What to expect from the USFL in 2024 (Hub wise)

[CFLfan_inPhilly]

Realistically, a merger would probably just be a 10 or 12 team league that combines the existing ownerships/networks.

The most radical (yet not far-fetched) outcome could be all XFL properties get flipped by The Rock and sold outright to FOX, so the end result is just a bigger USFL.

[Sykotyk]

When you compare the XFL and USFL in terms of teams, there's a big disparity between the two.

Look at what the USFL is from a logistical standpoint. They're three teams playing in their cities and having local fans attend. A fourth team plays at a pre-determined host site, but it's very hard to call it a home stadium. And four teams with city names that represent them but don't play there.

Two of those three cities are spring league 'default' cities of Memphis and Birmingham. XFL 2.0 & 3.0 are, weirdly, the first spring league not to have either city in them. WFL, USFL 1.0, CFL, XFL 1.0, AAF, USFL 2.0, etc.

Detroit is a good market, but that's about all XFL would be interested in. Canton, certainly not. The other four teams are just IP rights. There's not quite a bit useful in a merger while the XFL has 7 decent markets/teams, and one dud. 2 if you want to count Orlando being such an issue.

The thing USFL excels at is that they just put a better show on TV since they're so much more TV-centric. Without teams in cities, the USFL doesn't have much bargaining power in a merger.

In that case, it's really up to what the XFL wants. Do they want to keep going, or cut bait, sell what they can, and leave. Let the USFL take over. If that's the case, the USFL probably has more positioning to argue. But if the XFL keeps on going on their own, it's their call whether they'd even want USFL markets/teams.

A true merger probably wouldn't/couldn't happen until USFL gets a few more home teams.

Right now, the best possible idea would be 10-12 team merger. XFL's 7 main teams, plus USFL's three home teams. If twelve, add Las Vegas and Canton. The one bargaining chip the USFL does have is that Fox/NBC would want games on TV. Regardless of teams playing, they'd want their share to have something to air.

[4th&long]

Back on IP (merger is a mega topic to itself and will get its share of posts for sure)...

Still think Philly/NJ gets at least a partial hub in Philly and / or N-NJ. Either direction they go, the sooner we hear the better.
I'd like to see Houston too but the heat/rain may make that problematic. NOLA least needed, least benefit.

[GDAWG]

Back on IP (merger is a mega topic to itself and will get its share of posts for sure)...

Still think Philly/NJ gets at least a partial hub in Philly and / or N-NJ. Either direction they go, the sooner we hear the better.
I'd like to see Houston too but the heat/rain may make that problematic. NOLA least needed, least benefit.

I can't see the USFL going to Houston because of the Roughnecks. The Gamblers will probably be in a hub again.

[4th&long]

Back on IP (merger is a mega topic to itself and will get its share of posts for sure)...

Still think Philly/NJ gets at least a partial hub in Philly and / or N-NJ. Either direction they go, the sooner we hear the better.
I'd like to see Houston too but the heat/rain may make that problematic. NOLA least needed, least benefit.

I can't see the USFL going to Houston because of the Roughnecks. The Gamblers will probably be in a hub again.

I don't see the Roughnecks as the stumbling block, in fact they have a ready made stadium proven for FB.

[GDAWG]

Back on IP (merger is a mega topic to itself and will get its share of posts for sure)...

Still think Philly/NJ gets at least a partial hub in Philly and / or N-NJ. Either direction they go, the sooner we hear the better.
I'd like to see Houston too but the heat/rain may make that problematic. NOLA least needed, least benefit.

I can't see the USFL going to Houston because of the Roughnecks. The Gamblers will probably be in a hub again.

I don't see the Roughnecks as the stumbling block, in fact they have a ready made stadium proven for FB.

I have serious doubts about Houston being able to host two spring football teams.

[Sykotyk]

I can't see the USFL going to Houston because of the Roughnecks. The Gamblers will probably be in a hub again.

I don't see the Roughnecks as the stumbling block, in fact they have a ready made stadium proven for FB.

I have serious doubts about Houston being able to host two spring football teams.

I actually don't see the issue. There's enough stadiums, etc.

But my question is: why would you? There's so many other markets out there. I know they want the texas "Football Mad" markets... but there's a lot of options. The big issue is if there's enough fans in the 'non-NFL pro football market' for tickets, etc, they might not have enough to support both financially.

There's other markets available. Even if they stick with USFL city/nicknames. Why force a team into a market that would have overlap. AND an NFL team, also.

LA, Arizona, Denver, Oakland, going back to Tampa, etc. Markets without competition.

Hell, Oakland might be the best option, setup a St. Louis like situation where fans will 'hate-spend' money on a new Oakland Invaders just to thumb their nose at the NFL and MLB.

There's no reason to risk it even if it's potentially profitable (for USFL or both USFL/XFL). Just don't. Spread the teams around. Find the markets that want it. If they want to stray from the USFL 80s brand, go with Austin or, hell, Waco, and label the team "Texas".

[GDAWG]

I don't see the Roughnecks as the stumbling block, in fact they have a ready made stadium proven for FB.

I have serious doubts about Houston being able to host two spring football teams.

I actually don't see the issue. There's enough stadiums, etc.

But my question is: why would you? There's so many other markets out there. I know they want the texas "Football Mad" markets... but there's a lot of options. The big issue is if there's enough fans in the 'non-NFL pro football market' for tickets, etc, they might not have enough to support both financially.

There's other markets available. Even if they stick with USFL city/nicknames. Why force a team into a market that would have overlap. AND an NFL team, also.

LA, Arizona, Denver, Oakland, going back to Tampa, etc. Markets without competition.

Hell, Oakland might be the best option, setup a St. Louis like situation where fans will 'hate-spend' money on a new Oakland Invaders just to thumb their nose at the NFL and MLB.

There's no reason to risk it even if it's potentially profitable (for USFL or both USFL/XFL). Just don't. Spread the teams around. Find the markets that want it. If they want to stray from the USFL 80s brand, go with Austin or, hell, Waco, and label the team "Texas".

Any Oakland team would have to play at California Memorial Stadium in Berkeley, which is only 12 minutes from Oakland. However, the last time California Memorial Stadium hosted pro football, it didn't work out all that well, despite it being 50 years ago:

The NFL's Oakland Raiders played their second game of the 1973 regular season at Memorial Stadium. The game against the defending Super Bowl champion Miami Dolphins was moved from the Raiders' regular home, the Oakland Coliseum, because of a scheduling conflict with the Oakland Athletics, who hosted the Minnesota Twins at the Coliseum the following night. The Raiders ended the Dolphins' NFL record 18-game winning streak with a 12–7 victory on four field goals by 45-year-old George Blanda on September 23. Several preseason games were also played at the stadium in the early 1970s.

Ultimately, in response to traffic and parking issues associated with these games (while Cal games drew a large number of students who live on or near campus and walk to the games, Raider games attracted fans from a larger geographic area who were used to tailgating at the Coliseum and were more likely to drive to games), the City of Berkeley passed a Professional Sports Events License Tax in which the city collected 10% of all gate receipts, making the staging of professional games inside the city cost-prohibitive. The Raiders were granted an injunction from the city collecting the tax, arguing that the tax was a regulatory measure rather than a revenue measure, and was therefore an improper regulation on land held in trust by the Regents of the University of California. However, the grant of the injunction was reversed by the California Court of Appeals, who found it to be a revenue measure, despite the fact that the city had made the measure immediately effective "due to danger to the public peace, health, and safety of the City of Berkeley as a result of the holding of professional sports events there."

Source is here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Californi ... al_Stadium

[4th&long]

I don't see the Roughnecks as the stumbling block, in fact they have a ready made stadium proven for FB.

I have serious doubts about Houston being able to host two spring football teams.

I actually don't see the issue. There's enough stadiums, etc.

But my question is: why would you? There's so many other markets out there. I know they want the texas "Football Mad" markets... but there's a lot of options. The big issue is if there's enough fans in the 'non-NFL pro football market' for tickets, etc, they might not have enough to support both financially.

There's other markets available. Even if they stick with USFL city/nicknames. Why force a team into a market that would have overlap. AND an NFL team, also.

LA, Arizona, Denver, Oakland, going back to Tampa, etc. Markets without competition.

Hell, Oakland might be the best option, setup a St. Louis like situation where fans will 'hate-spend' money on a new Oakland Invaders just to thumb their nose at the NFL and MLB.

There's no reason to risk it even if it's potentially profitable (for USFL or both USFL/XFL). Just don't. Spread the teams around. Find the markets that want it. If they want to stray from the USFL 80s brand, go with Austin or, hell, Waco, and label the team "Texas".

Why Houston? Because they are a top 10 media market. They are 4x the size of NOLA and slight more 4x and slightly less 4x than Memphis or Birmingham.
Its not about fans in stands... its about viewership.

Its also closer to the other cities than TB. But TB is roughly 3x the size of (Memphis/NOLA/Birm) so its a good option.
Dropping TB for Memphis resulted in a 7+% drop in marketshare. And viewership week2-championship dropped 6%- from 2022 to 2023. Lots of other factors involved but not so surprisingly the numbers project like the actuals came in.

The USFL week 2-Championship viewership 2023=615k and 2022=653k

USFL can't just go anywhere - they need to be in Big Markets. Of course there are other factors (domes for weather, proximity for travel costs, avail stadiums, expense by city, etc...).

And yes - market size impacts teams values too.

[4th&long]

https://www.theusfl.com/2024-usfl-seaso ... t-deposits

Hopefully still working on the dates and rates but right now Detroit not listed as host city in 2024...