Can you name the US Cities that could support an NFL team? by jaybrad77

Javascript is not currently enabled on your browser.
If you do have Javascript enabled:
This site uses javascript to make the magic happen.
Please turn on javascript and reload this page, or use a more current browser (like Firefox)

US Cities that could support an NFL team Quiz

by jaybrad77

Created Nov 8, 2010 in Sports
Game Plays 305

Friend Scores and Standings

Loading friend results....

Top Games Today in Sports

Top Games with Similar Tags

Top User Games in Sports

	baconstud01:	Nov 8th, 2010 at 16:50 GMT	11 points
	You forgot Dallas. They might have the Cowboys, but anyone who saw that game last night knows they don't have an NFL team.

	midlifecrisis:	Nov 8th, 2010 at 16:58 GMT	1 point
	I always treat Dallas-Fort Worth as one city area. I always forget that the Titans play in Nashville. Ugh.

	phildm:	Nov 8th, 2010 at 17:10 GMT	-1 points
	Milwaukee? El Paso?

	rory mcgregor:	Nov 8th, 2010 at 17:12 GMT	3 points
	rather subjective. Des Moines? no way

	SpaceTourism:	Nov 8th, 2010 at 17:22 GMT	3 points
	This quiz should be retitled "Medium sized cities that don't have an NFL team."

	clay21:	Nov 8th, 2010 at 18:00 GMT	0 points
	Honolulu? No team wants to have to travel 2000 miles to the states every other game and the fans would rather surf. I'd put Louisville before half these since its more populated than them.

	eja82:	Nov 8th, 2010 at 18:42 GMT	1 point
	It should be retitled "Cities fit for an Arena Football League Franchise."

	jaybrad77:	Nov 8th, 2010 at 19:37 GMT	1 point
	Milwaukee is to close to Green Bay for its own team, El Paso is more of a soccer town, Des Moines has a metro population of a half mil, but Iowa itself has a population of 3 mil, so a team could be supported. Though Dallas/Fort Worth is one Metro, Fort Worth city has a population of 727,575 and Tarrant County has a population of 1.7 mil, no differant than LA, or New York having multiple sports teams. And why change the name to, "Medium sized cities that don't have an NFL team." If you look at some cities that have teams, the city itself is some what small, but a larger metro area. For example, Salt Lake City has a population of 183,000 and a metro of 1.1 mil, and they support an NBA team, compared to Omaha, with a city population of 487,000 and a metro of 1 mil, and they do not have a team. And why not Honolulu?

	jaybrad77:	Nov 8th, 2010 at 19:39 GMT	1 point
	AND...there aren't just medium sized cities on here. EX: Los Angeles, San Antonio, Columbus, Austin and Fort Worth

	wgert:	Nov 8th, 2010 at 19:43 GMT	-1 points
	Buffalo?

	jaybrad77:	Nov 8th, 2010 at 19:45 GMT	1 point
	However, I would like to retract the Milwaukee comment. Though, I suppose since San Francisco and Oakland are just across the bay from each other, and both have NFL teams, I guess Milwaukee could support it's own team. BUT, the packers are more of a Wisconsin team, rather than a Green Bay in general team. Which is why I feel Des Moines could support an NFL team, because it would be more of an Iowa team.

	ezman280:	Nov 8th, 2010 at 19:47 GMT	1 point
	Just because a US city is large enough to support an NFL franchise, does not mean that it SHOULD have an NFL team. Your title is misleading, and you should probably change it.

	jaybrad77:	Nov 8th, 2010 at 19:57 GMT	1 point
	@ezman280, you're right, could and should are two different things. And I forgot about Louisville, just added it.

	jml1139:	Nov 8th, 2010 at 21:11 GMT	0 points
	one of the more subjective quizzes ever. portland?

	jaybrad77:	Nov 8th, 2010 at 21:35 GMT	1 point
	Why not Portland, they have the Trail Blazers. The city of Portland is a little smaller than the city of Seattle, and a good size metro area, though not as large as Seattle, Portland city has 582,130; Portland Metro has 2,217,325. Seattle City has 617,334 and a metro population of 3,407,848. Look at Cincinnati, they have the Bengals, yet the city and Metro is smaller than Portland; City of Cincinnati has 333,013 and a metro population of 2,155,137.