News:

Thanks to everyone for the feedback on what errors you encountered from the forum database changes made in Fall 2023. Let us know if you discover anymore.

Main Menu

Rams and Raiders to Los Angeles?

Started by bing101, November 11, 2014, 09:19:29 AM

Previous topic - Next topic

english si

Quote from: triplemultiplex on October 17, 2015, 03:09:05 AMWhat helps pro sports leagues is having a good distribution of teams
Does it?

The English Premier League (partially due its drive for parity - bad teams relegated, good teams promoted to replace them) has fluctuating geography that sees whole regions of the country almost ignored, with various teams occasionally being good enough for a season or two (eg the East Midlands - Forest, Derby and Leicester have all had spells, but there were years without any of the three).

Some big cities can support two teams (Liverpool, at times Birmingham, Manchester and Sheffield) in the league with the rivalries helping, and London (lets take it as the area within the M25) can supply about of third of Premier League teams from its 12 professional soccer teams (AFC Wimbledon, Chelsea, Fulham, QPR, Watford, Tottenham, Arsenal, Leyton Orient, West Ham, Millwall, Charlton, Crystal Palace). No one cares that Bristol (10th biggest urban area in England) hasn't supplied a team (and the area south and west of roughly-central Birmingham has supplied a few seasons of Swansea and one each of Cardiff, Swindon and Bournemouth), or that there was a season without a team from the NE, and several without any from Yorkshire.

A big issue the NFL has is that New York's two teams play in different conferences, rather than have a rivalry between them and the franchise model often hinders rivalries (though can create one - cf the Baltimore teams old and new) by picking up a team just beginning to build up part of the 'nearest rivals' banter with other teams in the locale and then moves 500 miles killing that.


triplemultiplex

Quote from: Big John on October 17, 2015, 08:31:46 AM
Quote from: 74/171FAN on October 17, 2015, 07:34:58 AM

Until 1994, the Packers did play a few home games per year in Milwaukee at Milwaukee County Stadium.  It looks like that ended because the stadium itself was more fit for baseball than football.

Old County Stadium barely held a football field and the sight lines were terrible for football.  The new baseball stadium was still in the development stage and they saw it would be less expensive to build a baseball-only stadium.  You can't fit a regulation football field in Miller Park.  So in order to do that, the Packers still reserve 1 preseason and 2 regular season games to Milwaukee season ticketholders, referred locally as the "Gold Package".

Another factor for the end of Packer games in Milwaukee was the expansion of Lambeau Field in 1995.
"That's just like... your opinion, man."

Henry

All eyes are on Oakland, which may lose the A's and Raiders if the Coliseum is not replaced soon. And with the Warriors on the way out, there still should be no reason to build two stadiums on the same site (one for baseball, the other for football). Baltimore, Pittsburgh, Detroit and Cincinnati are some prime examples of how successful a two-stadium site can be if done right. (Note that I did not include Philadelphia because in addition to the two stadiums, it also has an arena for basketball and hockey in the same area, and Oakland is not getting that anyway.)
Go Cubs Go! Go Cubs Go! Hey Chicago, what do you say? The Cubs are gonna win today!

Rothman

Quote from: Henry on October 19, 2015, 12:08:21 PM
All eyes are on Oakland, which may lose the A's and Raiders if the Coliseum is not replaced soon.

Makes you wonder if Oakland's money would be spent better on other purposes to better itself than a new stadium.
Please note: All comments here represent my own personal opinion and do not reflect the official position(s) of NYSDOT.

jakeroot

Quote from: Henry on October 19, 2015, 12:08:21 PM
Baltimore, Pittsburgh, Detroit and Cincinnati are some prime examples of how successful a two-stadium site can be if done right.

Did you intentionally exclude Seattle? Safeco/CLink successfully replaced the Kingdome in SODO (though you still have Key Arena in Lower Queen Anne).

Henry

Quote from: jakeroot on October 19, 2015, 02:14:42 PM
Quote from: Henry on October 19, 2015, 12:08:21 PM
Baltimore, Pittsburgh, Detroit and Cincinnati are some prime examples of how successful a two-stadium site can be if done right.

Did you intentionally exclude Seattle? Safeco/CLink successfully replaced the Kingdome in SODO (though you still have Key Arena in Lower Queen Anne).
I meant to include Seattle, but somehow I forgot. Sorry about that.
Go Cubs Go! Go Cubs Go! Hey Chicago, what do you say? The Cubs are gonna win today!

jakeroot

Quote from: Henry on October 19, 2015, 02:20:44 PM
Quote from: jakeroot on October 19, 2015, 02:14:42 PM
Quote from: Henry on October 19, 2015, 12:08:21 PM
Baltimore, Pittsburgh, Detroit and Cincinnati are some prime examples of how successful a two-stadium site can be if done right.

Did you intentionally exclude Seattle? Safeco/CLink successfully replaced the Kingdome in SODO (though you still have Key Arena in Lower Queen Anne).

I meant to include Seattle, but somehow I forgot. Sorry about that.

No worries man, you're not a walking encyclopedia. I just wanted to make sure, since you have ties to Seattle, and I figured you'd remember it if it passed your two-stadium filter.

triplemultiplex

Quote from: english si on October 17, 2015, 09:50:28 AM
Quote from: triplemultiplex on October 17, 2015, 03:09:05 AMWhat helps pro sports leagues is having a good distribution of teams
Does it?

The English Premier League (partially due its drive for parity - bad teams relegated, good teams promoted to replace them) has fluctuating geography that sees whole regions of the country almost ignored, with various teams occasionally being good enough for a season or two (eg the East Midlands - Forest, Derby and Leicester have all had spells, but there were years without any of the three).

Some big cities can support two teams (Liverpool, at times Birmingham, Manchester and Sheffield) in the league with the rivalries helping, and London (lets take it as the area within the M25) can supply about of third of Premier League teams from its 12 professional soccer teams (AFC Wimbledon, Chelsea, Fulham, QPR, Watford, Tottenham, Arsenal, Leyton Orient, West Ham, Millwall, Charlton, Crystal Palace). No one cares that Bristol (10th biggest urban area in England) hasn't supplied a team (and the area south and west of roughly-central Birmingham has supplied a few seasons of Swansea and one each of Cardiff, Swindon and Bournemouth), or that there was a season without a team from the NE, and several without any from Yorkshire.

We have so much more geographic area and population over here, though.  There are a lot more potential fans being skipped over.

The way teams can be promoted and relegated across the pond is an interesting model that I wish we could apply to some of our pro sports.  Because of how entrenched college football is, we couldn't do it with that sport.  As much as I'd like to see college football replaced with some sort of formal minor league, there's too much big money behind the NCAA cartel to change it.  Same goes for basketball.

But baseball potentially has the infrastructure to have a promotion/relegation model.  We have dozens and dozens of minor league teams in cities big and small and if we sever all of the pro/minor affiliations it could just work.  There would have to be some new protocols for drafting players and some potential logistical issues for some venues, but it could be an interesting way to get more cities in on some pro baseball action.
"That's just like... your opinion, man."

english si

#58
Quote from: triplemultiplex on October 26, 2015, 03:51:32 PMWe have so much more geographic area and population over here, though.
With you on the area (though the adage about 100 years in America being a long time and 100 miles in Europe being a long way holds true), but the population not so much. Even if you don't factor in that the NFL has 60% more teams, the population differential is not so great - about 6 times (322m US vs 56m). And if you do factor it in that's ~10m per NFL team and ~2.8m per Premier League team - less than a factor of 4 between them.

I also forgot Barnet, Brentford and Dagenham and Redbridge as London pro soccer teams - that's 15 (out of 92).

Henry

I think the Rams should stay in St. Louis, mainly because it's the only city so far that has a viable stadium proposal. Oakland and San Diego really need to step their game up.
Go Cubs Go! Go Cubs Go! Hey Chicago, what do you say? The Cubs are gonna win today!

oscar

Quote from: Henry on October 27, 2015, 12:22:19 PM
I think the Rams should stay in St. Louis, mainly because it's the only city so far that has a viable stadium proposal. Oakland and San Diego really need to step their game up.

Or, at least for San Diego (which some time ago rejected taxpayer-funded football stadium improvements), step out of the game and let some other suckers cities step up.
my Hot Springs and Highways pages, with links to my roads sites:
http://www.alaskaroads.com/home.html

jp the roadgeek

I really think the NFL will frown upon 2 teams in the same conference sharing the same city and/or stadium.  It's one thing if the NFL used total geographical alignment for its teams like the NHL and NBA, so it'll have to be an AFC and/or an NFC team, not 2 charter AFL/AFC members who have been traditional bitter rivals.
Interstates I've clinched: 97, 290 (MA), 291 (CT), 291 (MA), 293, 295 (DE-NJ-PA), 295 (RI-MA), 384, 391, 395 (CT-MA), 395 (MD), 495 (DE), 610 (LA), 684, 691, 695 (MD), 695 (NY), 795 (MD)

Big John

^^ The Raiders have proposed a move to the NFC in order to make that move.

jp the roadgeek

Quote from: Big John on October 27, 2015, 10:00:48 PM
^^ The Raiders have proposed a move to the NFC in order to make that move.

And who would move to the AFC: Seattle (again), Tampa Bay, or Carolina?
Interstates I've clinched: 97, 290 (MA), 291 (CT), 291 (MA), 293, 295 (DE-NJ-PA), 295 (RI-MA), 384, 391, 395 (CT-MA), 395 (MD), 495 (DE), 610 (LA), 684, 691, 695 (MD), 695 (NY), 795 (MD)

Big John

Quote from: jp the roadgeek on October 27, 2015, 10:43:14 PM
Quote from: Big John on October 27, 2015, 10:00:48 PM
^^ The Raiders have proposed a move to the NFC in order to make that move.

And who would move to the AFC: Seattle (again), Tampa Bay, or Carolina?
Would be a NFC west team, likely Seattle (again) or the Rams.

Henry

Quote from: Big John on October 27, 2015, 11:11:03 PM
Quote from: jp the roadgeek on October 27, 2015, 10:43:14 PM
Quote from: Big John on October 27, 2015, 10:00:48 PM
^^ The Raiders have proposed a move to the NFC in order to make that move.

And who would move to the AFC: Seattle (again), Tampa Bay, or Carolina?
Would be a NFC west team, likely Seattle (again) or the Rams.
Why would it be the Seahawks, with their three NFC titles and one Super Bowl win? I really don't see the Rams making that move either, and I know for damn sure that the NFL would never allow three AFC teams in the same state. Furthermore, the Panthers wouldn't want to give up their storied rivalry with the Falcons either, so it's more of an "anything goes" scenario.
Go Cubs Go! Go Cubs Go! Hey Chicago, what do you say? The Cubs are gonna win today!

Duke87

Quote from: english si on October 17, 2015, 09:50:28 AM
Quote from: triplemultiplex on October 17, 2015, 03:09:05 AMWhat helps pro sports leagues is having a good distribution of teams
Does it?

...

A big issue the NFL has is that New York's two teams play in different conferences, rather than have a rivalry between them and the franchise model often hinders rivalries (though can create one - cf the Baltimore teams old and new) by picking up a team just beginning to build up part of the 'nearest rivals' banter with other teams in the locale and then moves 500 miles killing that.

I'd say this depends on how you define "helps pro sports leagues". Does even distribution help make them interesting from a fan perspective? No, not really. But it sure as hell helps the league maximize its profitability. North American leagues like the NFL tend to want to evenly space their teams in order to have as many people as possible in a local market for one. Having two teams in the same city is redundant and in most cases unlikely to be more profitable than putting one of the two in another city. In most cases today it only exists as a legacy situation where both teams have a strong local following and removing one would not result in its fans defecting to the other. Indeed, a lot of Brooklyn Dodgers and NY Giants fans became Met fans because they decided they'd sooner root for the new Johnny-come-lately team than the Yankees who they've always disliked.


What's very different about our sports leagues compared to something like the English Premier League is that their club membership is fixed. We routinely move individual players between major and minor leagues depending on their performance, but the idea that this could be done with entire teams is a foreign one to most Americans. This means we end up with major leagues that are much more geographically planned.
If you always take the same road, you will never see anything new.

oscar

Quote from: Henry on October 28, 2015, 12:17:58 PM
Furthermore, the Panthers wouldn't want to give up their storied rivalry with the Falcons either, so it's more of an "anything goes" scenario.

While there's a Panthers-Falcons rivalry, "storied" is pushing it. The Panthers are a relatively new franchise (only two decades old), not enough time to develop an intense rivalry like, say, R*dsk*ns-Cowboys or Packers-Bears.

Geography would be more of an issue with a Raiders-Panthers conference swap, with both teams having to make flights across the country and two or three time zones even for games against division rivals.
my Hot Springs and Highways pages, with links to my roads sites:
http://www.alaskaroads.com/home.html

swbrotha100

Before 2002, the NFC West had the Falcons, Panthers, and Saints. The NFC East had the Cardinals. Geography be damned.

ASUS ZenFone 2E


Stephane Dumas

Quote from: triplemultiplex on October 26, 2015, 03:51:32 PM
The way teams can be promoted and relegated across the pond is an interesting model that I wish we could apply to some of our pro sports.  Because of how entrenched college football is, we couldn't do it with that sport.  As much as I'd like to see college football replaced with some sort of formal minor league, there's too much big money behind the NCAA cartel to change it.  Same goes for basketball.

Basketball did have some minor league system with the D-league while there was talk of a new USFL who'll act as a new development league https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_United_States_Football_League and the Fall Experimental Football league (FXFL) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fall_Experimental_Football_League but they aren't yet as the same system level then the baseball and hockey.

Henry

Well, it looks like Mark Davis is committed to keeping the Raiders in Oakland, which is even more reason to build two new stadiums (one for the Raiders, the other for the A's). And since St. Louis is trying very hard to keep the Rams, it looks like San Diego is the odd man out.

Quote from: swbrotha100 on November 03, 2015, 02:37:38 AM
Before 2002, the NFC West had the Falcons, Panthers, and Saints. The NFC East had the Cardinals. Geography be damned.

ASUS ZenFone 2E


Also back then, the NFC East had (and still has) the Cowboys, the AFC East had the Colts and the AFC Central had the Ravens and Jaguars. While I know that there is an intense rivalry between Dallas and Washington, is TX really that far east?
Go Cubs Go! Go Cubs Go! Hey Chicago, what do you say? The Cubs are gonna win today!

jeffandnicole

The NFL purposely left the Cowboys in the NFC East due to the strong rivalries between all 4 current division teams (Eagles, Giants, Redskins, Cowboys).

Pete from Boston


Quote from: Henry on November 03, 2015, 10:30:05 AM
Well, it looks like Mark Davis is committed to keeping the Raiders in Oakland, which is even more reason to build two new stadiums (one for the Raiders, the other for the A's). And since St. Louis is trying very hard to keep the Rams, it looks like San Diego is the odd man out.

Quote from: swbrotha100 on November 03, 2015, 02:37:38 AM
Before 2002, the NFC West had the Falcons, Panthers, and Saints. The NFC East had the Cardinals. Geography be damned.

ASUS ZenFone 2E


Also back then, the NFC East had (and still has) the Cowboys, the AFC East had the Colts and the AFC Central had the Ravens and Jaguars. While I know that there is an intense rivalry between Dallas and Washington, is TX really that far east?

There's an intense dislike for the Cowboys in Giants and Eagles country, too.  It's not that big a stretch to say either of the other two teams' fans will usually cheer for whichever division team is playing Dallas (well, after cheering for some impossible situation in which both teams lose).

Any other team replacing Dallas would be a huge disappointment for Washington, Philly, and Giants fans.  There's no team more satisfying to beat.

texaskdog

Quote from: jeffandnicole on November 03, 2015, 10:38:19 AM
The NFL purposely left the Cowboys in the NFC East due to the strong rivalries between all 4 current division teams (Eagles, Giants, Redskins, Cowboys).

Would much rather see the Texans, Broncos, and Cardinals (or even texans, saints, & titans) in a regional rivalry with the Cowboys.

Henry

Quote from: texaskdog on November 05, 2015, 11:46:13 AM
Quote from: jeffandnicole on November 03, 2015, 10:38:19 AM
The NFL purposely left the Cowboys in the NFC East due to the strong rivalries between all 4 current division teams (Eagles, Giants, Redskins, Cowboys).

Would much rather see the Texans, Broncos, and Cardinals (or even texans, saints, & titans) in a regional rivalry with the Cowboys.
That wouldn't be much fun to watch, would it? Which is probably why the NFC East is the most-watched division in the entire NFL, no matter how bad it may be now.
Go Cubs Go! Go Cubs Go! Hey Chicago, what do you say? The Cubs are gonna win today!



Opinions expressed here on belong solely to the poster and do not represent or reflect the opinions or beliefs of AARoads, its creators and/or associates.