XFL Expansion Poll: Fan Choice – Results

XFL Football discussion.
MarkNelson
XFLBoard Correspondent
Posts: 548
Joined: Sun Jan 28, 2018 11:09 pm

XFL Expansion Poll: Fan Choice – Results

Post by MarkNelson » Sun Oct 25, 2020 11:05 pm

Over 12,000 responses were received to the question, “When the league is ready to expand, where do you think it should go?”

https://xflboard.com/news/xfl-expansion ... e-results/

Top 10
1. San Antonio, Texas (1241 votes)
2. San Diego, California (1063 votes)
3. Birmingham, Alabama (774 votes)
4. Oakland, California (484 votes)
5. Chicago, Illinois (459 votes)
6. Portland, Oregon (442 votes)
7. Orlando, Florida (434 votes)
8. Columbus, Ohio (349 votes)
9. Philadelphia, Pennsylvania (340 votes)
10. Omaha, Nebraska (272 votes)

GregParks
XFLBoard Correspondent
Posts: 479
Joined: Tue May 28, 2019 8:09 pm

Re: XFL Expansion Poll: Fan Choice – Results

Post by GregParks » Mon Oct 26, 2020 10:12 am

I can't say I'm surprised at numbers 1-3.

Columbus and Omaha are interesting because they're such strong college towns, but I wonder if that would also be a reason the XFL (or any other league) may want to stay away.
@gregmparks

User avatar
Tank55
Head Coach
Posts: 1094
Joined: Tue Mar 05, 2019 3:57 pm

Re: XFL Expansion Poll: Fan Choice – Results

Post by Tank55 » Mon Oct 26, 2020 12:01 pm

Wow, I'm stunned you got so many response. We can't get some of these cats on the message board? Don't they want to hear us bicker about the Spring League?

I think much like NFL cities, the XFL shouldn't shy away from big time college towns. The idea is to find people who just can't get enough football and sell them even more. It's a complementary product.

I think the big issue with Columbus is the weather. The issues with Omaha are the weather, the stadium, and the market. So basically everything.
2020 East Division Champions

MarkNelson
XFLBoard Correspondent
Posts: 548
Joined: Sun Jan 28, 2018 11:09 pm

Re: XFL Expansion Poll: Fan Choice – Results

Post by MarkNelson » Mon Oct 26, 2020 12:16 pm

Tank55 wrote:
Mon Oct 26, 2020 12:01 pm
Wow, I'm stunned you got so many response. We can't get some of these cats on the message board? Don't they want to hear us bicker about the Spring League?
The uptake of the poll was impressive. The hits on that form were constant when it first opened. There was sharing of the poll in several places, it performed well on Google search, and people seem to be excited about getting a football team in their city.

The survey was anonymous. No registration is required. As for the message board, it seems to require a commitment that most are afraid of. The lurkers in this board outnumber the registered users by a large degree. Right now there is one registered user (me) viewing the board, and nine guests.

GDAWG
Coach
Posts: 976
Joined: Wed Feb 20, 2019 6:15 pm

Re: XFL Expansion Poll: Fan Choice – Results

Post by GDAWG » Fri Nov 20, 2020 2:01 am

MarkNelson wrote:
Sun Oct 25, 2020 11:05 pm
Over 12,000 responses were received to the question, “When the league is ready to expand, where do you think it should go?”

https://xflboard.com/news/xfl-expansion ... e-results/

Top 10
1. San Antonio, Texas (1241 votes)
2. San Diego, California (1063 votes)
3. Birmingham, Alabama (774 votes)
4. Oakland, California (484 votes)
5. Chicago, Illinois (459 votes)
6. Portland, Oregon (442 votes)
7. Orlando, Florida (434 votes)
8. Columbus, Ohio (349 votes)
9. Philadelphia, Pennsylvania (340 votes)
10. Omaha, Nebraska (272 votes)
Hate to bring this back up, but some of the markets have issues:

Oakland- The A's have zero interest in sharing the Coliseum with another football team again. Plus if they take 100% control of the stadium and the land surrounding it, they will tear that stadium down for residential and commercial property, only keeping the Warriors old place (with the backup plan being a brand new baseball stadium for them on that very spot). Berkeley is only 15 minutes away from Oakland but the University of California may not want to have pro football played at California Memorial Stadium after a bad experience following a Raiders pre-season game in the 70's. If the XFL wants a team in the Bay Area, it will either be called San Jose or San Francisco as they would be playing in Santa Clara, which is 15 minutes away from San Jose. but 45 minutes from Oakland.

Chicago- Alternative leagues have failed in the Windy City before, so why would the XFL 3.0 be different? There's no proof that an alternative league pro football team can work in Chicago.

Portland- While it would be a good natural rival for Seattle, the venue might be an issue. Providence Park does fit 25,000 but the owner of the Portland Timbers, Merritt Paulson doesn't want football to be played there. In fact, Portland State had to move it's football team from Providence Park to suburban Hillsboro Stadium (which seats 7,600).

MarkNelson
XFLBoard Correspondent
Posts: 548
Joined: Sun Jan 28, 2018 11:09 pm

Re: XFL Expansion Poll: Fan Choice – Results

Post by MarkNelson » Fri Nov 20, 2020 4:24 am

Good point about Oakland. I think XFL football in the San Jose area would appease the Bay area’s desire for XFL brand ball, but it would not answer the poll’s large response to appease hurting Oakland fans.

True that it will always be the availability of an appropriate venue that decides in these decisions.

MGB01
Coach
Posts: 774
Joined: Wed Aug 14, 2019 8:42 pm

Re: XFL Expansion Poll: Fan Choice – Results

Post by MGB01 » Fri Nov 20, 2020 10:11 am

Anything involving San Diego would likely have to wait, as SDCCU Stadium is going down early next year and the new stadium will be owned by SDSU (who's playing this year and next at DHSP).

Padres might not be so eager to have a reconfiguration of Petco (they jointly own it with the city). Playing at USD is an obvious no-go--although having gone to a few games when I lived down there it's a nice campus.

User avatar
johnnyangryfuzzball
Coach
Posts: 826
Joined: Sat Apr 27, 2019 8:22 pm

Re: XFL Expansion Poll: Fan Choice – Results

Post by johnnyangryfuzzball » Fri Nov 20, 2020 12:15 pm

GDAWG wrote:
Fri Nov 20, 2020 2:01 am
Hate to bring this back up, but some of the markets have issues:

Oakland- The A's have zero interest in sharing the Coliseum with another football team again. Plus if they take 100% control of the stadium and the land surrounding it, they will tear that stadium down for residential and commercial property, only keeping the Warriors old place (with the backup plan being a brand new baseball stadium for them on that very spot). Berkeley is only 15 minutes away from Oakland but the University of California may not want to have pro football played at California Memorial Stadium after a bad experience following a Raiders pre-season game in the 70's. If the XFL wants a team in the Bay Area, it will either be called San Jose or San Francisco as they would be playing in Santa Clara, which is 15 minutes away from San Jose. but 45 minutes from Oakland.

Chicago- Alternative leagues have failed in the Windy City before, so why would the XFL 3.0 be different? There's no proof that an alternative league pro football team can work in Chicago.

Portland- While it would be a good natural rival for Seattle, the venue might be an issue. Providence Park does fit 25,000 but the owner of the Portland Timbers, Merritt Paulson doesn't want football to be played there. In fact, Portland State had to move it's football team from Providence Park to suburban Hillsboro Stadium (which seats 7,600).
The problem is that the A's don't control that venue, the city of Oakland and Alameda County do, and they were eager to let the Invaders play there in the 1980s.

A smaller-scale pro league like the XFL wouldn't pose the same kind of issues that the NFL would. Mount Davis could come down immediately.

Could San Francisco work? Probably, but your best bet would likely be Kezar, which would need major upgrades, unless you could manage to swing a deal for Oracle Park.

I'm of the opinion that Santa Clara and San Jose are non-starters. The 49ers have had major attendance issues there and the competition from the NHL and MLS would be difficult to go against, given the lukewarm support there has been for the 49ers there.

GDAWG
Coach
Posts: 976
Joined: Wed Feb 20, 2019 6:15 pm

Re: XFL Expansion Poll: Fan Choice – Results

Post by GDAWG » Fri Nov 20, 2020 12:21 pm

johnnyangryfuzzball wrote:
Fri Nov 20, 2020 12:15 pm
GDAWG wrote:
Fri Nov 20, 2020 2:01 am
Hate to bring this back up, but some of the markets have issues:

Oakland- The A's have zero interest in sharing the Coliseum with another football team again. Plus if they take 100% control of the stadium and the land surrounding it, they will tear that stadium down for residential and commercial property, only keeping the Warriors old place (with the backup plan being a brand new baseball stadium for them on that very spot). Berkeley is only 15 minutes away from Oakland but the University of California may not want to have pro football played at California Memorial Stadium after a bad experience following a Raiders pre-season game in the 70's. If the XFL wants a team in the Bay Area, it will either be called San Jose or San Francisco as they would be playing in Santa Clara, which is 15 minutes away from San Jose. but 45 minutes from Oakland.

Chicago- Alternative leagues have failed in the Windy City before, so why would the XFL 3.0 be different? There's no proof that an alternative league pro football team can work in Chicago.

Portland- While it would be a good natural rival for Seattle, the venue might be an issue. Providence Park does fit 25,000 but the owner of the Portland Timbers, Merritt Paulson doesn't want football to be played there. In fact, Portland State had to move it's football team from Providence Park to suburban Hillsboro Stadium (which seats 7,600).
The problem is that the A's don't control that venue, the city of Oakland and Alameda County do, and they were eager to let the Invaders play there in the 1980s.

A smaller-scale pro league like the XFL wouldn't pose the same kind of issues that the NFL would. Mount Davis could come down immediately.

Could San Francisco work? Probably, but your best bet would likely be Kezar, which would need major upgrades, unless you could manage to swing a deal for Oracle Park.

I'm of the opinion that Santa Clara and San Jose are non-starters. The 49ers have had major attendance issues there and the competition from the NHL and MLS would be difficult to go against, given the lukewarm support there has been for the 49ers there.
The A's will own the County's part of the stadium land, so there would be no XFL team in Oakland once that is finalized.

User avatar
Tank55
Head Coach
Posts: 1094
Joined: Tue Mar 05, 2019 3:57 pm

Re: XFL Expansion Poll: Fan Choice – Results

Post by Tank55 » Fri Nov 20, 2020 1:28 pm

Maybe. Or maybe a cash-poor organization would be open to collecting rent.

Who did everyone here vote for? I believe I voted for Bay Area, Toronto, and Austin. Elevator pitch:

Bay Area
Pros: 12th largest US market by population, mild enough February weather, fills geographic hole, legacy of success with the Demons.
Cons: California labor laws, cost of operation, imperfect stadium options.

Toronto
Pros: Would rank 10th in US market size by population, fills geographic hole, opens Canadian TV market, dome stadium theoretically available
Cons: Blue Jays already kicked the Argos out of the Rogers Centre, administrative and logistical burden of operating internationally, market already not engaged with Argos.

Austin
Pros: Perfect stadium situation, mild enough February weather, lack of competition within city, strong football culture, I live there (most important)
Cons: Medium sized metro area, already have two XFL teams within driving distance

These are old arguments, but at least they are fun.
2020 East Division Champions

Post Reply