http://www.foxsports.com/nfl/story/oakland-raiders-texas-san-antonio-austin-relocation-stadium-alamodome-011316
Now this is more questionable. San Antonio is supposedly the new bargaining chip city for the NFL right after Los Angeles was announced to the Rams.
http://national.suntimes.com/national-sports/7/72/2437167/san-antonio-mayor-henry-cisneros-wants-raiders/
Another update. But this is questionable. Its too soon to tell
http://www.si.com/nfl/2016/01/15/oakland-raiders-san-antonio-relocation-los-angeles?xid=si_social
Well we need to wait for the next Roger Goodell address to confirm or reject this rumor of San Antonio getting the Raiders.
I'm surprised Portland, Oregon hasn't made a bid for the Raiders.
Quote from: DandyDan on January 16, 2016, 05:04:31 AM
I'm surprised Portland, Oregon hasn't made a bid for the Raiders.
http://mweb.cbssports.com/nfl/eye-on-football/25450564/report-raiders-have-secured-land-near-san-antonio-for-possible-move
I Say Portland is a cover just like Irwindale in the 1980's was for the Raiders until Oakland got the team again.
San Antonio is now the confirmed Bargaining chip city in the debates now.
Another Texas triangle (NBA has rockets, Mavs,and spurs), NFL could have Cowboys, Texans, and Raiders
Anyone know where this land is that Davis owns in TX?
I've seen this proposal several times before and I think an eventual move is quite probable. Oakland has the worst stadium in the NFL, the 49ers get the market rights to the entire Bay Area, and San Antonio is in a region that is crazy for football. San Antonio could also support a team as it's the largest city without an NFL team (excluding LA) and the other two are quite far away. Would probably also draw from the Austin market, which is the second-largest without a team.
Quote from: cl94 on January 17, 2016, 11:56:15 PM
I've seen this proposal several times before and I think an eventual move is quite probable. Oakland has the worst stadium in the NFL, the 49ers get the market rights to the entire Bay Area, and San Antonio is in a region that is crazy for football. San Antonio could also support a team as it's the largest city without an NFL team (excluding LA) and the other two are quite far away. Would probably also draw from the Austin market, which is the second-largest without a team.
Fact check: San Antonio is the largest city proper without an NFL team, but that hardly matters - you need to compare the whole market.
If you compare MSAs, St. Louis is still quite a bit larger than San Antonio. San Diego (if they lose the Chargers) is larger than San Antonio by nearly a million people. Riverside is larger by two million (granted, they're adjacent to Los Angeles). Portland is also larger (although likely to be passed by San Antonio in the next couple of years).
If you add CSAs to the list, Orlando, Sacramento, Salt Lake City and Columbus are all larger than San Antonio.
If you compare Nielsen markets, Orlando, Sacramento, St. Louis, Portland, Raleigh, San Diego, Columbus - all larger than the San Antonio market.
And on all those lists, you can add several more markets before you get to Austin.
All this said, although I'd hate to see the Raiders leave Oakland, in my opinion San Antonio is a very viable NFL market - i just want to make sure the numbers are right.
Quote from: DTComposer on January 18, 2016, 10:12:36 AM
Quote from: cl94 on January 17, 2016, 11:56:15 PM
I've seen this proposal several times before and I think an eventual move is quite probable. Oakland has the worst stadium in the NFL, the 49ers get the market rights to the entire Bay Area, and San Antonio is in a region that is crazy for football. San Antonio could also support a team as it's the largest city without an NFL team (excluding LA) and the other two are quite far away. Would probably also draw from the Austin market, which is the second-largest without a team.
Fact check: San Antonio is the largest city proper without an NFL team, but that hardly matters - you need to compare the whole market.
If you compare MSAs, St. Louis is still quite a bit larger than San Antonio. San Diego (if they lose the Chargers) is larger than San Antonio by nearly a million people. Riverside is larger by two million (granted, they're adjacent to Los Angeles). Portland is also larger (although likely to be passed by San Antonio in the next couple of years).
If you add CSAs to the list, Orlando, Sacramento, Salt Lake City and Columbus are all larger than San Antonio.
If you compare Nielsen markets, Orlando, Sacramento, St. Louis, Portland, Raleigh, San Diego, Columbus - all larger than the San Antonio market.
And on all those lists, you can add several more markets before you get to Austin.
All this said, although I'd hate to see the Raiders leave Oakland, in my opinion San Antonio is a very viable NFL market - i just want to make sure the numbers are right.
But if you look at a couple of those Nielsen markets, you would see that at least three of them couldn't support an NFL team because of their proximity to another franchise. Raleigh is too close to Charlotte, Columbus is too close to Cleveland AND Cincinnati, and Orlando is too close to Tampa. San Antonio, Portland and St. Louis are the three best options there.
I do wonder how a San Antonio team would do in Texas. It might turn into a North Carolina situation. NC is crazy about college basketball but not so much about the pro basketball team that moved there. The Raiders would have to perform immediately in order to compete with the college football offerings.
http://www.ktvu.com/news/74313994-story
And Santa Clara/ San Jose area is still at play here for the Raiders to go to Levi's stadium.
Yes that Levi's stadium where the 49ers play.
http://smmercury.com/2016/01/15/could-san-marcos-land-the-oakland-raiders-a-natural-play-officials-say/
Also a location in San Marcos near I-35 is at play here for a new Raiders stadium.
If they build a stadium way the hell out in San Marcos, they cannot in good conscience call them the San Antonio Raiders. That's two counties away from actual San Antonio.
Quote from: triplemultiplex on January 18, 2016, 09:41:22 PM
If they build a stadium way the hell out in San Marcos, they cannot in good conscience call them the San Antonio Raiders. That's two counties away from actual San Antonio.
No kidding, that would be like calling a team in Santa Clara the San Francisco...oh, never mind.
They could call them the Texas Raiders... if it weren't for the Houston You-Know-Whats.
Quote from: jbnv on January 19, 2016, 09:13:10 AM
They could call them the Texas Raiders... if it weren't for the Houston You-Know-Whats.
I don't think anyone would confuse the Texans with the Raiders. Or call them the Alamo Raiders or something else that highlights something huge in Texas.
Quote from: cl94 on January 19, 2016, 11:31:36 AM
Quote from: jbnv on January 19, 2016, 09:13:10 AM
They could call them the Texas Raiders... if it weren't for the Houston You-Know-Whats.
I don't think anyone would confuse the Texans with the Raiders. Or call them the Alamo Raiders or something else that highlights something huge in Texas.
"Alamo Raiders" would be a bad idea, as the original raiders of the Alamo were Santa Ana's Centralist army against the Federalist Texans defending it.
Is the Raiders name too valuable to just let die and come up with new Texas centric name?
The Texas Lone Stars is all I can come up with.
Quote from: The Nature Boy on January 19, 2016, 11:46:59 AM
Is the Raiders name too valuable to just let die and come up with new Texas centric name?
The Texas Lone Stars is all I can come up with.
Texas Rangers? Yeah, there's a baseball team with the same name, but it's happened before. Texas Cowboys? Texas Eagles (famous train between St. Louis and Texas)?
Quote from: cl94 on January 19, 2016, 11:52:21 AM
Quote from: The Nature Boy on January 19, 2016, 11:46:59 AM
Is the Raiders name too valuable to just let die and come up with new Texas centric name?
The Texas Lone Stars is all I can come up with.
Texas Rangers? Yeah, there's a baseball team with the same name, but it's happened before. Texas Cowboys? Texas Eagles (famous train between St. Louis and Texas)?
The Texas Rangers were my first thought but I assume that North Texans might not like the South Texas football team using their baseball team's name.
Quote from: The Nature Boy on January 19, 2016, 11:46:59 AM
Is the Raiders name too valuable to just let die and come up with new Texas centric name?
The Texas Lone Stars is all I can come up with.
I would bet the Raiders brand is one of the most valuable in football, so, yes.
Quote from: Pete from Boston on January 19, 2016, 12:14:23 PM
I would bet the Raiders brand is one of the most valuable in football, so, yes.
Valuable, but not infungible.
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi.ytimg.com%2Fvi%2FRXQc2bSY9qY%2Fmaxresdefault.jpg&hash=9e275d992f21b00a070f9b4ebde9a6abda094cf9)
Quote from: jbnv on January 19, 2016, 01:49:05 PM
Quote from: Pete from Boston on January 19, 2016, 12:14:23 PM
I would bet the Raiders brand is one of the most valuable in football, so, yes.
Valuable, but not infungible.
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi.ytimg.com%2Fvi%2FRXQc2bSY9qY%2Fmaxresdefault.jpg&hash=9e275d992f21b00a070f9b4ebde9a6abda094cf9)
I didn't say
Oakland Raiders. The Raiders were still fashionable to people trying to show their miscreant thug side even when in LA.
I often tell folks who weren't around to remember that in the later 1970s, there were a lot of teams but you still generally ended up in either the Pittsburgh camp or the Dallas camp, except for the contrarians and ne'er-do-wells, who rooted for Oakland.
Regarding possible logos, I like this one:
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi48.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Ff204%2Femr1%2FSAR_01_zps45b02734.jpg&hash=35b14e71b226429a1999d9ea52a9ca9fa4728a8a)
The ones with the cowboy hat make the sword hilts look like pigtails at first glance.
Quote from: spooky on January 19, 2016, 07:56:30 AM
Quote from: triplemultiplex on January 18, 2016, 09:41:22 PM
If they build a stadium way the hell out in San Marcos, they cannot in good conscience call them the San Antonio Raiders. That's two counties away from actual San Antonio.
No kidding, that would be like calling a team in Santa Clara the San Francisco...oh, never mind.
The Santa Clara 99ers.
Quote from: spooky on January 19, 2016, 07:56:30 AM
Quote from: triplemultiplex on January 18, 2016, 09:41:22 PM
If they build a stadium way the hell out in San Marcos, they cannot in good conscience call them the San Antonio Raiders. That's two counties away from actual San Antonio.
No kidding, that would be like calling a team in Santa Clara the San Francisco...oh, never mind.
Precisely. The Buffalo Bills are a couple towns over from Buffalo, the Patriots are almost in Pawtucket, Cowboys are closer to downtown Fort Worth than Dallas...
Quote from: cl94 on January 21, 2016, 02:27:52 PM
Quote from: spooky on January 19, 2016, 07:56:30 AM
Quote from: triplemultiplex on January 18, 2016, 09:41:22 PM
If they build a stadium way the hell out in San Marcos, they cannot in good conscience call them the San Antonio Raiders. That's two counties away from actual San Antonio.
No kidding, that would be like calling a team in Santa Clara the San Francisco...oh, never mind.
Precisely. The Buffalo Bills are a couple towns over from Buffalo, the Patriots are almost in Pawtucket, Cowboys are closer to downtown Fort Worth than Dallas...
Well, at least the Boston Patriots became the New England Patriots when they moved to Foxborough.
Quote from: spooky on January 21, 2016, 02:36:03 PM
Quote from: cl94 on January 21, 2016, 02:27:52 PM
Quote from: spooky on January 19, 2016, 07:56:30 AM
Quote from: triplemultiplex on January 18, 2016, 09:41:22 PM
If they build a stadium way the hell out in San Marcos, they cannot in good conscience call them the San Antonio Raiders. That's two counties away from actual San Antonio.
No kidding, that would be like calling a team in Santa Clara the San Francisco...oh, never mind.
Precisely. The Buffalo Bills are a couple towns over from Buffalo, the Patriots are almost in Pawtucket, Cowboys are closer to downtown Fort Worth than Dallas...
Well, at least the Boston Patriots became the New England Patriots when they moved to Foxborough.
Which is why their "commitment" to move to Hartford was at least conceptually plausible.
Quote from: Pete from Boston on January 21, 2016, 03:29:21 PM
Quote from: spooky on January 21, 2016, 02:36:03 PM
Quote from: cl94 on January 21, 2016, 02:27:52 PM
Quote from: spooky on January 19, 2016, 07:56:30 AM
Quote from: triplemultiplex on January 18, 2016, 09:41:22 PM
If they build a stadium way the hell out in San Marcos, they cannot in good conscience call them the San Antonio Raiders. That's two counties away from actual San Antonio.
No kidding, that would be like calling a team in Santa Clara the San Francisco...oh, never mind.
Precisely. The Buffalo Bills are a couple towns over from Buffalo, the Patriots are almost in Pawtucket, Cowboys are closer to downtown Fort Worth than Dallas...
Well, at least the Boston Patriots became the New England Patriots when they moved to Foxborough.
Which is why their "commitment" to move to Hartford was at least conceptually plausible.
If it's this common, what's the problem here? Just because they're two counties away doesn't mean they can't still be called the San Antonio Raiders.
Quote from: noelbotevera on January 21, 2016, 06:13:45 PM
Quote from: Pete from Boston on January 21, 2016, 03:29:21 PM
Quote from: spooky on January 21, 2016, 02:36:03 PM
Quote from: cl94 on January 21, 2016, 02:27:52 PM
Quote from: spooky on January 19, 2016, 07:56:30 AM
Quote from: triplemultiplex on January 18, 2016, 09:41:22 PM
If they build a stadium way the hell out in San Marcos, they cannot in good conscience call them the San Antonio Raiders. That's two counties away from actual San Antonio.
No kidding, that would be like calling a team in Santa Clara the San Francisco...oh, never mind.
Precisely. The Buffalo Bills are a couple towns over from Buffalo, the Patriots are almost in Pawtucket, Cowboys are closer to downtown Fort Worth than Dallas...
Well, at least the Boston Patriots became the New England Patriots when they moved to Foxborough.
Which is why their "commitment" to move to Hartford was at least conceptually plausible.
If it's this common, what's the problem here? Just because they're two counties away doesn't mean they can't still be called the San Antonio Raiders.
It doesn't, and one only needs to look at the New York Giants and Jets for the most convincing example. New England at least encompasses (everyone say it together) six states, not just Boston.
Quote from: Pete from Boston on January 21, 2016, 07:31:49 PM
Quote from: noelbotevera on January 21, 2016, 06:13:45 PM
Quote from: Pete from Boston on January 21, 2016, 03:29:21 PM
Quote from: spooky on January 21, 2016, 02:36:03 PM
Quote from: cl94 on January 21, 2016, 02:27:52 PM
Quote from: spooky on January 19, 2016, 07:56:30 AM
Quote from: triplemultiplex on January 18, 2016, 09:41:22 PM
If they build a stadium way the hell out in San Marcos, they cannot in good conscience call them the San Antonio Raiders. That's two counties away from actual San Antonio.
No kidding, that would be like calling a team in Santa Clara the San Francisco...oh, never mind.
Precisely. The Buffalo Bills are a couple towns over from Buffalo, the Patriots are almost in Pawtucket, Cowboys are closer to downtown Fort Worth than Dallas...
Well, at least the Boston Patriots became the New England Patriots when they moved to Foxborough.
Which is why their "commitment" to move to Hartford was at least conceptually plausible.
If it's this common, what's the problem here? Just because they're two counties away doesn't mean they can't still be called the San Antonio Raiders.
It doesn't, and one only needs to look at the New York Giants and Jets for the most convincing example. New England at least encompasses (everyone say it together) six states, not just Boston.
People mention the Jets/Giants, but they're closer to Manhattan than the Bills are to Buffalo or the 49ers are to San Francisco.
Quote from: triplemultiplex on January 18, 2016, 09:41:22 PM
If they build a stadium way the hell out in San Marcos, they cannot in good conscience call them the San Antonio Raiders. That's two counties away from actual San Antonio.
"Good conscience" for the NFL? WTF?
Certainly the Washington R*dsk*ns don't agree, playing their home games in Maryland, and with team headquarters and other facilities in Virginia. The team name is the main remaining tie to D.C., once the team left RFK stadium in the city.
That team is perfect for San Antonio. But if the Raiders do try to move there, I guarantee you Jerry Jones and Bob McNair will fight it to the death. They don't want a third team on their turf, and they both have a lot of pull with the other owners. It was Jerry who greased the skids for his buddy Kroenke on the Rams move to L.A.
To me pro football in San Antonio will always mean the Gunslingers!
Quote from: 1995hoo on January 24, 2016, 09:31:52 AM
To me pro football in San Antonio will always mean the Gunslingers!
USFL baby! Neuheisel as QB too!
Rick
If San Antonio didn't work out then I think maybe El Paso would. There 800K people that live in El Paso and 1.5 Million in Juarez. Las Cruces is also near by (an hour or so north). I think San Antonio might be too close to Houston and Dallas for it to actually work out. El Paso is far enough away from any other teams that it might be a better move. It would also be an experiment with the Mexico market, but a safe experiment since El Paso is plenty big.
If not El Paso, maybe another city further west along Historic US 80:
http://www.dailynews.com/sports/20160118/san-diego-chargers-fans-may-be-dealing-with-a-double-nightmare
So the Chargers move to LA, and the Raiders move to San Diego. I don't get it. Why not just move the Raiders to LA and be done with it? What makes them think San Diego is going to build a stadium for the Raiders, a team everybody but Raiders fans hates, when they wouldn't build one for the Chargers? Or maybe this insane idea will be enough motivation for San Diego to keep the Chargers and get a stadium deal done.
Quote from: tchafe1978 on January 24, 2016, 09:09:13 PM
So the Chargers move to LA, and the Raiders move to San Diego. I don't get it. Why not just move the Raiders to LA and be done with it? What makes them think San Diego is going to build a stadium for the Raiders, a team everybody but Raiders fans hates, when they wouldn't build one for the Chargers? Or maybe this insane idea will be enough motivation for San Diego to keep the Chargers and get a stadium deal done.
Largely because Kroenke and Spanos's (the owners of the Rams and Chargers, respectively) money comes from outside of the NFL, as opposed to Mark Davis (The owner of the Raiders), meaning that the rest of the owners gave deference to them, allowing them the first opportunity to go to LA.
http://espn.go.com/nfl/story/_/id/14669152/oakland-raiders-owner-mark-davis-meet-las-vegas-officials-regarding-potential-stadium-sites-according-leaked-memo
Update Vegas is the new Bargaining chip city for the Raiders.
Quote from: bing101 on January 28, 2016, 09:37:37 PM
http://espn.go.com/nfl/story/_/id/14669152/oakland-raiders-owner-mark-davis-meet-las-vegas-officials-regarding-potential-stadium-sites-according-leaked-memo
Update Vegas is the new Bargaining chip city for the Raiders.
I could totally see that happening, although the NFL in the past has expressed opposition to Vegas because of possible problems with gambling money.
Quote from: Thing 342 on January 28, 2016, 10:39:46 PM
I could totally see that happening, although the NFL in the past has expressed opposition to Vegas because of possible problems with gambling money.
Is this still a serious objection in 2016? That the millions of dollars in wagering that already occurs without the NFL's consent will increase just because Vegas gets a team?
I'll buy the NFL's gambling objection to a team in Vegas as soon as they oust those dickhole owners like Robert Kraft who are heavily invested in the one day fantasy leagues.
The one thing about a hypothetical Raiders move to Las Vegas is since Nevada is the Silver State, they wouldn't have to change their color scheme.
If the Temecula CA stadium deal were approved in the 2000s, this is the place the Raiders continue to draw the CA fan base. The Chargers originally checked into Temecula next to the San Diego county line, but the stadium deal was rejected. Temecula isn't the best spot for major league sports, further inland and less population than Anaheim in Orange County or comparably, Long Beach south of L.A., both cities are among CA's ten most populous.
Temecula was a serious consideration? Jesus, why not just build a stadium in Palm Springs...
The Raiders will be playing a "home" game against Houston in Mexico City on Nov 21st (Mon night game). Maybe the Raiders should just permanently move to Mexico City.
Quote from: triplemultiplex on February 07, 2016, 03:57:41 PM
Temecula was a serious consideration? Jesus, why not just build a stadium in Palm Springs...
They could have been smarter. San Bernardino, Riverside, Diamond Bar, Ontario...etc.
Quote from: noelbotevera on February 08, 2016, 07:21:56 PM
Quote from: triplemultiplex on February 07, 2016, 03:57:41 PM
Temecula was a serious consideration? Jesus, why not just build a stadium in Palm Springs...
They could have been smarter. San Bernardino, Riverside, Diamond Bar, Ontario...etc.
And yet again another case where you are typing babble just to boost your post count.
might have to change your username to ComputerGuy 2.0
On a serious topic, I've thrown San Antonio around as part of MLB36, which would be the proposal to bring an MLB team to it. If the Raiders wanted to move here, I'd go for it. But now that LA is getting a team, NFL34 should shift to have a franchise in San Antonio that's brand new. (Goodell has thrown the idea of 34 teams around)
Quote from: triplemultiplex on January 18, 2016, 09:41:22 PM
If they build a stadium way the hell out in San Marcos, they cannot in good conscience call them the San Antonio Raiders. That's two counties away from actual San Antonio.
And that would actually make it an Austin team. In fact, as much as Austin is mostly in Travis County, I think it's municipal limits extend slightly into whatever SM's county is.
Quote from: Roadgeek Adam on February 08, 2016, 07:53:21 PM
Goodell has thrown the idea of 34 teams around
Goodell must not be very good at math. That would mean that one division in each conference would have 5 teams. It would disrupt the mathematical harmony of the scheduling. I can't imagine that any of the owners would approve of being in the funky division.
(I could see them coming up with some sort of scheme where the expansion teams are not part of any division and schedule differently from the existing teams. The expansion teams could make the playoffs as wildcard teams. Especially if they let 8 teams rather than 6 in each conference. This might actually work well for the London team and another overseas team, since I doubt any of the current teams want to have an overseas team as a division rival.)
Quote from: jbnv on February 08, 2016, 09:02:10 PM
Quote from: Roadgeek Adam on February 08, 2016, 07:53:21 PM
Goodell has thrown the idea of 34 teams around
Goodell must not be very good at math. That would mean that one division in each conference would have 5 teams. It would disrupt the mathematical harmony of the scheduling. I can't imagine that any of the owners would approve of being in the funky division.
(I could see them coming up with some sort of scheme where the expansion teams are not part of any division and schedule differently from the existing teams. The expansion teams could make the playoffs as wildcard teams. Especially if they let 8 teams rather than 6 in each conference. This might actually work well for the London team and another overseas team, since I doubt any of the current teams want to have an overseas team as a division rival.)
They could also just redo the scheduling. They're tossing around the idea of 18 games as it is.
Quote from: cl94 on February 08, 2016, 09:04:21 PM
Quote from: jbnv on February 08, 2016, 09:02:10 PM
Quote from: Roadgeek Adam on February 08, 2016, 07:53:21 PM
Goodell has thrown the idea of 34 teams around
Goodell must not be very good at math. That would mean that one division in each conference would have 5 teams. It would disrupt the mathematical harmony of the scheduling. I can't imagine that any of the owners would approve of being in the funky division.
(I could see them coming up with some sort of scheme where the expansion teams are not part of any division and schedule differently from the existing teams. The expansion teams could make the playoffs as wildcard teams. Especially if they let 8 teams rather than 6 in each conference. This might actually work well for the London team and another overseas team, since I doubt any of the current teams want to have an overseas team as a division rival.)
They could also just redo the scheduling. They're tossing around the idea of 18 games as it is.
They've been talking about lengthening the season again since at least the 1980s (it was increased from 14 to 16 games in 1978).
The players' union has objected that its members are injured enough as it is and more games will only exacerbate things (sounds about right to me). I vaguely recall that when the bye week was added it was not just to have an additional week the NFL and its partners make money, but as a step toward a truly longer season. That clearly hasn't happened but I guess the prospect of more money has not stopped being attractive.
Quote from: Pete from Boston on February 08, 2016, 09:30:05 PM
I vaguely recall that when the bye week was added it was not just to have an additional week the NFL and its partners make money, but as a step toward a truly longer season. That clearly hasn't happened but I guess the prospect of more money has not stopped being attractive.
Actually, the bye was added when the league expanded to an odd number of teams, so someone had to take a week off. But the concept became popular (probably for the reasons you gave, as well as giving players a week off to better recover from injuries), and remained in modified form after the NFL added another expansion team tl make the number even again,
Quote from: oscar on February 08, 2016, 09:43:51 PM
Quote from: Pete from Boston on February 08, 2016, 09:30:05 PM
I vaguely recall that when the bye week was added it was not just to have an additional week the NFL and its partners make money, but as a step toward a truly longer season. That clearly hasn't happened but I guess the prospect of more money has not stopped being attractive.
Actually, the bye was added when the league expanded to an odd number of teams, so someone had to take a week off. But the concept became popular (probably for the reasons you gave, as well as giving players a week off to better recover from injuries), and remained in modified form after the NFL added another expansion team tl make the number even again,
It was added in 1990, and the odd number of teams was from 1999-2001 when the Browns were added back in 1999 and before Houston was added in 2002.
An 18 week schedule with 2 bye weeks was experimented in 1993 but turned out badly as the schedule was thin in the bye weeks. The league was 28 teams then so it wouldn't be as weak now with 32 teams.
Quote from: Big John on February 08, 2016, 09:47:46 PM
Quote from: oscar on February 08, 2016, 09:43:51 PM
Quote from: Pete from Boston on February 08, 2016, 09:30:05 PM
I vaguely recall that when the bye week was added it was not just to have an additional week the NFL and its partners make money, but as a step toward a truly longer season. That clearly hasn't happened but I guess the prospect of more money has not stopped being attractive.
Actually, the bye was added when the league expanded to an odd number of teams, so someone had to take a week off. But the concept became popular (probably for the reasons you gave, as well as giving players a week off to better recover from injuries), and remained in modified form after the NFL added another expansion team tl make the number even again,
It was added in 1990, and the odd number of teams was from 1999-2001 when the Browns were added back in 1999 and before Houston was added in 2002.
An 18 week schedule with 2 bye weeks was experimented in 1993 but turned out badly as the schedule was thin in the bye weeks. The league was 28 teams then so it wouldn't be as weak now with 32 teams.
I thought that was possibly a good idea, but it was done stupidly because both of the byes occurred in the first half of the season. If each team had a bye sometime between Weeks 3 and 9, and then another bye between Weeks 10 and 16, it would balance things out much better for an 18 week schedule. Of course, one problem with the 18 week schedule is that the Super Bowl comes one week later yet, assuming they always begin the regular season the weekend after Labor Day.
Quote from: DandyDan on February 09, 2016, 07:07:53 AM
Quote from: Big John on February 08, 2016, 09:47:46 PM
Quote from: oscar on February 08, 2016, 09:43:51 PM
Quote from: Pete from Boston on February 08, 2016, 09:30:05 PM
I vaguely recall that when the bye week was added it was not just to have an additional week the NFL and its partners make money, but as a step toward a truly longer season. That clearly hasn't happened but I guess the prospect of more money has not stopped being attractive.
Actually, the bye was added when the league expanded to an odd number of teams, so someone had to take a week off. But the concept became popular (probably for the reasons you gave, as well as giving players a week off to better recover from injuries), and remained in modified form after the NFL added another expansion team tl make the number even again,
It was added in 1990, and the odd number of teams was from 1999-2001 when the Browns were added back in 1999 and before Houston was added in 2002.
An 18 week schedule with 2 bye weeks was experimented in 1993 but turned out badly as the schedule was thin in the bye weeks. The league was 28 teams then so it wouldn't be as weak now with 32 teams.
I thought that was possibly a good idea, but it was done stupidly because both of the byes occurred in the first half of the season. If each team had a bye sometime between Weeks 3 and 9, and then another bye between Weeks 10 and 16, it would balance things out much better for an 18 week schedule. Of course, one problem with the 18 week schedule is that the Super Bowl comes one week later yet, assuming they always begin the regular season the weekend after Labor Day.
The first year of the 17-week schedule, the extra week off between the Super Bowl and the playoffs was eliminated.
I don't know how crucial that week is to the players or organizers. Obviously it's a more hectic schedule, but not much more than the rest of the season. Certainly less time for the media to over-cover every possible angle on this game.
Quote from: triplemultiplex on February 07, 2016, 03:57:41 PM
Temecula was a serious consideration? Jesus, why not just build a stadium in Palm Springs...
Not at all, just recalling Temecula was a proposed site for a NFL standard stadium. More of an ideal location for minor league sports. In CA, the 5 largest cities in population: Los Angeles, San Diego, San Jose, San Francisco and Sacramento have major league sports teams, as well in Oakland and Anaheim. The other 3 largest out of ten CA's most populous: Long Beach near LA, Santa Ana near Anaheim and Fresno in the Central part of CA don't have one. 3 other cities with over 300,000 residents: Stockton, Riverside in the San Bernardino metro area and Bakersfield, are attuned to semipro and minor leagues. Palm Springs did have a spring training camp of the California Angels from 1961 to 1993 when they joined other MLB spring training camps in the Phoenix area.
Regarding unbalanced divisions, recall that in the 28-team era there were three divisions in each conference, two with five teams each and one with four (in the NFC, the West had four; I don't remember as to the AFC and I'm not motivated to look it up).
When the NHL had 21 teams, the Patrick Division had six teams and the other three divisions had five each. I think the NBA was long similar since they had an odd number of teams until they added the (now former) Bobcats. MLB was the screwiest due to going with the stupid three-division alignment in each league with even numbers of teams, so the NL had 5/6/5 and the AL had 5/5/4.
^^ The AFC Central had 4 teams in it.
Just because all of the major leagues had imbalanced divisions before doesn't mean that they are a good idea now. Do you want your NFL team of choice to play in the one division in the conference that has 5 teams rather than 4? I don't.
Quote from: jbnv on February 09, 2016, 09:53:33 PM
Just because all of the major leagues had imbalanced divisions before doesn't mean that they are a good idea now. Do you want your NFL team of choice to play in the one division in the conference that has 5 teams rather than 4? I don't.
My NHL team of choice played in the six-team Patrick Division. Never seemed to be a problem (but then, the Devils and Penguins were consistently bad in those days, so there wasn't a big problem with making the playoffs).
Quote from: 1995hoo on February 10, 2016, 10:12:23 PM
Quote from: jbnv on February 09, 2016, 09:53:33 PM
Just because all of the major leagues had imbalanced divisions before doesn't mean that they are a good idea now. Do you want your NFL team of choice to play in the one division in the conference that has 5 teams rather than 4? I don't.
My NHL team of choice played in the six-team Patrick Division. Never seemed to be a problem (but then, the Devils and Penguins were consistently bad in those days, so there wasn't a big problem with making the playoffs).
If I'm not mistaken, in those days all but a very small minority (5 out of 21?) of NHL teams made the playoffs.
I'm assuming you mean the mid-1980s, since the Devils were only around since '82 and had started to be somewhat respectable by the end of the decade.
http://news3lv.com/news/local/governor-sandoval-announces-special-session-start-date-to-tackle-nfl-stadium-proposal
Las Vegas is the bargaining chip city for the Raiders.
Raiders belong in Oakland and that's that. They have too good a rivalry with the Chargers.
Quote from: bing101 on October 06, 2016, 12:22:15 PM
http://news3lv.com/news/local/governor-sandoval-announces-special-session-start-date-to-tackle-nfl-stadium-proposal
Las Vegas is the bargaining chip city for the Raiders.
From the wikipedia article of the Oakland Raiders:
On March 27, 2017, NFL team owners voted nearly unanimously to approve the Raiders' application to relocate from Oakland to Las Vegas, Nevada, in a 31-to-1 vote at the annual league meetings in Phoenix, Arizona. The Raiders plan to remain in Oakland through 2018 — and possibly 2019 — and relocate to Las Vegas in either 2019 or 2020, depending on the completion of the team's planned new stadium.[13][14]
The Raiders plan to relocate to Las Vegas in the 2019 season, where a stadium is being constructed and I'm afraid San Antonio, as well Orlando (tried to get the Raiders in the 1990s), San Diego (formerly home to the Chargers, 1961-2017), St Louis (formerly had the Rams for 2 decades, 1995-2015, back in LA) and Oakland itself can start a league of their own (plus Toronto who tried to bring the Buffalo Bills, and the CFL with the local Argonauts team stopped this plan).
Quote from: Desert Man on April 30, 2018, 10:26:47 PM
Quote from: bing101 on October 06, 2016, 12:22:15 PM
http://news3lv.com/news/local/governor-sandoval-announces-special-session-start-date-to-tackle-nfl-stadium-proposal
Las Vegas is the bargaining chip city for the Raiders.
From the wikipedia article of the Oakland Raiders:
On March 27, 2017, NFL team owners voted nearly unanimously to approve the Raiders' application to relocate from Oakland to Las Vegas, Nevada, in a 31-to-1 vote at the annual league meetings in Phoenix, Arizona. The Raiders plan to remain in Oakland through 2018 — and possibly 2019 — and relocate to Las Vegas in either 2019 or 2020, depending on the completion of the team's planned new stadium.[13][14]
The Raiders plan to relocate to Las Vegas in the 2019 season, where a stadium is being constructed and I'm afraid San Antonio, as well Orlando (tried to get the Raiders in the 1990s), San Diego (formerly home to the Chargers, 1961-2017), St Louis (formerly had the Rams for 2 decades, 1995-2015, back in LA) and Oakland itself can start a league of their own (plus Toronto who tried to bring the Buffalo Bills, and the CFL with the local Argonauts team stopped this plan).
You sure about that, the reason the Toronto group never won the Buffalo Bills bid was because they were simply outbid, the Argonauts didn't stop the NFL from coming. The CFL and the Argos are the least of the worries when one wants to talk about an NFL team in Toronto.....
Quote from: Desert Man on April 30, 2018, 10:26:47 PM
Quote from: bing101 on October 06, 2016, 12:22:15 PM
http://news3lv.com/news/local/governor-sandoval-announces-special-session-start-date-to-tackle-nfl-stadium-proposal
Las Vegas is the bargaining chip city for the Raiders.
From the wikipedia article of the Oakland Raiders:
On March 27, 2017, NFL team owners voted nearly unanimously to approve the Raiders' application to relocate from Oakland to Las Vegas, Nevada, in a 31-to-1 vote at the annual league meetings in Phoenix, Arizona. The Raiders plan to remain in Oakland through 2018 — and possibly 2019 — and relocate to Las Vegas in either 2019 or 2020, depending on the completion of the team's planned new stadium.[13][14]
The Raiders plan to relocate to Las Vegas in the 2019 season, where a stadium is being constructed and I'm afraid San Antonio, as well Orlando (tried to get the Raiders in the 1990s), San Diego (formerly home to the Chargers, 1961-2017), St Louis (formerly had the Rams for 2 decades, 1995-2015, back in LA) and Oakland itself can start a league of their own (plus Toronto who tried to bring the Buffalo Bills, and the CFL with the local Argonauts team stopped this plan).
I wonder if those cities can host XFL teams in the future? The only one I see a problem with would be Oakland, because having to play in Oakland Coliseum was why I think they wanted to leave Oakland in the first place...
I don't see anybody reusing the Oilers brand. Maybe someone from Houston or Texas can tell me how fond people are of it.
I don't see San Antonio having a pro-football team unless the Houston Texans move there. Too much loyalty to the Cowboys.
I believe the NFL announced they were "retiring" the name "Oilers" when the Nashville franchise changed its name to "Titans."
Quote from: jbnv on May 02, 2018, 03:45:40 PM
I don't see anybody reusing the Oilers brand. Maybe someone from Houston or Texas can tell me how fond people are of it.
I don't see San Antonio having a pro-football team unless the Houston Texans move there. Too much loyalty to the Cowboys.
I don't see why the Texans would move out of Houston since they already sell out every game and are in a much more populated area than San Antonio even combined with Austin they are still in a much more populated area. The loyalty to the Cowboys extends much further than just Texas too.
Quote from: Flint1979 on May 21, 2018, 01:42:44 PM
Quote from: jbnv on May 02, 2018, 03:45:40 PM
I don't see San Antonio having a pro-football team unless the Houston Texans move there.
I don't see why the Texans would move out of Houston since they already sell out every game and are in a much more populated area than San Antonio even combined with Austin they are still in a much more populated area.
I'm not suggesting that there's any possibility of the Texans moving.
You could move the Chargers there. The LA thing is going to flop and there is no way they are moving back to San Diego.
Quote from: dvferyance on May 21, 2018, 04:04:35 PM
You could move the Chargers there. The LA thing is going to flop and there is no way they are moving back to San Diego.
Spanos Central (where the family hails from and has most of their commercial interests) is Stockton; seeing how
that town just is not going to get a NFL team, nearby Sacramento might be a contender if they can select a site for a stadium+parking (likely back out in Natomas or across the river in West Sac -- or even down in Elk Grove) -- if the L.A. situation eventually shows that it can't support two teams.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/early-lead/wp/2018/07/18/you-are-looking-live-at-brent-musburgers-return-to-the-booth-with-the-raiders/?utm_term=.136de426be06&noredirect=on
Update Brent Musburger former ESPN announcer has a broadcasting deal with the Raiders.
Quote from: bing101 on July 18, 2018, 12:18:43 PM
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/early-lead/wp/2018/07/18/you-are-looking-live-at-brent-musburgers-return-to-the-booth-with-the-raiders/?utm_term=.136de426be06&noredirect=on
Update Brent Musburger former ESPN announcer has a broadcasting deal with the Raiders.
Apparently Greg Papa just didn't want to make the move to Las Vegas (can't fault him for that!), whereas Musberger (who's pushing 80!) lives there full time and was itching to do play-by-play again. Too bad; Papa was a very good broadcaster; hope he catches another gig in a town he can tolerate!
Was in Las Vegas last weekend, and rode by the new Raiders Stadium site along Dean Martin Drive. They are making some serious progress there.
(//www.aaroads.com/forum_images/west/new-raiders-stadium-1.jpg) (//www.aaroads.com/forum_images/west/new-raiders-stadium-1.jpg)
(//www.aaroads.com/forum_images/west/new-raiders-stadium-2.jpg) (//www.aaroads.com/forum_images/west/new-raiders-stadium-2.jpg)
(//www.aaroads.com/forum_images/west/new-raiders-stadium-3.jpg) (//www.aaroads.com/forum_images/west/new-raiders-stadium-3.jpg)
Quote from: sparker on July 19, 2018, 02:11:12 AM
Quote from: bing101 on July 18, 2018, 12:18:43 PM
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/early-lead/wp/2018/07/18/you-are-looking-live-at-brent-musburgers-return-to-the-booth-with-the-raiders/?utm_term=.136de426be06&noredirect=on
Update Brent Musburger former ESPN announcer has a broadcasting deal with the Raiders.
Apparently Greg Papa just didn't want to make the move to Las Vegas (can't fault him for that!), whereas Musberger (who's pushing 80!) lives there full time and was itching to do play-by-play again. Too bad; Papa was a very good broadcaster; hope he catches another gig in a town he can tolerate!
According to an article in this mornings'
Murky News, they also sacked Tom Flores, their old coach and current "color" guy. According to Flores, he didn't expect anything of the sort until he heard Papa was leaving -- but then assumed management was going to do a "clean sweep". He may have been a bit of a dick, but old Al Davis at least had a sense of team history (of which his kid seems to be a bit short!).
Quote from: sparker on July 05, 2018, 06:58:23 PM
Quote from: dvferyance on May 21, 2018, 04:04:35 PM
You could move the Chargers there. The LA thing is going to flop and there is no way they are moving back to San Diego.
Spanos Central (where the family hails from and has most of their commercial interests) is Stockton; seeing how that town just is not going to get a NFL team, nearby Sacramento might be a contender if they can select a site for a stadium+parking (likely back out in Natomas or across the river in West Sac -- or even down in Elk Grove) -- if the L.A. situation eventually shows that it can't support two teams.
That would be weird seeing another sports team in the Sacramento market. The Kings have always been terrible. Who's to say the Chargers wouldn't be if they moved?
Quote from: MantyMadTown on August 04, 2018, 03:25:00 PM
Quote from: sparker on July 05, 2018, 06:58:23 PM
Quote from: dvferyance on May 21, 2018, 04:04:35 PM
You could move the Chargers there. The LA thing is going to flop and there is no way they are moving back to San Diego.
Spanos Central (where the family hails from and has most of their commercial interests) is Stockton; seeing how that town just is not going to get a NFL team, nearby Sacramento might be a contender if they can select a site for a stadium+parking (likely back out in Natomas or across the river in West Sac -- or even down in Elk Grove) -- if the L.A. situation eventually shows that it can't support two teams.
That would be weird seeing another sports team in the Sacramento market. The Kings have always been terrible. Who's to say the Chargers wouldn't be if they moved?
The Kings have always been terrible because their owners are cheapskates. They played in what was essentially a couple of converted Natomas-area warehouses until they for all intents & purposes blackmailed the city of Sacramento into subsidizing a downtown arena for them. While the Spanos family have never been mistaken for huge spenders, at least they know how to attract enough talent to keep a team competitive (although not enough at times to overcome injuries). All that being said, the chances of the Chargers moving to Sacramento are quite slim; if L.A. is not profitable for them in the long run, other cities out of state (SLC, Austin, El Paso, Albuquerque) may well be in a better position to acquire their services.
Quote from: MantyMadTown on August 04, 2018, 03:25:00 PM
Quote from: sparker on July 05, 2018, 06:58:23 PM
Quote from: dvferyance on May 21, 2018, 04:04:35 PM
You could move the Chargers there. The LA thing is going to flop and there is no way they are moving back to San Diego.
Spanos Central (where the family hails from and has most of their commercial interests) is Stockton; seeing how that town just is not going to get a NFL team, nearby Sacramento might be a contender if they can select a site for a stadium+parking (likely back out in Natomas or across the river in West Sac -- or even down in Elk Grove) -- if the L.A. situation eventually shows that it can't support two teams.
That would be weird seeing another sports team in the Sacramento market. The Kings have always been terrible. Who's to say the Chargers wouldn't be if they moved?
Sacramento can just support the 49ers they are too close to the bay area for major league sports.
Quote from: dvferyance on August 07, 2018, 04:45:37 PM
Quote from: MantyMadTown on August 04, 2018, 03:25:00 PM
Quote from: sparker on July 05, 2018, 06:58:23 PM
Quote from: dvferyance on May 21, 2018, 04:04:35 PM
You could move the Chargers there. The LA thing is going to flop and there is no way they are moving back to San Diego.
Spanos Central (where the family hails from and has most of their commercial interests) is Stockton; seeing how that town just is not going to get a NFL team, nearby Sacramento might be a contender if they can select a site for a stadium+parking (likely back out in Natomas or across the river in West Sac -- or even down in Elk Grove) -- if the L.A. situation eventually shows that it can't support two teams.
That would be weird seeing another sports team in the Sacramento market. The Kings have always been terrible. Who's to say the Chargers wouldn't be if they moved?
Sacramento can just support the 49ers they are too close to the bay area for major league sports.
I heard the Niners are gonna be good again!
Seeing as how the Niners actually play in Santa Clara -- and the distance between there and Sacramento is about the same as between Philadelphia and NYC (and both of those metro areas feature NFL/NBA/MLB teams) -- the matter of distance should be moot. OK -- I know the Northeast is "special" because of its longstanding relationship with the pro leagues -- but the reality is that at 500K in the city and 2M in the metro area, Sacramento is capable of supporting more than a basketball team. Now whether Jed York pisses and moans because someone is "invading" his home territory (although he and previous ownership have coexisted with the Raiders for 58 years minus the L.A. stint) is yet to be determined (and frankly, WTF cares!).
And, yes, the Niners will be on the road to greatness if Jimmy G. can maintain his mastery enough to get at least a 11-5 record in the coming season (that should be enough to slide past the Rams and Seattle).
Quote from: sparker on August 08, 2018, 12:32:07 AM
Seeing as how the Niners actually play in Santa Clara -- and the distance between there and Sacramento is about the same as between Philadelphia and NYC (and both of those metro areas feature NFL/NBA/MLB teams) -- the matter of distance should be moot. OK -- I know the Northeast is "special" because of its longstanding relationship with the pro leagues -- but the reality is that at 500K in the city and 2M in the metro area, Sacramento is capable of supporting more than a basketball team. Now whether Jed York pisses and moans because someone is "invading" his home territory (although he and previous ownership have coexisted with the Raiders for 58 years minus the L.A. stint) is yet to be determined (and frankly, WTF cares!).
And, yes, the Niners will be on the road to greatness if Jimmy G. can maintain his mastery enough to get at least a 11-5 record in the coming season (that should be enough to slide past the Rams and Seattle).
Speaking of which I'm glad the Raiders are moving, simply because the Niners cannot say they represent San Francisco if their stadium is farther away from San Francisco than Oakland is. I was thinking that the 49ers could call themselves "San Francisco" to represent the entire Bay Area, so they would pretty much have to be the only team there, despite having shown a successful market for two teams. I actually thought the Raiders should've moved to Los Angeles before the Rams and the Chargers decided to move there and the Raiders chose to move to Las Vegas.
Quote from: MantyMadTown on August 08, 2018, 01:20:03 AM
Quote from: sparker on August 08, 2018, 12:32:07 AM
Seeing as how the Niners actually play in Santa Clara -- and the distance between there and Sacramento is about the same as between Philadelphia and NYC (and both of those metro areas feature NFL/NBA/MLB teams) -- the matter of distance should be moot. OK -- I know the Northeast is "special" because of its longstanding relationship with the pro leagues -- but the reality is that at 500K in the city and 2M in the metro area, Sacramento is capable of supporting more than a basketball team. Now whether Jed York pisses and moans because someone is "invading" his home territory (although he and previous ownership have coexisted with the Raiders for 58 years minus the L.A. stint) is yet to be determined (and frankly, WTF cares!).
And, yes, the Niners will be on the road to greatness if Jimmy G. can maintain his mastery enough to get at least a 11-5 record in the coming season (that should be enough to slide past the Rams and Seattle).
Speaking of which I'm glad the Raiders are moving, simply because the Niners cannot say they represent San Francisco if their stadium is farther away from San Francisco than Oakland is. I was thinking that the 49ers could call themselves "San Francisco" to represent the entire Bay Area, so they would pretty much have to be the only team there, despite having shown a successful market for two teams. I actually thought the Raiders should've moved to Los Angeles before the Rams and the Chargers decided to move there and the Raiders chose to move to Las Vegas.
Several years ago there was a plan to lure the Raiders back to L.A. with a new stadium alongside the CA 57/60 multiplex straddling Walnut and Diamond Bar near the Grand Ave. interchange; the land was there and optioned, but nothing came of it. Just as well -- that would have added to the existing mess out there. IIRC, the main problem was parking; much of the hillside north of the freeway would have had to be flattened to provide adequate room for both a 80K capacity stadium plus parking for about 30K cars & buses; the prospect of that happening sounded an alarm with Diamond Bar NIMBY's, and the plan was dropped soon thereafter.