I've had this wild take on the NFL for years. They're called the National Football League, and never mind that what they call football, the rest of the world doesn't recognise and what they call football, the Americans call soccer (association football; the slang soccer was actually not coined in America, but whatever).

So the way it is now, an American football team, like the Seattle Seahawks, which won the Super Bowl this year, back in February, are based out of the US state of Washington, and that's fine, but most of their players were not born, raised, or trained in the state of Washington. They come from all over. But they are not Washingtonians, nor are they required to be.

So here's how I'd change American Football.

1. Each state gets one team, and one team only. It can be based in the capital, the largest city, or a place that is justified as being culturally significant to the state.

2. Every player on the team, plus the coaches, managers, and whatnot, must have been born, raised, and trained in that state. I'm not 100% sure it matters they were born there, but they should have done most of their schooling there and been trained there. Anywhere in the state is good, not just the city where the team is based out of. If you moved states in high school you don't get to play professionally. Sorry, them's the breaks.

3. The team should be a point of pride for the state. In many cases that's how it currently works, but I'd like to see more people supporting the local team because everyone in your state's team came from your state. This does make more sense in the smaller northeastern states than the larger southwestern ones, but I think it still fits. I think Texas could still all get behind one team, because Texas kind of has that identity that, even though you have Texans in one part who are very different from Texans in another part, they're still all proud Texans, so I think they'd all rally behind the same team, if they had one.

4. Likewise to the first point, the team should be called something relevant to the state. The 49ers, in California, work because the gold rush was an important part of that state's history. State bird, state animal, things like that would be valid choices, and of course anything culturally relevant, but especially so if no other state can easily claim it. For example, cowboys aren't unique to Texas, though Texas might have the best claim. Oilers is another team from Texas and is also good. But what TF is a Seahawk? Also, Rams, Lions, Bears, and Dolphins (oh, and Patriots) are everywhere. So those would be out. Now if Florida wants to call their team the Gators, that would fit for two reasons: one, the gators that live there, and two, Gatorade which, IIRC, was first made or sold there. (Though I'd be opposed to corporate names on principle.)

...Now, I know football fans would be able to tear this idea apart. It's not meant to survive them. It's more of a "what-if." But I'm more interested on the cultural impact of each state having one team to support (and states without a team now having a team of their own, and no sharing like the Carolinas do, though the Panthers technically play in North Carolina, in Charlotte, clearly over the state line... but they are right on the state line).