Professional Football Researchers Association Forum

The American Football League never did have a Chicago franchise, though it's likely that they would have had there been no merger. Apparently, in 1965, Chicago White Sox owner Arthur Allyn, who also had control over Comiskey Park, wanted to buy the San Diego Chargers from Barron Hilton for $6.5 million. Hilton was ready to sell the team (and he did in 1966), but San Diego voters approved a bond issue in November to finance the construction of what is now Qualcomm Stadium. My understanding is that, in early '65, the AFL owners' preference for expansion teams was Chicago, followed by Atlanta.

Supposing that there had been no merger, and that the AFL had maintained its independence after the Al Davis led campaign of signing of NFL stars, how many teams does anyone think they might have ended up with, and where would they be today?

Thanks for asking this question! I have wondered the same.

Realistically there are only two possibilities merger or die. Looking back at all the major sports leagues they are the only options. Granted you get quasi-mergers AAFC & NFL, ABA & NBA, WHA & NFL were some teams are absorbed by the dominant league. So I think the merger between the AFL & NFL was inevitable.

However we could speculate that if Davis got his way the merger would have been delayed. If that happened a few changes may have happend. Seattle may have got a team sooner but with the stadium situation in the late 1960's maybe not. I think all the usual suspects would have been in play for teams : Indianapolis, San Antonio, Memphis, Pheonix, Jacksonville, Nashville, Columbus etc.

If I may go out on a limb here is one scenario. If the AFL put a team in Indianapolis say in 1970 and a merger occurs by 1975. I think Irsay moves the Colts to Pheonix. The Cardinals could have then moved to Baltimore in the late 1980's, the Rams still move to St. Louis and the Browns version 1 would have moved to LA in the late 1990's being the second team Cleveland lost to LA. The Oiler/Titans move still happens with the Texans coming into existance.
But I have to be honest I don't know if the Buccaneers and Jaguars exist.

I think Irsay moves the Colts to Pheonix.

Baltimore to Phoenix. That's quite a drive for those Mayflower trucks!

Irsay hinted about moving to Phoenix during the owners' meetings in March 1976, then said a group from the area came to see him shortly after. Obviously nothing came of that, but three years later, Phoenix was part of a laundry list of teams that Irsay was threatening to move to, most notably Jacksonville.

The only reason that New Orleans got a team in 1967 is that it was the price Rozelle paid to get a bill through Congress to protect the merger from anti-trust action. (The chief backers of the bill were Rep. Hale Boggs and Sen. Russell Long, both of Louisiana.)

Without the merger, New Orleans would undoubtedly have landed a pro football franchise somewhere along the way. But when? And in which league?

rhickok1109 wrote:Without the merger, New Orleans would undoubtedly have landed a pro football franchise somewhere along the way. But when? And in which league?

Probably not the AFL after the All-Star Game situation.

Not while Cookie was alive.

Getting back to the original question. Why didn't the AFL put a team in Chicago?

In hindsite I think it was smart that they never did considering the most influential person in the NFL after Bert Bell was George Halas at that time. Had they put a team in Chicago to compete with the Bears does anyone think the NFL would have been more aggressive towards the AFL? If they actually could be without getting into anti-trust issues.

It seemed to me from what I read Bert Bell had an open mind toward competition from another league. I think Bell was smart enough to read between the lines and know that to expand the NFL another league was useful. Maybe thinking that another AAFC-NFL type merger might occur with the NFL picking up a few teams.

Or it could be pure conjecture on my part.



I

JKelly wrote: It seemed to me from what I read Bert Bell had an open mind toward competition from another league. I think Bell was smart enough to read between the lines and know that to expand the NFL another league was useful. Maybe thinking that another AAFC-NFL type merger might occur with the NFL picking up a few teams.
I

Perhaps he would have been kinder to the AFL than Rozelle was. Bert Bell was fortunate enough that, when he was subpoenaed to testify before the Anti-Monopoly Committee of the U.S. Senate, he was scheduled for the last week of July, 1959, at the same time that Lamar Hunt was preparing to announce the founding of the AFL. In fact, it was Bell who broke the news story that a new league was going to be launched by "a prominent Texan", and by the end of the week, a sports columnist identified that person and Hunt was being interviewed. I think it was pure luck that Bell was able to tell Senators that the NFL had a serious competitor, and to be able to say things like "we welcome the competition".

Bell was dead less than three months later, and I have wondered whether, if he hadn't died, Bell would have tried to talk the owners into expanding to somewhere other than Dallas and Minneapolis. That would have been embarrassing to Bell after he had just pledged to the Senate and the press that the NFL had no intention of being a monopoly.