What's more likely to happen first...?

[swbrotha100]

Does the Los Angeles area gain 1, 2 or 3 NFL teams, or does the Las Vegas area gain a pro sports team (NFL, MLB, NBA, or NHL)?

[1995hoo]

Yes.

In all seriousness, an NFL team or teams could move to LA more quickly than a league could expand, this for logistical reasons.

[Thing 342]

Yes, as there is an actual proposal on the table for a shared Chargers-Raiders stadium in Carson, CA.

[ajlynch91]

LA gets two football teams first. The Las Vegas area kind of had a pilot for a pro-franchise when the NBA held the all star game there once, and apparently it was a logistical nightmare.

[Stephane Dumas]

I think the Cubs will win the World Series first before LA get a NFL team.

[Brandon]

I think the Cubs will win the World Series first before LA get a NFL team.

Then I think we've settled it.  Hell will freeze over, then the Cubs will will the WS, then LA will get an NFL team, and then, finally, Las Vegas will get a top-level professional sports team.

[Henry]

I think the Cubs will win the World Series first before LA get a NFL team.

Then I think we've settled it.  Hell will freeze over, then the Cubs will will the WS, then LA will get an NFL team, and then, finally, Las Vegas will get a top-level professional sports team.

I see somebody beat me to it!

[1995hoo]

LA gets two football teams first. The Las Vegas area kind of had a pilot for a pro-franchise when the NBA held the all star game there once, and apparently it was a logistical nightmare.

Las Vegas does have a season-ticket drive going on to demonstrate support for a possible NHL expansion franchise. But that doesn't mean expansion is imminent or could be accomplished quickly, especially given that adding a team there would mean an odd number of teams in the league unless a second expansion franchise were granted at the same time. Moving a football team or two to Los Angeles is an easier matter in almost all ways.

[jeffandnicole]

LA gets two football teams first. The Las Vegas area kind of had a pilot for a pro-franchise when the NBA held the all star game there once, and apparently it was a logistical nightmare.

Las Vegas does have a season-ticket drive going on to demonstrate support for a possible NHL expansion franchise. But that doesn't mean expansion is imminent or could be accomplished quickly, especially given that adding a team there would mean an odd number of teams in the league unless a second expansion franchise were granted at the same time. Moving a football team or two to Los Angeles is an easier matter in almost all ways.

At least for hockey, an odd number of teams isn't a huge burden, except for one division would have one more team than the others.  Even if you have two additional teams using today's 4 division format, 2 divisions would have 8 teams; 2 would have 9 teams, making it a little harder to win that division.  Of course, the only thing that really matters regarding the division is winning the Division; after that it comes down to points within the conference.

When football had an odd number of teams, it meant that every week a team had a bye week, including Week 1 and Week 17, although generally they were given to the crap teams that no one figured would have a chance at getting in the playoffs. 

[1995hoo]

Actually, under the current format a single-team expansion would mean one division would have one fewer team than the others. Right now the divisions in the Eastern Conference have eight teams each and the ones in the Western have seven. Back in the 1980s, the Patrick Division had six while all the others had five (21-team league). There have been indications that neither the owners nor the players' union is interested in having an odd number of teams, which is why I said it might be a problem. As it is there has been some unhappiness with the unbalanced conferences because some people feel having a smaller number of teams makes it easier to qualify for the playoffs in the West (I'm not really sure that's a fair assumption).

Under the current playoff format, the division is relevant for the top three spots. The top three teams in every division make the playoffs, then the two remaining teams in each conference who have the best records also make it regardless of division (these two teams are the wild cards). In the first round, (a) the higher-seeded division winner in each conference plays that conference's lower-seeded wild card, (b) the lower-seeded division winner plays the higher-seeded wild card, and (c) #2 in each division plays #3 in the same division. So the divisions have more relevance than they did in the format used prior to last year's realignment, but less relevance than they did in the 1980s when the first two rounds were entirely division-based.

[triplemultiplex]

But if LA gets an NFL team, where will all the other teams threaten to move to if they don't get billion dollar new stadiums?

[1995hoo]

But if LA gets an NFL team, where will all the other teams threaten to move to if they don't get billion dollar new stadiums?

(1) Whatever city is (or cities are) vacated by the team(s) that move to LA, unless perhaps that city is Jacksonville.

(2) Toronto and London.

(3) San Antonio (the Raiders have made noise about moving there, but the Cowboys and Texans would vehemently oppose any team moving to Texas).

(4) Probably Memphis or Birmingham (the latter meaning the one in Alabama, not the one in England).

[cpzilliacus]

But if LA gets an NFL team, where will all the other teams threaten to move to if they don't get billion dollar new stadiums?

Bingo!  Which is why Congress should impose a heavy tax on professional sports franchises that get taxpayer funded stadiums and pay little or no rent to the taxpayers that ultimately own them.

[Henry]

But if LA gets an NFL team, where will all the other teams threaten to move to if they don't get billion dollar new stadiums?

(1) Whatever city is (or cities are) vacated by the team(s) that move to LA, unless perhaps that city is Jacksonville.

(2) Toronto and London.

(3) San Antonio (the Raiders have made noise about moving there, but the Cowboys and Texans would vehemently oppose any team moving to Texas).

(4) Probably Memphis or Birmingham (the latter meaning the one in Alabama, not the one in England).

5. Maybe even Oklahoma City or Portland

[ET21]

But if LA gets an NFL team, where will all the other teams threaten to move to if they don't get billion dollar new stadiums?

(1) Whatever city is (or cities are) vacated by the team(s) that move to LA, unless perhaps that city is Jacksonville.

(2) Toronto and London.

(3) San Antonio (the Raiders have made noise about moving there, but the Cowboys and Texans would vehemently oppose any team moving to Texas).

(4) Probably Memphis or Birmingham (the latter meaning the one in Alabama, not the one in England).

5. Maybe even Oklahoma City or Portland

Portland would be a nice I-5 rivalry, similar to OKC with Dallas as an I-35 rivalry.

[lordsutch]

(4) Probably Memphis or Birmingham (the latter meaning the one in Alabama, not the one in England).

I think the Titans have the rights to Memphis. Not that anyone in Memphis wants anything to do with the Nashville Carpetbaggers aka the Flaming Thumbtacks.

[1995hoo]

(4) Probably Memphis or Birmingham (the latter meaning the one in Alabama, not the one in England).

I think the Titans have the rights to Memphis. Not that anyone in Memphis wants anything to do with the Nashville Carpetbaggers aka the Flaming Thumbtacks.

Wouldn't necessarily stop a team from threatening to move there.

[lordsutch]

Wouldn't necessarily stop a team from threatening to move there.

No, but it substantially decreases the credibility of the threat, as do Memphis' weak demographics and small corporate presence. And Birmingham is a total joke of an option; nothing will ever be bigger in Alabama than 'Bama football.

San Antonio would at least draw fans from Austin as well, although otherwise they're in a similar boat to Memphis or OKC (one pro team saturates the market).