with the current situation, where they had total control of the labor market and didn't have to split revenues as many ways. You might only get to 20 total teams by the present day, maybe a few more (26 or so) if a decent rival league is threatening to form. But 32 teams? No way.

What you're proposing is essentially the status quo without a merger or the challenge of the AFL. It strikes me as a bit implausible to expect such an occurrence. Without the AFL I'd expect the NFL to remain smaller in size. It might have a larger fanbase, but it won't have completely national appeal. It might expand along the lines you're suggesting, but I don't see it as likely that they'd try to get on two networks, and hence don't see the league dividing into two conferences.

I wonder if no modern NFL would either help the CFL's expansion into the US, or butterfly it away?
 
I wonder if no modern NFL would either help the CFL's expansion into the US, or butterfly it away?

No CFL expansion into the US, though perhaps the NFL would overrun the CFL (Though I enjoy watching Canadian football and would have hated to see this happen.)
 
Without an AFL, the NFL would be (at best) a 24-team league with decent television money, but not nearly the riches it enjoys today.

First of all, the NFL was against expanding in 1959 (they told Lamar Hunt there would be no expansion for the foreseeable future). Secondly, many of the teams, like the Cardinals, Packers, Steelers and Eagles, were losing money and needed to be propped up before any kind of expansion could happen. The Cardinals were looking for a new home, which turned out to be St. Louis in 1960.

To make matters worse, although pro football was gaining in popularity against baseball, it wouldn't have been popular enough to draw the $28 Million TV deal from CBS in 1964.

As football continues to gain popularity in the 1960s, cities like Dallas, Houston, Minneapolis and Buffalo will eventually gain franchises in the NFL. Over the course of time, cities like Boston, Denver, Atlanta, Seattle, Miami and New Orleans will all get franchises as well, but a ceiling of 24 teams is likely. They can expand all the way to 32 teams, but would wind up with a watered-down league like the modern-day NBA or NHL.

Other leagues would turn up eventually, but in markets that the NFL deems too small for its league. Cities like Birmingham, Jacksonville, Memphis, Charlotte, Portland, Tulsa, Tampa and Indianapolis would have to settle for those leagues.
 
The AFL is the reason black players had a chance in football.
It's the reason that names are on the backs of the jersies.
The AFL brought staregy in football.

Without the AFL, the NFL might not have any of these things for a while at least.

As for expansion: Cities like Kansas City, Tampa Bay, and Jacksonville would never have teams.

Oakland, Denver, Tennessee, New Orleans, and Buffalo might eventually get teams later on, but they too would be without teams untill maybe the late 1990's.
 
If there will be No super bowl in this alternate NFL Universe, it will be the World Series of Pro Football being held in the site of the home team (AFC in odd years, NFC in even years)
 
AFL

The AFL is the reason black players had a chance in football.
It's the reason that names are on the backs of the jersies.
The AFL brought staregy in football.

Without the AFL, the NFL might not have any of these things for a while at least.

As for expansion: Cities like Kansas City, Tampa Bay, and Jacksonville would never have teams.

Oakland, Denver, Tennessee, New Orleans, and Buffalo might eventually get teams later on, but they too would be without teams untill maybe the late 1990's.

I don't think that Oakland and Buffalo ever would have. Kansas City and Tampa Bay would be more likely. As far as Tennessee is concerned, it depends. I heard that Tex Schramm said that the league was looking at that area for potential expansion in the 80's, but the 82 Strike and the USFL got in the way.

Also, if there is an alternate universe where Portland builds the Delta Dome(like they almost did in 1964) or another domed stadium, that could change things as well.
 
Buffalo could have received a franchise in the 1960s because many in the sports world thought Buffalo was screwed out of joining the NFL in 1950 after the AAFC merger. I have never heard a legitimate reason why Buffalo was turned down, since they were a (reasonably) profitable franchise in the AAFC. The Original Bills were one of only three profitable franchises in the league.

For some reason, the NFL accepted Baltimore to come in along with Cleveland and San Francisco. Baltimore lasted only one year before the franchise ping-ponged its way through America until landing back in Baltimore in 1953.
 
Buffalo could have received a franchise in the 1960s because many in the sports world thought Buffalo was screwed out of joining the NFL in 1950 after the AAFC merger. I have never heard a legitimate reason why Buffalo was turned down, since they were a (reasonably) profitable franchise in the AAFC. The Original Bills were one of only three profitable franchises in the league.

For some reason, the NFL accepted Baltimore to come in along with Cleveland and San Francisco. Baltimore lasted only one year before the franchise ping-ponged its way through America until landing back in Baltimore in 1953.

I think it was because the Bill ownership was having problems.

However, Buffalo having better ownership and coming into the NFL in 1950 in lieu of Baltimore is a possible timeline unto itself. Many possible butterflies there.
 
I did a timeline on this a few years ago. Here is part four, with links to the first three parts:

https://www.alternatehistory.com/discussion/showthread.php?t=115716

It went only until 1980.

Thanks, I look forward to reading it.

My apologies for not finding your thread on my search for previous threads on this topic. (I searched for "Super Bowl" but not for "American Football League".)


As for those who think that the NFL wouldn't expand to 32 teams, professional baseball, basketball and hockey in (or mostly in) the USA each have 30 teams, and whether or not the AFL existed, I think that the NFL would have still become the most popular TV sport in the United States.
 
As for those who think that the NFL wouldn't expand to 32 teams, professional baseball, basketball and hockey in (or mostly in) the USA each have 30 teams, and whether or not the AFL existed, I think that the NFL would have still become the most popular TV sport in the United States.

Problem is that most of the major rounds of growth in each of those leagues was stimulated by either the subsuming of a rival league or fears of a new rival league being established.

NFL: The competition with the AFL provided impetus for the league to grow from 12 teams in 1959 to 16 in 1969, and then the merger with the AFL grew the NFL to 26 teams. In the 40 years since only six teams have been added in four expansion phases, though the Browns expansion consisted of putting a team back in a city that previously had one.

NBA: Had 9 teams prior to the ABA's inception in 1966. Doubled in size to 18 over the course of the competition with the ABA, then grew to 22 with the merger in 1976. Since then have added 8 teams in four expansion phases, although one consisted merely of putting a team back in a city that had had its team moved.

MLB: The NL had contracted from 12 teams in 1899 to 8 in 1900. The AL added 8 more teams to the major league structure. The Federal League did not result in any more teams being added. In 1960 the threat of the Continental League's formation resulted in a new round of expansions, adding four teams by 1962, and reaching 30 teams with an additional four rounds of expansion.

So in conclusion, I would say that while a sequence of expansions is downright certain, it won't be of the magnitude that usually results from rival leagues. Add in the fact that without the AFL more open offenses will take longer to evolve, and the debate between the AFL and the NFL won't be in the public eye, and I'd say that it's completely plausible that the NFL would lag in viewers and attendance to the extent that it wouldn't expand to 32 teams.

Actually, what teams are likely to be added by the NFL up to the present day?

New cities represented by the AFL:

Houston (will certainly get a team)
Denver (will certainly get a team)
Boston/New England (will eventually get a team)
Denver (should get a team, but not for a while, I think)
Buffalo (not likely to get a team, or to sustain it if it does)
Oakland (might get a team, but might not)
Kansas City (unlikely to get a team)

Additional NFL expansions:
Minnesota (possible recipient of a franchise, but not for a while)
Atlanta (will get a team, and probably in the 1960s as OTL)
Miami (probably will get a team)
New Orleans (might not get a team)
Cincinnati (Paul Brown was the entire reason for this team. Without the AFL the butterflies might stop them from getting a team)
Seattle (should eventually get a team)
Jacksonville (not at all likely to get a team)
Carolina (will eventually get a team)

Cities added via franchise move:
Nashville (this is highly unlikely)
Indianapolis (not likely to get a team)
Phoenix (will get a team, but maybe not until the 1990s)
San Diego (won't get a team for a while)

Apply the butterflies, and by the present day Indianapolis, Jacksonville, Tennessee, Kansas City, Cincinnati, New Orleans, Seattle, Carolina, Minnesota, Buffalo, Oakland, San Diego, and the Jets (shared a city with the Giants) have diminished prospects. Certainly, some of them should exist in the end, but the point is that the league, with less demand for growth, could end up with 13 teams whose existence is up for debate.
 
Last edited:
I don't think that Oakland and Buffalo ever would have. Kansas City and Tampa Bay would be more likely. As far as Tennessee is concerned, it depends. I heard that Tex Schramm said that the league was looking at that area for potential expansion in the 80's, but the 82 Strike and the USFL got in the way.

Also, if there is an alternate universe where Portland builds the Delta Dome(like they almost did in 1964) or another domed stadium, that could change things as well.

The reason I say Oakland eventually gets a team is because LA never has been able to keep a team for so long(I guess you can make a case for the rams, but a weak one).
Remember, the raiders were once in LA, before the went to Oakland.
 

FDW

Banned
The reason I say Oakland eventually gets a team is because LA never has been able to keep a team for so long(I guess you can make a case for the rams, but a weak one).
Remember, the raiders were once in LA, before the went to Oakland.

The Raiders were originally from Oakland. They moved to Los Angeles because Al Davis was fart who wanted a new stadium, which was what LA had promised him. They moved back because he couldn't get a stadium in Los Angeles and Oakland bribed him with improvements to the Alameda county coliseum.
 
Top