(09-19-2013 07:20 PM)correcamino Wrote:  They shouldve gave that fking team to San Antonio during those expansion years. The Jacksonville fanbase sucks. Then again that mightve meant no UTSA football.

When the league announced an expansion franchise for Jacksonville in 1993, the other contenders were Baltimore and St. Louis (the Charlotte franchise had already been announced about a month earlier). San Antonio was not a part of the discussion. The media speculation was that St. Louis was the frontrunner and Baltimore in 2nd place. After the announcement was made, a newspaper in Maryland had the one-word headline:

JACKSONVILLE???

Quote:Then again that mightve meant no UTSA football.

Could be. The NFL announced the New Orleans franchise on November 1, 1966 (All Saints' Day on the Catholic calendar). I know that if Tulane had not been fielding a team that year, we never would've started one after the Saints began play the following year. But on the other hand, you could say that the Saints' franchise wouldn't have been created without the existence of Tulane Stadium, so who knows.

(09-19-2013 09:02 PM)Native Georgian Wrote:  

(09-19-2013 07:20 PM)correcamino Wrote:  They shouldve gave that fking team to San Antonio during those expansion years. The Jacksonville fanbase sucks. Then again that mightve meant no UTSA football.

When the league announced an expansion franchise for Jacksonville in 1993, the other contenders were Baltimore and St. Louis (the Charlotte franchise had already been announced about a month earlier). San Antonio was not a part of the discussion. The media speculation was that St. Louis was the frontrunner and Baltimore in 2nd place. After the announcement was made, a newspaper in Maryland had the one-word headline:

JACKSONVILLE???

Quote:Then again that mightve meant no UTSA football.

Could be. The NFL announced the New Orleans franchise on November 1, 1966 (All Saints' Day on the Catholic calendar). I know that if Tulane had not been fielding a team that year, we never would've started one after the Saints began play the following year. But on the other hand, you could say that the Saints' franchise wouldn't have been created without the existence of Tulane Stadium, so who knows.

Yeah, I never got the Jags as a NFL team over the others as the state of Florida already had the Dolphins and the Buccaneers. Unless the ownership group of the Jags was head and shoulders better organized at the time that others in play for a team. Not sure how the Jags have had such a downturn in winning and finances over the last 5 years. During the Coughlin/Brunell era they were a playoff regular and won some AFC Central titles.

(09-19-2013 09:02 PM)Native Georgian Wrote:  

(09-19-2013 07:20 PM)correcamino Wrote:  They shouldve gave that fking team to San Antonio during those expansion years. The Jacksonville fanbase sucks. Then again that mightve meant no UTSA football.

When the league announced an expansion franchise for Jacksonville in 1993, the other contenders were Baltimore and St. Louis (the Charlotte franchise had already been announced about a month earlier). San Antonio was not a part of the discussion. The media speculation was that St. Louis was the frontrunner and Baltimore in 2nd place. After the announcement was made, a newspaper in Maryland had the one-word headline:

JACKSONVILLE???

Quote:Then again that mightve meant no UTSA football.

Could be. The NFL announced the New Orleans franchise on November 1, 1966 (All Saints' Day on the Catholic calendar). I know that if Tulane had not been fielding a team that year, we never would've started one after the Saints began play the following year. But on the other hand, you could say that the Saints' franchise wouldn't have been created without the existence of Tulane Stadium, so who knows.

Memphis was the third city that didn't get a team in the 1993 NFL expansion.

http://mentalfloss.com/article/29462/11-...missed-cut

Ironically, two of those three cities that didn't get a franchise would have a team move there in a matter of two or three years, and the third city got to host a team for two years while their stadium was built in another town.

Half of them look like logos for Small Colleges

steelers looks like the area of a power point slide where you would add text

(09-19-2013 07:00 PM)blazr Wrote:  

(09-19-2013 06:17 PM)aTxTIGER Wrote:  KC's is pretty cool

This guy had the luxury of knowing these wouldn't be used so he was more creative, but I really like what he did with the Native American mascots. KC and Redskins both look bold and powerful.

Agreed, but the arrowhead motif has been a part of the Chiefs' logo for more than 50 years. I don't think they'll ever let go of that.

(09-19-2013 09:42 PM)49RFootballNow Wrote:  Memphis was the third city that didn't get a team in the 1993 NFL expansion.

http://mentalfloss.com/article/29462/11-...missed-cut

Ironically, two of those three cities that didn't get a franchise would have a team move there in a matter of two or three years, and the third city got to host a team for two years while their stadium was built in another town.

Memphis hosted the Oilers for just one year (1997). It was originally supposed to be for 2 years, but Memphis wasn't feeling it and attendance was just horrible. So the franchise paid Vanderbilt to lease out their stadium for the '98 season, even though it was too small by NFL standards.

I *Think* this is a complete list of the cities have been "deserted" by an NFL franchise since 1982.
Oakland (1982)
Baltimore (1984)
Saint Louis (1988)
Los Angeles (Raiders) (1995)
Anaheim (Rams) (1995)
Cleveland (1996)
Houston (1997)
**Memphis (1998 -- only intended for 1 more year, anyway)

Of those cities, Oakland, Baltimore, St. Louis, Cleveland, and Houston all got back in the game later on. Only Los Angeles has been out of the NFL, for 18 years now. A friend in San Diego (he's not connected to the Chargers in any way, but very attentive and plugged-in as a fan) say he is almost positive that the Chargers will move to Los Angeles in the next few years. We'll see, but if that happens, it would be a return to the original home of that franchise when the AFL was formed in 1960.

Pittsburgh won't ever change. It's actually the AISI logo for Steel.

Saw another thread about NFL redesigned helmets.

Those are almost all terrible.

The vast majority of the animal logos look like the original logo that had either been stung by one thousand bees or been beaten senseless by Elin Woods with a seven iron.

All those redesigned logos suck.

(02-20-2015 05:06 PM)dude_miner Wrote:  All those redesigned logos suck.

The Titans one is cool.