Markcast: Mike M thinks 2 new teams in 2025

[4th&long]

https://www.youtube.com/shorts/9rVlFEOsbgg

Canton?  Ohio? 

Where else...

[GDAWG]

I am not against expansion, but my issue is that the UFL may be using new brands.  My preference is to use as many of the inactive brands as possible for expansion (not necessarily in the cities that they were named).  

[Coffeeeyes]

Agree on revival of dead teams.

Focus on expansion should be Canton, most definitely. Ohio Bulldogs will not interfere with any current trademark and honestly sounds better and more universal than Canton Bulldogs. 

For a second team, I do not believe Nashville is a good move. Aim for large population centers with large TV markets, maybe ones with proven fanbases. New Jersey, Philly, Seattle are my choices for returning franchises from XFL-USFL. For brand new franchises I think you have to target areas that recently lost NFL franchises like San Diego and Oakland. They're also both big TV markets with stadiums available.

[GregParks]

I'm just trying to figure out how an organization so desperate to save money that they have a centralized hub, seasonal coaching employees and EIGHT game day inactives out of just 50 rostered players so they can pay as many as possible the lowered inactive salaries (not to mention all the other cost-saving measures) that they're going to be in a financial situation where they can foot the bill for two more teams in a second year. 

The normal argument would be, more teams means more games means their television property is more valuable and they can get more $$ for rights fees but with Fox and now apparently Disney having an ownership stake in the league, playing for big rights fees doesn't seem to be in the cards. I get that they want to sell franchises to make $$ and more franchises gives them more opportunity to do that, but I wouldn't expand before I could sell the franchises I have. Especially the ones like St. Louis and D.C. that have proven successful at the box office. 

[XFL4ever]

Greg agreed 100%.

[johnnyangryfuzzball]

I'm just trying to figure out how an organization so desperate to save money that they have a centralized hub, seasonal coaching employees and EIGHT game day inactives out of just 50 rostered players so they can pay as many as possible the lowered inactive salaries (not to mention all the other cost-saving measures) that they're going to be in a financial situation where they can foot the bill for two more teams in a second year. 

The normal argument would be, more teams means more games means their television property is more valuable and they can get more $$ for rights fees but with Fox and now apparently Disney having an ownership stake in the league, playing for big rights fees doesn't seem to be in the cards. I get that they want to sell franchises to make $$ and more franchises gives them more opportunity to do that, but I wouldn't expand before I could sell the franchises I have. Especially the ones like St. Louis and D.C. that have proven successful at the box office. 

Can they make more money? That's the rub. Could a bigger league give more options to national viewers, give them a vested interest and drive up ratings and ad money?

Ohio's a perfect example. The nearest team is in Michigan, but there's no way in Hades an Ohio fan is going to root for a Michigan team based on geography alone.

Obviously a huge expansion probably isn't a great idea (so no, we won't be back to 16 by '25) but there is still room for a couple more teams yet. Ohio naturally fits; though my heart says PA to help nurture those rivalries, you'd think from a business standpoint, Florida would be the next stop to try.

[laxtreme56]

I'm in agreement with Greg here too. I can't see them expanding so soon, and don't think Seattle should be looked at for another decade or so. You can take a team away from the same market twice in 4 years and expect them to give a damn anymore. Stay clear of Orlando and Vegas as well. Don't think we'll see NJ anytime soon but would welcome a team in Philly and Columbus. 

The goal for year 2 should be all teams in their same market to show stability. Season 3 should focus on small, but significant growth in attendance and ratings league wide. Then by season 4 expansion to ten teams may prove prudent.

Here's a quote from The Rock last week. Expansion doesn't exactly seem imminent with this type of (non)answer.

“I think that's all a possibility. I think as we stood this new iteration of this league up, the merging of XFL and USFL, the idea was what were the cities that we can stand up and create the brand in and also be open to how and where and when we can expand the league into other cities as well, because as we all know, just as fans of football, there are a lot of cities out there who would not only love to have a UFL team, but fully embrace a UFL team. We'll continue to look at that and see where we can open up and expand. It's exciting.”
​​​​

[BattleHawks]

Far more likely that they drop two teams, especially those low in attendance, tv ratings, and social media engagement.

Bye bye Memphis.

[laxtreme56]

If teams are dropped then the league is dead. Giving up after one year is going to just give fuel for the skeptics and even the diehards will stop caring. Between Red Bird, Fox, and Disney they have enough money to make this run as long as they want. Every team needs at least 3 years in its market, preferably 5, before making any rash decisions.

Over a decade ago I worked for Sky Blue FC women's soccer team. They averaged under 2k a game. A few weeks ago they opened up to a crowd of 15k, more or less what the Red Bulls play in front of regularly. The investment can pay off, but it's not going to happen overnight 

[BattleHawks]

Good points, although this actually is year three for most of these teams.

Schedule wise, it would still be easy to play 10 games 5 home 5 away.