Battlehawks to open upper deck!!

[Tank55]

This story shows how much of a mistake it was to place seven of the eight XFL teams in NFL cities. The type of ticket demand in St. Louis could have been league-wide.

You're assuming a) that attendance is the league's priority and b) that demand in St Louis would be just as high in league devoid of Top 15 markets.

By placing teams in 7 NFL cities and STL, the XFL is saying that they believe that STL belongs in that club. I don't think interest would be as high in a league of Omahas and San Antonios.

[StoneSentry]

This story shows how much of a mistake it was to place seven of the eight XFL teams in NFL cities. The type of ticket demand in St. Louis could have been league-wide.

You're assuming a) that attendance is the league's priority and b) that demand in St Louis would be just as high in league devoid of Top 15 markets.

By placing teams in 7 NFL cities and STL, the XFL is saying that they believe that STL belongs in that club. I don't think interest would be as high in a league of Omahas and San Antonios.

Exactly. In fact, placing most of the teams in non-NFL cities (like the AAF) would have been a distinctly bad idea. You can't build a strong foundation on unproven media markets. St. Louis is a success because the city has shown the ability to support a team and people are still upset about the Rams leaving.

I'm not against expanding into other cities like Columbus and San Antonio, but all in good time.

[Regular Joe]

Yeah the sold out of it, some went on resale though. Sad people took a 15 dollar ticket and charging 50 bucks on it. They won't sell as long there is cheeper left which last I saw, they had 36 dollar ones left which where in the middle section of the Dome.

They have now opened up more sections. I don't know if the upper sections were fully opened or just the bottom half of the lower sections. At any rate 35k looks feasible and its over 2 weeks till the game.

It seems like each section that add. The highest row seems to be LL which looks like up to the middle row. I'm guessing that are doing half sections, I guess to keep the fans close. But they still selling fast. The only issue I see is that there is a TON of lower ball tickets on the visitors side.

Old football tradition, all your people sit on your side. Rather have them packed to the roof on your side, then on the visitors side.

[steinerfhc]

This story shows how much of a mistake it was to place seven of the eight XFL teams in NFL cities. The type of ticket demand in St. Louis could have been league-wide.

You're assuming a) that attendance is the league's priority and b) that demand in St Louis would be just as high in league devoid of Top 15 markets.

By placing teams in 7 NFL cities and STL, the XFL is saying that they believe that STL belongs in that club. I don't think interest would be as high in a league of Omahas and San Antonios.

Exactly. In fact, placing most of the teams in non-NFL cities (like the AAF) would have been a distinctly bad idea. You can't build a strong foundation on unproven media markets. St. Louis is a success because the city has shown the ability to support a team and people are still upset about the Rams leaving.

I'm not against expanding into other cities like Columbus and San Antonio, but all in good time.

San Antonio isn't a bad market. Attendance was very high for the AAF team. 30,000 for the last home game played and was very close to the same numbers as St. Louis was in the first two home games. Not sure how the TV ratings by region looked though. The key with non NFL markets that would work, is hitting the known football towns for colleges, when adding teams which I can see the XFL doing when there is more of a know long term plan. I don't see new teams after one season. I could if season two does well and they know they got more beyond season 3 which is the current investment by Vince paid up too. This of course all depends on TV deals and add revenue.

[4th&long]

You're assuming a) that attendance is the league's priority and b) that demand in St Louis would be just as high in league devoid of Top 15 markets.

By placing teams in 7 NFL cities and STL, the XFL is saying that they believe that STL belongs in that club. I don't think interest would be as high in a league of Omahas and San Antonios.

Exactly. In fact, placing most of the teams in non-NFL cities (like the AAF) would have been a distinctly bad idea. You can't build a strong foundation on unproven media markets. St. Louis is a success because the city has shown the ability to support a team and people are still upset about the Rams leaving.

I'm not against expanding into other cities like Columbus and San Antonio, but all in good time.

San Antonio isn't a bad market. Attendance was very high for the AAF team. 30,000 for the last home game played and was very close to the same numbers as St. Louis was in the first two home games. Not sure how the TV ratings by region looked though. The key with non NFL markets that would work, is hitting the known football towns for colleges, when adding teams which I can see the XFL doing when there is more of a know long term plan. I don't see new teams after one season. I could if season two does well and they know they got more beyond season 3 which is the current investment by Vince paid up too. This of course all depends on TV deals and add revenue.

SA is a smaller 2nd tier (or 3 tier) market, that's not meaning its small. But it is a smaller TV than the smallest XFL market - St Louis. In TV market and and metro stat area population size:

St Louis TV #23, MSA #20
SA TV #31, MSA #24

SA definitely is a good tier 2/3 market but XFL isnt going to take many chances - VM is dropping major cash. He wants this to succeed. The Bigger TV markets make that more possible.

AAF was hot-air from the beginning, if Charlie Ebersol wasn't a total BS artist he could have fielded a smaller league 5-6 teams (dropping SLC, Memphis, Birm) and played an 8 game season to test the Nets interest AND NFL's interest in incorporating AAF into the new CBA which btw is 50/50 this year. He over spent, rushed 2/3 markets, under marketed in good markets, etc... If his goal was to prove to Networks and NFL he blew it.

[Sacramento XFL]

Exactly. In fact, placing most of the teams in non-NFL cities (like the AAF) would have been a distinctly bad idea. You can't build a strong foundation on unproven media markets. St. Louis is a success because the city has shown the ability to support a team and people are still upset about the Rams leaving.

I'm not against expanding into other cities like Columbus and San Antonio, but all in good time.

San Antonio isn't a bad market. Attendance was very high for the AAF team. 30,000 for the last home game played and was very close to the same numbers as St. Louis was in the first two home games. Not sure how the TV ratings by region looked though. The key with non NFL markets that would work, is hitting the known football towns for colleges, when adding teams which I can see the XFL doing when there is more of a know long term plan. I don't see new teams after one season. I could if season two does well and they know they got more beyond season 3 which is the current investment by Vince paid up too. This of course all depends on TV deals and add revenue.

SA is a smaller 2nd tier (or 3 tier) market, that's not meaning its small. But it is a smaller TV than the smallest XFL market - St Louis. In TV market and and metro stat area population size:

St Louis TV #23, MSA #20
SA TV #31, MSA #24

SA definitely is a good tier 2/3 market but XFL isnt going to take many chances - VM is dropping major cash. He wants this to succeed. The Bigger TV markets make that more possible.

AAF was hot-air from the beginning, if Charlie Ebersol wasn't a total BS artist he could have fielded a smaller league 5-6 teams (dropping SLC, Memphis, Birm) and played an 8 game season to test the Nets interest AND NFL's interest in incorporating AAF into the new CBA which btw is 50/50 this year. He over spent, rushed 2/3 markets, under marketed in good markets, etc... If his goal was to prove to Networks and NFL he blew it.

I would add just 2 teams a year. And...one of those teams should be a big TV market (Chicago, Philly, SF Bay) playing in the smaller MLS stadiums. And the other team can be Orlando, San Antonio, or San Diego. These 3 cities don't have NFL and are in warm weather cities. Also, all 3 provide a rivalry game. Then, for TV ratings, you show "Chicago AT St. Louis" or "Dallas AT San Antonio." Again, MLS has done this. They put a ton of teams in the biggest markets first (2 in NY, 2 in LA, a bunch in the North East) But the best supported clubs are Atlanta, Seattle, Portland, Orlando, and now Nashville. The showcase MLS games are always New York AT Orlando or Portland AT Seattle. The worst attendance for MLS are all in the largest populated cities...but you need the TV viewership.

[GDAWG]

San Antonio isn't a bad market. Attendance was very high for the AAF team. 30,000 for the last home game played and was very close to the same numbers as St. Louis was in the first two home games. Not sure how the TV ratings by region looked though. The key with non NFL markets that would work, is hitting the known football towns for colleges, when adding teams which I can see the XFL doing when there is more of a know long term plan. I don't see new teams after one season. I could if season two does well and they know they got more beyond season 3 which is the current investment by Vince paid up too. This of course all depends on TV deals and add revenue.

SA is a smaller 2nd tier (or 3 tier) market, that's not meaning its small. But it is a smaller TV than the smallest XFL market - St Louis. In TV market and and metro stat area population size:

St Louis TV #23, MSA #20
SA TV #31, MSA #24

SA definitely is a good tier 2/3 market but XFL isnt going to take many chances - VM is dropping major cash. He wants this to succeed. The Bigger TV markets make that more possible.

AAF was hot-air from the beginning, if Charlie Ebersol wasn't a total BS artist he could have fielded a smaller league 5-6 teams (dropping SLC, Memphis, Birm) and played an 8 game season to test the Nets interest AND NFL's interest in incorporating AAF into the new CBA which btw is 50/50 this year. He over spent, rushed 2/3 markets, under marketed in good markets, etc... If his goal was to prove to Networks and NFL he blew it.

I would add just 2 teams a year. And...one of those teams should be a big TV market (Chicago, Philly, SF Bay) playing in the smaller MLS stadiums. And the other team can be Orlando, San Antonio, or San Diego. These 3 cities don't have NFL and are in warm weather cities. Also, all 3 provide a rivalry game. Then, for TV ratings, you show "Chicago AT St. Louis" or "Dallas AT San Antonio." Again, MLS has done this. They put a ton of teams in the biggest markets first (2 in NY, 2 in LA, a bunch in the North East) But the best supported clubs are Atlanta, Seattle, Portland, Orlando, and now Nashville. The showcase MLS games are always New York AT Orlando or Portland AT Seattle. The worst attendance for MLS are all in the largest populated cities...but you need the TV viewership.

Sigh....Stop mentioning Chicago for future expansion! Chicago has never worked for alternative football, so what makes you think this would be different?

[Sacramento XFL]

SA is a smaller 2nd tier (or 3 tier) market, that's not meaning its small. But it is a smaller TV than the smallest XFL market - St Louis. In TV market and and metro stat area population size:

St Louis TV #23, MSA #20
SA TV #31, MSA #24

SA definitely is a good tier 2/3 market but XFL isnt going to take many chances - VM is dropping major cash. He wants this to succeed. The Bigger TV markets make that more possible.

AAF was hot-air from the beginning, if Charlie Ebersol wasn't a total BS artist he could have fielded a smaller league 5-6 teams (dropping SLC, Memphis, Birm) and played an 8 game season to test the Nets interest AND NFL's interest in incorporating AAF into the new CBA which btw is 50/50 this year. He over spent, rushed 2/3 markets, under marketed in good markets, etc... If his goal was to prove to Networks and NFL he blew it.

I would add just 2 teams a year. And...one of those teams should be a big TV market (Chicago, Philly, SF Bay) playing in the smaller MLS stadiums. And the other team can be Orlando, San Antonio, or San Diego. These 3 cities don't have NFL and are in warm weather cities. Also, all 3 provide a rivalry game. Then, for TV ratings, you show "Chicago AT St. Louis" or "Dallas AT San Antonio." Again, MLS has done this. They put a ton of teams in the biggest markets first (2 in NY, 2 in LA, a bunch in the North East) But the best supported clubs are Atlanta, Seattle, Portland, Orlando, and now Nashville. The showcase MLS games are always New York AT Orlando or Portland AT Seattle. The worst attendance for MLS are all in the largest populated cities...but you need the TV viewership.

Sigh....Stop mentioning Chicago for future expansion! Chicago has never worked for alternative football, so what makes you think this would be different?

You don't think Chicago AT St. Louis would be a highly rated game on ABC or FOX? Or would Memphis or Birmingham AT St. Louis be better?

[GDAWG]

There is zero evidence that Chicago can support an XFL team, so stop it with Chicago. The WFL, USFL and XFL 1.0 all failed in Chicago. This would be no different. They need to prove they can support alternative football, and so far they have not. My suggestion has been for the XFL to host a few neutral site games in Chicago, just to test the market to see if it works.

[Vipers6]

There is zero evidence that Chicago can support an XFL team, so stop it with Chicago. The WFL, USFL and XFL 1.0 all failed in Chicago. This would be no different. They need to prove they can support alternative football, and so far they have not. My suggestion has been for the XFL to host a few neutral site games in Chicago, just to test the market to see if it works.

I agree 100 percent.