Sports What Ifs.

The question I am getting at with this is what if the method of keeping team names with the team moving (a la Browns-Ravens) was the norm? A team could relocate, so long as they have a new name and the city willing to keep the name and colors pending an expansion team/sell off. To that end, the Jazz remain in New Orleans (pending an expansion team), the Utah team retakes the ABA Stars name, etc.
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.
 
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.
Nice plus make sense as there no lakes on LA this another name would be better, So the Mets would be either Giants or Dodgers in this scenario?
 
Well if the Dodgers go to LA and Giants to SF, if the Phillies move to the West Coast (assuming the A’s shove them out) then...hmm. The Senators to KC instead of Minnesota has merit, and I see no reason the name “Royals” wouldn’t stick.

This means someone has to go to the West Coast in the AL. And assuming that the AL has the same mindset O’Malley has, it means they put two teams out there and Congress can just go to hell and wait for the next expansion (which may mean the team actually sticks around instead of packing up for Arlington, Texas.)

So the AL, with no teams west of Chicago (let’s see here...Boston, NY, Philly, Baltimore, DC, Cleveland, Detroit and Chicago) moves the Senators to KC and expands to LA (Angels) and Oakland (I dunno...Seals?) Meanwhile the NL goes to NY and Minnesota, sensing trouble in Houston (the original Astros stadium, when they were the Colt .45s, was a nightmare.) At that point, the Braves are in Milwaukee, so the “West” is LA, SD, SF, Milwaukee, and Minnesota along with Chicago and STL to make up the East with Cincy, Pittsburgh and NY.

So with the Braves moving to Atlanta, the next expansion is...hmm. Next cities up are DC, Houston, Seattle and Montreal. You almost have to put Houston and Seattle in the AL - they along with the two West Coast teams, KC and Chicago make up the West. The Cubs and Cardinals still probably bitch and moan about being in the West, but once the Pilots move to Milwaukee, it should work.
How about the red sox leave Boston, the braves stay
 
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).
 
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).
What about just across Claiborne/I-10 in Mid-City?
 
In the 1960s, the then-Dallas Texans challenged the Dallas Cowboys to a loser-leaves-town match, but the owner of the Cowboys, Clint Murchinson, declined, IIRC. As we all know IOTL, the Texans moved to Kansas City and became the Kansas City Chiefs.

WI he'd accepted the offer? At the time, the Texans were the better team than the Cowboys, so, if the Cowboys lose, where do they move?
 
In the 1960s, the then-Dallas Texans challenged the Dallas Cowboys to a loser-leaves-town match, but the owner of the Cowboys, Clint Murchinson, declined, IIRC. As we all know IOTL, the Texans moved to Kansas City and became the Kansas City Chiefs.

WI he'd accepted the offer? At the time, the Texans were the better team than the Cowboys, so, if the Cowboys lose, where do they move?
My Guess is the Dallas Cowboys move when the Dallas Texans stay in the AFL past 1962, It will be Kansas City, MO so we can call the Kansas City Cowboys, but I have a feeling the Dallas Texans could win Super Bowl I over the Green Bay Packers.
 
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.
 
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.
 
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).
 
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?
 
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.
 
Not sure if anyone brought this up but what if Wimbledon fc, instead of moving to Milton Keynes, moves to Dublin like rumoured.
 
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?
 
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.
 
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.
 
Top