What if football covered by baseball-type exemption stopping teams from moving?

[DTF955]

Hi, someone on www.baseball-fever.com said this site was good, so I thought I'd check it out.

I had a question maybe someone could answer - what would the sport look like with a baseball-type exemption forcing the league to approve any moves. What moves of franchises would have been made? Who would hve sold? Who would have been approved? What would Al Davis do?

My question results from a project I've begun on baseball integrating and remaining so fromt he start. A later Federal league collapse leads to 2 franchises moving into the N.L., one being the Baltimore one that sued and lost, the court case that gave baseball its antitrust exemption. Because of this, problems in the middle '50s lead them to seek a bill in Congress that would give them an exemption, thus allowing the league to decide who can play where. Congress grants it, but it aplpies to all sprots.

So, in the '60s and '70s there's really no problems, but when Al Davis sues (I'm going on a theory that people would be born unless it's absolutely impossible they wouldn't - people want to know about players and owners they know) what would happen? I'm presuming the courts find the law constitutional, the baseball one has been solidly upheld. What would Davis do then if he couldn't move? Did he possibly have a prayer of league aproval?Not from what I've read, anyway.

Bob Irsay would face a major battle - what would he do? Would Indy get an expansion team? Or the Browns in '95? What clubs could possibly gain the right to move? And, hwo about the Cardinals?

How would the Colts do remaining in baltimore?Would they be accustomed enough to outdoor weather to beat the Patriots one year/

Tell me your thoughts, please.

[efin98]

Bob Irsay would face a major battle - what would he do? Would Indy get an expansion team? Or the Browns in '95? What clubs could possibly gain the right to move?

Cleveland would have moved but their place would have been taken up by an expansion team very quickly, possiby the Panthers' spot. The new team would probably go to Indy to fill in for the recently departed Browns.

Cleveland would get a new team later on with expansion to Nashville and back into Cleveland.

And, hwo about the Cardinals?

They stay in St. Louis and get a new stadium to play in eventually, even if that meant a decade more of futility for them.

How would the Colts do remaining in baltimore?Would they be accustomed enough to outdoor weather to beat the Patriots one year/

21-45 vs. New England since shifting to the AFC for them...even with them being in Baltimore they still would have had troubles against New England. Maybe they would have an even record overall against New England and would have won at least one of the key games against New England recently.

My timeline for moves:

1983 the Colts are sold to a new owner and stay in Baltimore. Deal to move to new stadium in Indy quashed until 1995.
1988 the Cardinals are sold to a new onwer and stay in St. Louis. Deal to move to Phoenix area quashed until 1995.
1996 the Browns are relocated to the Carolinas. Expansion to Phoenix and Indianapolis to appease those cities.
1997 Oilers sold to a new owner and stay in Houston. Deal to move to Tennessee quashed until 2000.
2000 expansion to Nashville, Jacksonville, and back into Cleveland.

[DTF955]

Thanks.

i wonder if Al Davis might have tried to jump to the USFL - there was a team in Oakland in OTL, but that was because it had beent he Raiders' market. Would Al Davis have solds his club and bought into the USFL, then tried to lure some of his players out of loyalty to him? That could have an itneresting impact on the 1983 season.

[soberdennis]

Cleveland would have moved but their place would have been taken up by an expansion team very quickly, possiby the Panthers' spot. The new team would probably go to Indy to fill in for the recently departed Browns.

Cleveland would get a new team later on with expansion to Nashville and back into Cleveland.



They stay in St. Louis and get a new stadium to play in eventually, even if that meant a decade more of futility for them.



21-45 vs. New England since shifting to the AFC for them...even with them being in Baltimore they still would have had troubles against New England. Maybe they would have an even record overall against New England and would have won at least one of the key games against New England recently.

My timeline for moves:

1983 the Colts are sold to a new owner and stay in Baltimore. Deal to move to new stadium in Indy quashed until 1995.
1988 the Cardinals are sold to a new onwer and stay in St. Louis. Deal to move to Phoenix area quashed until 1995.
1996 the Browns are relocated to the Carolinas. Expansion to Phoenix and Indianapolis to appease those cities.
1997 Oilers sold to a new owner and stay in Houston. Deal to move to Tennessee quashed until 2000.
2000 expansion to Nashville, Jacksonville, and back into Cleveland.
It sounds like the bottom line would be we have the same cities with teams.

[efin98]

It sounds like the bottom line would be we have the same cities with teams.

Exactly my point. The league was due for expansion, all of the cities that got teams would have gotten them at some point. The only question was when they would get them.

Phoenix, Indy, the Carolinas, Jacksonville, Nashville are too large to ignore for much longer and coupled with the expansion of the NHL, NBA, and MLB the league would have no choice but to expand to keep up with those other sports.

[DTF955]

Would Al Davis have tried to buy into a USFL team, do you think, and sold the Raiders when he couldn't get what he wanted in Oakland? He was quite a maverick and even testified against the NFL in the USFL's lawsuit, IIRC.

Could he have helepd hold the league together in such a scenario? Or was it too hard for the USFL to survive? (Actually, in a way, I can see him making the same mistake, trying for the fall - though he might try with a smaller league in cities with no NFL teams and do okay.)