http://www.cbssports.com/nfl/eye-on-football/24758737/rams-raiders-would-be-los-angeles-bound----if-not-for-the-nfl
The drama continues.
Sort of a clumsily written article, awfully dependent on "sources."
This would be very interesting to see, as it's now been 20 years since the Rams and Raiders played their last game in the City of Angels. My bet is that Seattle will have an NBA team sooner than L.A. gets an NFL team, but I wouldn't hold my breath. At least the Nationals' recent run of success has made it well worth the 33-year wait Washington had to go through after losing the Senators for good.
I find it hard to believe the Rams would move back. They have a solid backing in St. Louis. I could see the Raiders or Chargers relocating, not that it's much of a relocation for the Chargers (same market either way). But why not the Jaguars? Los Angeles Pumas.
What about the Jets moving to LA?
Quote from: 02 Park Ave on November 11, 2014, 05:23:19 PM
What about the Jets moving to LA?
Sorry, I think they're pretty firm about wanting a professional football team.
Quote from: 02 Park Ave on November 11, 2014, 05:23:19 PM
What about the Jets moving to LA?
They do enjoy the spotlight, and they don't have a majority of fans in any county...
http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/the-nfl-should-expand-to-london-but-first-canada-mexico-and-la/
Another one about LA and Football but to Canada?, Mexico? and Britain?
Quote from: Alps on November 11, 2014, 07:05:48 PM
Quote from: 02 Park Ave on November 11, 2014, 05:23:19 PM
What about the Jets moving to LA?
They do enjoy the spotlight, and they don't have a majority of fans in any county...
The goal is not to make Chargers fans of LA by sending the Jets there.
Perhaps expansion is the only answer, with four new teams added, which would bring the total to 36. Then we could have six divisions of six teams each, which is practically an enlarged version of the old (1970-2001) divisional setup.
Quote from: Henry on November 13, 2014, 11:42:40 AM
Perhaps expansion is the only answer, with four new teams added, which would bring the total to 36. Then we could have six divisions of six teams each, which is practically an enlarged version of the old (1970-2001) divisional setup.
But that would undercut team owners' efforts to extract subsidies and other concessions, by threatening to leave. The current situation, with multiple metro areas nervous about their teams leaving for L.A. or elsewhere, is perfect for the NFL.
Enlarging divisions to six teams would mean that, if every team in a division plays games home and away with each other division team, ten games rather than the current six are tied up in divisional games. Unless the number of games per season were expanded, that would make it impossible for each team in a division to play both a game against every team in another division within its conference, and in a division in the other conference. Bigger divisions, with fewer inter-divisional and inter-conference games, would increase the odds that teams making the playoffs or the Super Bowl will have limited or no recent experience playing their opponents in regular-season games.
Quote from: oscar on November 13, 2014, 12:25:25 PMEnlarging divisions to six teams would mean that, if every team in a division plays games home and away with each other division team, ten games rather than the current six are tied up in divisional games. Unless the number of games per season were expanded, that would make it impossible for each team in a division to play both a game against every team in another division within its conference, and in a division in the other conference.
You'd just play one other division, on a five year rotation.
How about 2 conferences with 6 divisions of 3 each? 4 games intra-division, 6 games (two other divisions on a 2/3 year rotation) intra-conference and 6 games (two divisions on a 3 year rotation) inter-conference.
But yes, expansion doesn't serve the NFL well, as the supply will then meet the demand for teams.
Expansion would mean a dilution of talent and more shitty teams and therefore crappier games. So no.
The other pro sports have 30. 32 is plenty for the NFL. Let's balance out the NBA and NHL first.
http://www.usatoday.com/story/sports/nfl/2014/11/16/national-football-league-los-angeles-chargers-raiders-rams/19126113/
Update here
http://fansided.com/2014/11/16/winless-oakland-raiders-eliminated-playoffs/?utm_source=si.com&utm_medium=referral&utm_campaign=si.com
and Raiders removed from the playoffs.
Quote from: triplemultiplex on November 13, 2014, 03:14:36 PM
Expansion would mean a dilution of talent and more shitty teams and therefore crappier games. So no.
Well once they had half as many teams but it was whites only so I think the talent pool can take it. Especially when they talk about it in baseball. A 32-team league with non-white players has a far stronger talent pool than a 16-team whites only league like back in the "good old days". Granted football only had 10 teams but I don't think, unlike baseball, anyone thinks the good old days of football were it's best years.
I think what they need though is a minor league. Then they'd have talent to draw from during the season rather than just randomly trying players out.
Quote from: triplemultiplex on November 13, 2014, 03:14:36 PM
Expansion would mean a dilution of talent and more shitty teams and therefore crappier games. So no.
This argument gets thrown around every time expansion is brought up in a sport, but the numbers don't hold water.
We are at the least "diluted" (in terms of NFL teams or players per capita) than at any time since the AFL-NFL merger. We could expand to 36 teams right now and still be less "diluted" than any time since about 1990. And this only takes into account the U.S. population - the greater number of foreign-born players nowadays makes this argument even less true.
More subjectively, the prospect of an NFL career nowadays, with its potential millions of dollars, is (I would guess) much more enticing than it was in 1970, so there are probably more athletes considering it as a career than there were then, which would further knock this argument down.
So you may think there are more shitty teams and crappier games, but I don't think dilution of talent is the reason.
My prediction is that the Rams and Raiders will move back, and San Diego will have no choice but to build a new stadium for the Chargers. But if the Raiders move to San Antonio instead, then I can see the Chargers becoming the Rams' co-tenants. But anything goes, especially when it comes to the NFL.
Why would a city that has no team all these years immediately get two?
Quote from: texaskdog on November 19, 2014, 01:37:06 PM
Why would a city that has no team all these years immediately get two?
No clue. I was under the impression that the Rams were happy in St Louis.
Quote from: DTComposer on November 16, 2014, 10:37:12 PM
Quote from: triplemultiplex on November 13, 2014, 03:14:36 PM
Expansion would mean a dilution of talent and more shitty teams and therefore crappier games. So no.
This argument gets thrown around every time expansion is brought up in a sport, but the numbers don't hold water.
We are at the least "diluted" (in terms of NFL teams or players per capita) than at any time since the AFL-NFL merger. We could expand to 36 teams right now and still be less "diluted" than any time since about 1990. And this only takes into account the U.S. population - the greater number of foreign-born players nowadays makes this argument even less true.
More subjectively, the prospect of an NFL career nowadays, with its potential millions of dollars, is (I would guess) much more enticing than it was in 1970, so there are probably more athletes considering it as a career than there were then, which would further knock this argument down.
So you may think there are more shitty teams and crappier games, but I don't think dilution of talent is the reason.
It's all perception. Today, your favorite team could lose to their most hated rivel, and the excuses will be plenty. Next year, if 4 teams were added, your favorite team could lose to their most hated rivel, and the excuses will be plenty, plus "dilution" would be added and would most likely become everyone's main reason why the team lost, although I bet dilution won't be the excuse why the other team won.
Same thing with Global Warming. No one remembers that the average high for a date is...an average. All they know is that if it's 10 degrees warmer than average, it's because of global warming, even though global warming appears to only affect local areas on warm days, and it doesn't explain why the record high for the date was set 90 years ago and wasn't even close to being broken.
Except global warming is pretty well established scientifically and "it's unusually hot this month" is not really specifically relevant.
Quote from: Brandon on November 19, 2014, 02:19:43 PM
Quote from: texaskdog on November 19, 2014, 01:37:06 PM
Why would a city that has no team all these years immediately get two?
No clue. I was under the impression that the Rams were happy in St Louis.
LA is the second-biggest media market in the country and currently features five teams in the four majors that matter. By comparison, New York, marginally bigger, has nine. LA people have a lot of unspent pro sports dollars to go around.
The Rams are unhappy with their 19-year-old stadium A modern stadium is considered obsolete after 20 years, but the Rams are impatient.
I believe the LA area has six teams in the four major sports, not five teams, presuming you're counting Anaheim (as most people do):
Kings
Ducks
Dodgers
Angels
Lakers
Clippers
Quote from: 1995hoo on November 19, 2014, 05:07:45 PM
I believe the LA area has six teams in the four major sports, not five teams, presuming you're counting Anaheim (as most people do):
Kings
Ducks
Dodgers
Angels
Lakers
Clippers
Forgot about the Ducks. Both Anaheim and the NHL are at the distant margins of my attention.
Give them one team, see what happens. I'd like to see the Rams stay where they are.
Quote from: Alps on November 20, 2014, 12:26:20 AM
Give them one team, see what happens. I'd like to see the Rams stay where they are.
I'm fine with whatever happens if the parties involved (cities/teams) work it out. It annoys me when the leagues step in to advance an outcome at the expense of one of the players at the table. I get that this is tricky because the league has an interest based on more or less revenue, but the cities have an interest based on some return on investment or none at all.
Quote from: Pete from Boston on November 19, 2014, 04:51:26 PM
Except global warming is pretty well established scientifically and "it's unusually hot this month" is not really specifically relevant.
Quote from: Brandon on November 19, 2014, 02:19:43 PM
Quote from: texaskdog on November 19, 2014, 01:37:06 PM
Why would a city that has no team all these years immediately get two?
No clue. I was under the impression that the Rams were happy in St Louis.
LA is the second-biggest media market in the country and currently features five teams in the four majors that matter. By comparison, New York, marginally bigger, has nine. LA people have a lot of unspent pro sports dollars to go around.
The Rams are unhappy with their 19-year-old stadium A modern stadium is considered obsolete after 20 years, but the Rams are impatient.
And by comparison, Chicago (the No. 3 market) has just five teams (Bears, Blackhawks, Bulls, Cubs, White Sox), though they also had the Cardinals playing in the Bears' shadow until that team left for St. Louis in 1960.
Quote from: Alps on November 20, 2014, 12:26:20 AM
Give them one team, see what happens. I'd like to see the Rams stay where they are.
Speaking of St. Louis, I hope the Rams can somehow work it out and get something out, like a renovation of their existing facility or a new stadium. However, as their owner already has land in L.A. ready for a new stadium, he may as well pull an Al Davis and move them back west, if he doesn't get his way.
I don't know why y'all have to compare different teams in different sports. It's not like each sports fan likes every sport.
Update on this thread (now this is June 2015): NO NFL team at this time expressed interest in relocation to L.A. The Raiders are pressured to remain in Oakland, the Chargers decided not to play in a place they know they're facing a possible regional rival, and the Rams noticed the city of St. Louis has an offer for them to stay there. The NFL should expand to the Los Angeles area, the US' 2nd largest sports market, whether it's one or 2 teams. Other NFL possible expansion sites are Toronto in Canada (the Buffalo Bills held exhibition games there while the Bills want to stay in Buffalo), Mexico City (Mexico may have an economic boom, but the NFL doesn't believe it's suitable), Birmingham Ala. (they had 5 semi-pro American football teams in the last 40 years), San Antonio (briefly had the New Orleans Saints in 2005 and 2006 after hurricane Katrina gutted the city) and Oklahoma City (a more likely city than...sports gambling in Las Vegas).
They seem to love Toronto and London and only like LA as a bargaining chip. San Antonio would be a top possible location.
The Birmingham Stallions & Vulcans/Americans weren't semi-pro!
Vancouver BC has BC Place, a domed stadium that is home to the BC Lions of the CFL.
Memphis TN was the first home of the Tennessee Titans. That resulted in an upgrade to the stadium known as the Liberty Bowl.
Honolulu, Las Vegas and Sacramento all have had lesser pro teams at some point with Honolulu hosting the Pro Bowl for decades. What is lacking in those cities is a great venue.
Orlando has also enjoyed pro football from a lesser league. Their stadium seems to be decent enough from what I see on TV.
Syracuse has a domed stadium.
With so many locations having either an adequate stadium in place or the potential for one, and then add in the reluctance of the NFL's 31 owners and one city-owned team to want to split the pie any smaller in their revenue-sharing model, I would think a proposal for NFL Spring Football would work out. Each AFC team pairs with an NFC team to stock up the roster and provide coaches for a total of 16 NFL Spring teams.
Break them up as follows: Four divisions of four teams each with two conferences of two divisions, East and West. Six games in division play, four against the other division in your conference and two games against each of the other two divisions for a total of 14 games in a regular season. Division winners meet in the semis, followed by a title game. Why only two rounds? That is one less game to get injured in and these teams are filled up with people who will become part of the NFL regular season roster.
Move the Pro Bowl to the week after the Super Bowl. Have the NFL Draft the following week. Start the season on the first Sunday of March. It will end in mid-June, about the time the NBA Finals and NHL championship are decided. That will allow the players a month at least to rest their bodies before NFL training camps begin. Since most of the NFL Spring players who make it to the NFL will be backup players, they won't be as worn out by the NFL regular season and thus be able to offer quality backup play in a sport riddled with injuries.
Expand the NFL roster to 60 players suited up with no practice squad/emergency QB setasides.
This proposal brings NFL football in some form to 48 cities, covers most of the year and builds up roster numbers as well as quality.
Rick
Quote from: nexus73 on June 19, 2015, 01:27:21 PM
With so many locations having either an adequate stadium in place or the potential for one, and then add in the reluctance of the NFL's 31 owners and one city-owned team to want to split the pie any smaller in their revenue-sharing model, I would think a proposal for NFL Spring Football would work out. Each AFC team pairs with an NFC team to stock up the roster and provide coaches for a total of 16 NFL Spring teams.
The XFL and back to the 1980s the USFL tried spring football. I'm surprised they didn't tried summer football going after baseball. Then there still arena football/inner football.
Quote from: Mike D boy on June 18, 2015, 04:36:08 PM
Update on this thread (now this is June 2015): NO NFL team at this time expressed interest in relocation to L.A. The Raiders are pressured to remain in Oakland, the Chargers decided not to play in a place they know they're facing a possible regional rival, and the Rams noticed the city of St. Louis has an offer for them to stay there...
Kind of telling that you don't have a source on this, since it contradicts everything I've read on the issue....
NFL inquires about L.A. stadiums temporarily hosting a team in 2016 (http://www.nfl.com/news/story/0ap3000000498995/article/dodger-stadium-angel-stadium-among-la-venue-options) (dated June 26th)
Chargers and Raiders owners talk with L.A. officials (http://www.nfl.com/news/story/0ap3000000499660/article/chargers-raiders-owners-talk-with-la-officials) (dated July 1st)
Yes, the teams are still trying to work things out in their current cities/stadiums (though that's not really an option in Oakland), but everything's also still moving forward in Los Angeles. At this point, it's a foregone conclusion that there will be at least one, probably two (but almost definitely not three) teams in Los Angeles soon; the only questions are who, and exactly where and when. (And also what happens to the odd man out... do the Rams stay in St. Louis, do the Raiders move to San Antonio, etc.)
Quote from: Kacie Jane on July 02, 2015, 02:25:45 PM
Quote from: Mike D boy on June 18, 2015, 04:36:08 PM
<clipped>
Kind of telling that you don't have a source on this, since it contradicts everything I've read on the issue....
NFL inquires about L.A. stadiums temporarily hosting a team in 2016 (http://www.nfl.com/news/story/0ap3000000498995/article/dodger-stadium-angel-stadium-among-la-venue-options) (dated June 26th)
I've been talking with my uncle, who's been a Rams fan for as long as he can remember, and he tells me time and time again that there's no way the Rams will stick around in STL. The owner buying land in LA and the league searching for temporary facilities tells me that an announcement is coming in the next few months. Venue logistics can be worked out later, but that's hardly the bigger issue here...
...IMO, Saint Louis is more of a baseball town. I'm sure the city can muster up some deal for them, but it's pointless if you can't sell seats.
Quote from: jakeroot on July 02, 2015, 03:37:17 PM
Quote from: Kacie Jane on July 02, 2015, 02:25:45 PM
Quote from: Mike D boy on June 18, 2015, 04:36:08 PM
<clipped>
Kind of telling that you don't have a source on this, since it contradicts everything I've read on the issue....
NFL inquires about L.A. stadiums temporarily hosting a team in 2016 (http://www.nfl.com/news/story/0ap3000000498995/article/dodger-stadium-angel-stadium-among-la-venue-options) (dated June 26th)
I've been talking with my uncle, who's been a Rams fan for as long as he can remember, and he tells me time and time again that there's no way the Rams will stick around in STL. The owner buying land in LA and the league searching for temporary facilities tells me that an announcement is coming in the next few months. Venue logistics can be worked out later, but that's hardly the bigger issue here...
...IMO, Saint Louis is more of a baseball town. I'm sure the city can muster up some deal for them, but it's pointless if you can't sell seats.
At least the Rams had a run of success in St. Louis as well, going to two Super Bowls in three years and winning one. However, it's undeniable that even in that brief winning period, they were overshadowed by the Cardinals, who remain the city's true heart and soul. And seeing that the Rams' owner has already reserved land for a new stadium in L.A., it's only a matter of time when they return west, a la Oakland Raiders. And speaking of the Raiders, there's no way (at least in my mind) that they would actually share a stadium with the division rival Chargers. If I were to keep one of the teams where they are now, it would be the Chargers, because San Diego has a better chance of building a new replacement stadium than Oakland does.
http://hardballtalk.nbcsports.com/2015/06/29/oakland-may-have-to-choose-between-the-as-and-the-raiders/ (http://hardballtalk.nbcsports.com/2015/06/29/oakland-may-have-to-choose-between-the-as-and-the-raiders/)
Quote
"There is plenty of room for both a football- and a baseball-only stadium at the current Oakland Coliseum site, but neither owner wants to share the facility," said Oakland City Councilman Larry Reid.
Raiders owner Mark Davis and A's owners John Fisher and Lew Wolff "have basically said they want to be the only entity at the Coliseum," Reid said.
Although the articles I've read seem to lean towards the Raiders leaving, IMO if Oakland/Alameda County really has to choose they'd be smarter to focus on the Raiders and work with the Giants to resolve the issue of the A's moving to San Jose - at least all the teams remain in the same media market.
Quote from: DTComposer on July 04, 2015, 11:57:44 AM
http://hardballtalk.nbcsports.com/2015/06/29/oakland-may-have-to-choose-between-the-as-and-the-raiders/ (http://hardballtalk.nbcsports.com/2015/06/29/oakland-may-have-to-choose-between-the-as-and-the-raiders/)
Quote
“There is plenty of room for both a football- and a baseball-only stadium at the current Oakland Coliseum site, but neither owner wants to share the facility,” said Oakland City Councilman Larry Reid.
Raiders owner Mark Davis and A’s owners John Fisher and Lew Wolff “have basically said they want to be the only entity at the Coliseum,” Reid said.
Although the articles I've read seem to lean towards the Raiders leaving, IMO if Oakland/Alameda County really has to choose they'd be smarter to focus on the Raiders and work with the Giants to resolve the issue of the A's moving to San Jose - at least all the teams remain in the same media market.
And let's not forget that the current NBA champion Warriors will soon be moving across the bay to San Francisco, which would be another good reason to build two new stadiums on the Coliseum site.
Quote from: Pete from Boston on November 11, 2014, 06:00:23 PM
Quote from: 02 Park Ave on November 11, 2014, 05:23:19 PM
What about the Jets moving to LA?
Sorry, I think they're pretty firm about wanting a professional football team.
Professional?
Quote from: Henry on July 03, 2015, 12:21:19 PM
Quote from: jakeroot on July 02, 2015, 03:37:17 PM
Quote from: Kacie Jane on July 02, 2015, 02:25:45 PM
Quote from: Mike D boy on June 18, 2015, 04:36:08 PM
<clipped>
Kind of telling that you don't have a source on this, since it contradicts everything I've read on the issue....
NFL inquires about L.A. stadiums temporarily hosting a team in 2016 (http://www.nfl.com/news/story/0ap3000000498995/article/dodger-stadium-angel-stadium-among-la-venue-options) (dated June 26th)
I've been talking with my uncle, who's been a Rams fan for as long as he can remember, and he tells me time and time again that there's no way the Rams will stick around in STL. The owner buying land in LA and the league searching for temporary facilities tells me that an announcement is coming in the next few months. Venue logistics can be worked out later, but that's hardly the bigger issue here...
...IMO, Saint Louis is more of a baseball town. I'm sure the city can muster up some deal for them, but it's pointless if you can't sell seats.
At least the Rams had a run of success in St. Louis as well, going to two Super Bowls in three years and winning one. However, it's undeniable that even in that brief winning period, they were overshadowed by the Cardinals, who remain the city's true heart and soul. And seeing that the Rams' owner has already reserved land for a new stadium in L.A., it's only a matter of time when they return west, a la Oakland Raiders. And speaking of the Raiders, there's no way (at least in my mind) that they would actually share a stadium with the division rival Chargers. If I were to keep one of the teams where they are now, it would be the Chargers, because San Diego has a better chance of building a new replacement stadium than Oakland does.
I believe legally (for whatever reason) one team is forced to go the NFC, though an inter-stadium rivalry would be cool.
Quote from: Pete from Boston on July 06, 2015, 01:15:56 PM
Quote from: texaskdog on July 06, 2015, 01:02:07 PM
Quote from: Pete from Boston on November 11, 2014, 06:00:23 PM
Quote from: 02 Park Ave on November 11, 2014, 05:23:19 PM
What about the Jets moving to LA?
Sorry, I think they're pretty firm about wanting a professional football team.
Professional?
As opposed to, say, the Jets.
That's what I meant, they wouldn't be losing a pro team
If both the Rams and the Raiders move back to LA, that would be totally stupid. It's a waste to have two pro teams in the same media market. I am also stridently against profession sports teams blackmailing new stadiums out of cities. So I would only be happy if the Rams stayed put and the Raiders were the ones to go to Los Angeles.
If anyone else wants a team, move the Jets. Then the league can reorganize the pathetic excuse for competition that is the AFC East the Patriots have coasted on for 15 years.
It's too bad the leagues just don't have every local team's stock sold to local PEOPLE like Green Bay so that the teams will never move, but I'm sure that's not in their interests.
Quote from: texaskdog on July 21, 2015, 10:28:57 AM
It's too bad the leagues just don't have every local team's stock sold to local PEOPLE like Green Bay so that the teams will never move, but I'm sure that's not in their interests.
And it's an incredibly bad idea. Imagine baseball today if that had happened. You'd still have two teams in Philly, two teams in Boston, two teams in St. Louis and three teams in New York. Teams need to be able to relocate as the market changes.
Quote from: triplemultiplex on July 20, 2015, 11:56:17 PM
If both the Rams and the Raiders move back to LA, that would be totally stupid. It's a waste to have two pro teams in the same media market. I am also stridently against profession sports teams blackmailing new stadiums out of cities. So I would only be happy if the Rams stayed put and the Raiders were the ones to go to Los Angeles.
If anyone else wants a team, move the Jets. Then the league can reorganize the pathetic excuse for competition that is the AFC East the Patriots have coasted on for 15 years.
-coasted +cheated
Quote from: triplemultiplex on July 20, 2015, 11:56:17 PM
If both the Rams and the Raiders move back to LA, that would be totally stupid. It's a waste to have two pro teams in the same media market. I am also stridently against profession sports teams blackmailing new stadiums out of cities. So I would only be happy if the Rams stayed put and the Raiders were the ones to go to Los Angeles.
If anyone else wants a team, move the Jets. Then the league can reorganize the pathetic excuse for competition that is the AFC East the Patriots have coasted on for 15 years.
The NFL doesn't feel that way. Having an AFC team and NFC team in a large market like NYC or LA helps the league. The other pro sports leagues (MLB, NBA, NHL) have multiple teams in the NYC and LA markets.
Quote from: texaskdog on July 21, 2015, 10:28:57 AM
It's too bad the leagues just don't have every local team's stock sold to local PEOPLE like Green Bay so that the teams will never move, but I'm sure that's not in their interests.
Green Bay's ownership situation was grandfathered in. If not, they would be playing in Milwaukee or some other city by now.
Quote from: swbrotha100 on October 17, 2015, 12:15:50 AM
The NFL doesn't feel that way. Having an AFC team and NFC team in a large market like NYC or LA helps the league. The other pro sports leagues (MLB, NBA, NHL) have multiple teams in the NYC and LA markets.
What helps pro sports leagues is having a good distribution of teams and parity among them. America has enough population to put some space between pro teams, no need for any city or metro to have two.
Quote from: swbrotha100 on October 17, 2015, 12:15:50 AM
Green Bay's ownership situation was grandfathered in. If not, they would be playing in Milwaukee or some other city by now.
But given the more even geographic distribution of teams these days, I think it's perfectly reasonable to have city ownership of more pro sports teams. It's the only way to fight back against this blackmail horseshit the assface owners keep pulling on cities.
Then the all the city-owned teams can end these nonsense blackout restrictions the pro sports cartels and corporate media outlets have collaborated on to artificially inflate ticket prices. The idea that some teams cover up seats in their arenas so they are not subject to blackout of broadcast of the games is the height of stupidity. What the hell? Fucking lower the price for tickets, and people will show!
This kind of crap is driving away fans.
Quote from: swbrotha100 on October 17, 2015, 12:15:50 AM
Quote from: texaskdog on July 21, 2015, 10:28:57 AM
It's too bad the leagues just don't have every local team's stock sold to local PEOPLE like Green Bay so that the teams will never move, but I'm sure that's not in their interests.
Green Bay's ownership situation was grandfathered in. If not, they would be playing in Milwaukee or some other city by now.
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.
QuoteQuote from: 74/171FAN on October 17, 2015, 07:34:58 AM
Quote from: texaskdog on July 21, 2015, 10:28:57 AM
It's too bad the leagues just don't have every local team's stock sold to local PEOPLE like Green Bay so that the teams will never move, but I'm sure that's not in their interests.
Green Bay's ownership situation was grandfathered in. If not, they would be playing in Milwaukee or some other city by now.
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".
Isn't team location pretty irrelevant, since the NFL lives and dies on TV revenue? As long as people in L.A. can watch NFL games, that's all the league really cares about. It's the team owners that would benefit from ticket and merchandise sales.
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.
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.
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.)
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.
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).
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.
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.
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.
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).
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.
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.
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.
^^ The Raiders have proposed a move to the NFC in order to make that move.
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?
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.
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.
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.
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.
Before 2002, the NFC West had the Falcons, Panthers, and Saints. The NFC East had the Cardinals. Geography be damned.
ASUS ZenFone 2E
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.
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?
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).
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.
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.
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.
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).
Yep. When the NFL realigned into four-team divisions, the Cardinals were left out (moved from the NFC East to the NFC West, partially offsetting the three former NFC West teams moved to the new NFC South). They were not happy about losing the Cowboys as a division rival, or the resulting loss of ticket sales.
Quote from: Henry on November 05, 2015, 12:20:21 PM
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.
That's more a statement about population than the intensity of the fandom.
Quote from: oscar on November 05, 2015, 12:30:06 PM
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).
Yep. When the NFL realigned into four-team divisions, the Cardinals were left out (moved from the NFC East to the NFC West, partially offsetting the three former NFC West teams moved to the new NFC South). They were not happy about losing the Cowboys as a division rival, or the resulting loss of ticket sales.
It was also why the first season after the realignment saw the NFC East play the NFC West, with Dallas visiting Arizona–a sort of consolation prize for the Cardinals.
So it looks like the Chargers have played their last game in San Diego (http://www.nfl.com/gamecenter/2015122011/2015/REG15/dolphins@chargers#menu=gameinfo%7CcontentId%3A0ap3000000605424&tab=recap), and the Rams have done the same in St. Louis (http://www.nfl.com/gamecenter/2015121700/2015/REG15/buccaneers@rams#menu=gameinfo%7CcontentId%3A0ap3000000604026&tab=recap); fortunately, they both won. Hopefully the Raiders will win their potential final game in Oakland, which will be played against (gasp!) the Chargers; can anyone say coincidence?
Quote from: Henry on December 21, 2015, 01:30:42 PM
So it looks like the Chargers have played their last game in San Diego (http://www.nfl.com/gamecenter/2015122011/2015/REG15/dolphins@chargers#menu=gameinfo%7CcontentId%3A0ap3000000605424&tab=recap), and the Rams have done the same in St. Louis (http://www.nfl.com/gamecenter/2015121700/2015/REG15/buccaneers@rams#menu=gameinfo%7CcontentId%3A0ap3000000604026&tab=recap); fortunately, they both won. Hopefully the Raiders will win their potential final game in Oakland, which will be played against (gasp!) the Chargers; can anyone say coincidence?
Why not also move the Jacksonville Jaguars to L.A. and we can have the NFL Los Angeles division...
But then who would play in London every year? ;)
Quote from: KEVIN_224 on December 21, 2015, 09:01:03 PM
But then who would play in London every year? ;)
Well since they'd all play in Carson, some of the Los Angeles teams would default their home games there.
Then Roger Goodell and Mike Helton can cheer how they completed their mutual railroading of their respective sports. :cheers:
Quote from: Alex on December 21, 2015, 06:45:29 PM
Quote from: Henry on December 21, 2015, 01:30:42 PM
So it looks like the Chargers have played their last game in San Diego (http://www.nfl.com/gamecenter/2015122011/2015/REG15/dolphins@chargers#menu=gameinfo%7CcontentId%3A0ap3000000605424&tab=recap), and the Rams have done the same in St. Louis (http://www.nfl.com/gamecenter/2015121700/2015/REG15/buccaneers@rams#menu=gameinfo%7CcontentId%3A0ap3000000604026&tab=recap); fortunately, they both won. Hopefully the Raiders will win their potential final game in Oakland, which will be played against (gasp!) the Chargers; can anyone say coincidence?
Why not also move the Jacksonville Jaguars to L.A. and we can have the NFL Los Angeles division...
Quote from: Alex on December 22, 2015, 09:12:29 AM
Quote from: KEVIN_224 on December 21, 2015, 09:01:03 PM
But then who would play in London every year? ;)
Well since they'd all play in Carson, some of the Los Angeles teams would default their home games there.
Then Roger Goodell and Mike Helton can cheer how they completed their mutual railroading of their respective sports. :cheers:
:rofl:
Quote from: AlexandriaVA on October 17, 2015, 09:24:15 AM
Isn't team location pretty irrelevant, since the NFL lives and dies on TV revenue? As long as people in L.A. can watch NFL games, that's all the league really cares about. It's the team owners that would benefit from ticket and merchandise sales.
Stadium revenue is not insignificant, and IIRC, less of it is shared with the league, as opposed to TV revenue, where everyone gets the same share. Premium seating is especially hot right now, with high-end experiences driving stadium design (like a club that stretches the length of the field).
To your point, it really wouldn't matter if a team played in Atlanta or Athens, as long as a capacity crowd is there on game day, and the team gets the bulk of the operational revenue. Of course, the closer to a major population center, the easier it is to sell premium seating to corporate buyers, but for the right experience, distance is no issue.
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.
Putting Dallas in the South splits up Atlanta and Carolina, or Atlanta and Tampa Bay. Moving Tampa Bay to the East would probably be the more palatable of the two.
There was talk of an "AFC Gulf Coast" division back in the 1990s when Carolina and Jacksonville were added, which would have included New Orleans, the Houston Oilers, and the three Florida teams.
At this point, why doesn't every team that can't get a subsidized stadium deal join the Los Angeles bandwagon?
Chargers, Raiders and Rams file for relocation to Los Angeles (http://www.cbssports.com/nfl/eye-on-football/25438233/chargers-raiders-and-rams-file-for-relocation-to-los-angeles)
QuoteThe San Diego Chargers quit dipping their toe in the baby pool and took a plunge into the deep end Monday night, officially filing papers with the NFL for relocation to Los Angeles.
The Raiders and Rams also filed relocation papers on Monday.
QuoteWe have tried for more than 14 years, through nine separate proposals and seven different mayors, to create a world-class stadium experience for fans in San Diego. Despite these efforts, there is still no certain, actionable solution to the stadium problem. We are sad to have reached this point.
What happens next is in the hands of the NFL's owners, who will meet in Houston on January 12-13. The Chargers have pledged from the outset to respect whatever decision the League ownership makes.
The Rams were less ... wordy.
The St. Louis Rams informed the National Football League today that the Rams propose to relocate to the greater Los Angeles metropolitan area. The relocation would be effective for the 2016 NFL League Year.
QuoteMaking matters potentially awkward, Spanos said the Chargers will stay in San Diego if the owners don't approve the team's relocation.
"Well we're back here and we'll be here for the next year for sure," Spanos said. "We'll look at all the possibilities with the city and see what our alternatives could be."
Any team that does relocate will be subject to a $550 million relocation fee per NFL.com.
I read another article that talked about the Raiders and Chargers willing to share a stadium for home games. How would that work with both being in the same division?
Oh wait, I forgot, they will be in the new Los Angeles Division with the Rams...Will a metro area that has been without a team for 20 years support two or three teams? Ignoring the whole stadium blackmailing motivation, why not approve just one relocation and see how that fares first?
Quote from: Henry on November 05, 2015, 12:20:21 PM
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.
Broncos are usually good, and they played each other in a super bowl. Texans would be an in-state rivalry. Cardinals were in the east for years and thus have a history.
Quote from: tidecat on December 22, 2015, 11:30:40 PM
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.
Putting Dallas in the South splits up Atlanta and Carolina, or Atlanta and Tampa Bay. Moving Tampa Bay to the East would probably be the more palatable of the two.
There was talk of an "AFC Gulf Coast" division back in the 1990s when Carolina and Jacksonville were added, which would have included New Orleans, the Houston Oilers, and the three Florida teams.
I think any "radical realignment" would begin with 4 teams geographically close getting together.
Well, the New York metropolitan area has three NHL teams (New York Rangers, New York Islanders and New Jersey Devils), so there is precedent in having three teams in a single area. However, I still don't see L.A. following suit, seeing that two AFC rivals (Raiders and Chargers) are working together on the same stadium proposal (Carson). I predict that the Rams and Raiders go, although I would like to see the Rams try to work things out with St. Louis. Failing that, I could also see the Rams and Chargers be the ones to relocate, with the Raiders working things out with Oakland (and possibly reach a compromise with the A's).
Quote from: Alex on January 05, 2016, 09:25:47 AMIgnoring the whole stadium blackmailing motivation, why not approve just one relocation and see how that fares first?
Or, better yet, relocate them to less desirable places to punish them for their stadium blackmailing.
Chargers to Chisinau, Raiders to Rangoon, Rams to Ramallah - that sort of thing ;)
Spanks will pay a 550$mil fee to move to LA but can't come up with $200m to make a local stadium deal work.
Right now the biggest loss locals fear if the Chargers leave is that of Azteks football.
So LA has three definite suitors...
Time to bring back:
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fimages.fastcompany.com%2Fupload%2Finline-The-Interview-Dating-Game.jpg&hash=c07eee8d5a1bc15b6f96e2aeea946e6b93c92389)
NFL edition.
So now that the Chargers, Raiders and Rams have officially applied to move to Los Angeles, would you like to bet who actually gets to move there?
Going back to the New York example, I just remembered something...
Quote from: Henry on January 05, 2016, 10:22:54 AM
Well, the New York metropolitan area has three NHL teams (New York Rangers, New York Islanders and New Jersey Devils), so there is precedent in having three teams in a single area.
In addition, there were three MLB teams in the area for 54 years (New York Yankees, New York Giants, Brooklyn Dodgers), and they set the precedent long before the NHL teams did. Of course, the Giants and Dodgers play out west (in San Francisco and L.A., respectively).
If only one team can move for the 2016 season, it makes sense that it would be the Rams. The L.A. Coliseum will only host one NFL team on a temporary basis. No other site in or around Los Angeles wants to host an NFL team temporarily. That and Stan Kroenke is the only one of the three owners who can build his own stadium (in Inglewood) without help from other owners or outside investors. The NFL also won't have to realign the NFC West and AFC West.
http://fox2now.com/2016/01/09/nfl-commissioner-says-rams-stadium-proposal-is-inadequate/ (http://fox2now.com/2016/01/09/nfl-commissioner-says-rams-stadium-proposal-is-inadequate/)
Well the Chances of Los Angeles getting the Rams are increasing with this press conference mentioned by Goodell. Supposedly the Proposal is inadequate.
Well Live and Die in LA the NFL edition Coming soon.
Reminds me of Major League Baseball's transparent manipulation of the Expos situation to shape the outcome of that process. This Goodell statement is right out of that particular book of blackmail.
http://www.latimes.com/sports/nfl/la-sp-nfl-la-stadium-20160110-story.html
Update Oakland, St. Louis and San Diego do not have adequate proposals according to Goodell.
Is anything 'adequete' to Goodell? Was there? Will there ever be? I don't think so. :spin:
http://abc7.com/sports/hundreds-rally-outside-la-memorial-coliseum-to-bring-rams-back/1152995/
Well here's a Rams Fans rally at The LA Coliseum.
I think it's safe to say that the Rams are going back to L.A., and resume their rivalry with the 49ers. Sort of a football version of Dodgers-Giants: same cities, different sport.
Quote from: Pete from Boston on January 10, 2016, 07:26:55 AM
Reminds me of Major League Baseball's transparent manipulation of the Expos situation to shape the outcome of that process. This Goodell statement is right out of that particular book of blackmail.
The NBA also did this with the Sonics, IIRC. Which is part of the reason why they're the OKC Thunder now.
Quote from: Henry on January 11, 2016, 11:37:21 AM
I think it's safe to say that the Rams are going back to L.A., and resume their rivalry with the 49ers. Sort of a football version of Dodgers-Giants: same cities, different sport.
Quote from: Pete from Boston on January 10, 2016, 07:26:55 AM
Reminds me of Major League Baseball's transparent manipulation of the Expos situation to shape the outcome of that process. This Goodell statement is right out of that particular book of blackmail.
The NBA also did this with the Sonics, IIRC. Which is part of the reason why they're the OKC Thunder now.
While I am not a fan of franchises relocating, if just one team goes to Los Angeles, I could live with that. I highly doubt St. Louis would get the Cleveland or Houston treatment and eventually be awarded an expansion franchise, especially when the only rumor for expansion involves adding a team to London, which many teams would oppose due to the time distance and travel required.
Quote from: Alex on January 11, 2016, 11:48:34 AM
Quote from: Henry on January 11, 2016, 11:37:21 AM
I think it's safe to say that the Rams are going back to L.A., and resume their rivalry with the 49ers. Sort of a football version of Dodgers-Giants: same cities, different sport.
Quote from: Pete from Boston on January 10, 2016, 07:26:55 AM
Reminds me of Major League Baseball's transparent manipulation of the Expos situation to shape the outcome of that process. This Goodell statement is right out of that particular book of blackmail.
The NBA also did this with the Sonics, IIRC. Which is part of the reason why they're the OKC Thunder now.
While I am not a fan of franchises relocating, if just one team goes to Los Angeles, I could live with that. I highly doubt St. Louis would get the Cleveland or Houston treatment and eventually be awarded an expansion franchise, especially when the only rumor for expansion involves adding a team to London, which many teams would oppose due to the time distance and travel required.
Just give up on Jacksonville already and move the Jags to St. Louis.
Well, a decision could be reached tomorrow...and it looks like two teams will move to L.A. Be it the Rams and Chargers, or Raiders and Chargers, I think it'll be very interesting to see how this experiment plays out.
The Rams are going back to L.A. as of the 2016 season. Chargers have the option to move with the Rams to the Inglewood stadium. Raiders are staying in Oakland.
http://www.cbs8.com/story/30939182/nfl-vote-rams-move-to-los-angeles-chargers-have-option-to-join
Los Angeles Rams Fan Site (Facebook):
https://www.facebook.com/losangelesrams/
The Raiders can consider relocation again in one year. Maybe Sacramento can host them!
Quote from: Alex on January 12, 2016, 11:52:14 PM
The Raiders can consider relocation again in one year. Maybe Sacramento can host them!
Can't happen because Sacramento has to deal with being overshadowed by San Francisco.
2. Sacramento a few years back fought to keep the NBA Kings in the city.
The moving to L.A. to me probably is a result of how the St. Louis team continually sucked badly these eleven years after they've made their 2004 playoff appearance and gave the city their only Super Bowl in 1999. My guess is that St. Louis citizens who've followed the Rams when they moved out of L.A. the first time just about had enough of their mediocrity and because of that, those same Rams fans are now gonna have to head to L.A. if this deal goes through as planned.
Quote from: Billy F 1988 on January 13, 2016, 09:54:51 AM
The moving to L.A. to me probably is a result of how the St. Louis team continually sucked badly these eleven years after they've made their 2004 playoff appearance and gave the city their only Super Bowl in 1999. My guess is that St. Louis citizens who've followed the Rams when they moved out of L.A. the first time just about had enough of their mediocrity and because of that, those same Rams fans are now gonna have to head to L.A. if this deal goes through as planned.
From what I read, the owner put minimal interest in having the team be successful the last 5-10 years. Some speculated that it was an effort to railroad the team so they could eventually relocate. Difficult to keep a fan base when your team continuously plays poorly.
Raiders to San Antonio?
NFL vote means Raiders could be playing in Texas as soon as next season (http://www.businessinsider.com/where-will-the-raiders-be-in-2016-1)
QuoteThe bigger mystery is where the Raiders will play next season, and the possibilities are seemingly endless but may point to a choice between staying in Oakland or moving to San Antonio.
The Raiders' lease at the Coliseum in Oakland has expired, which means the team is free to move anywhere.
When Raiders owner Mark Davis addressed the media, it was clear that he was not happy with the outcome of Tuesday's meetings, saying, "This is not a win for the Raiders today."
QuoteIn 2014, the Raiders met with San Antonio officials about a potential move. While many shrugged that off at the time, there is now a feeling that such a move is possible. According to Jason Cole of Bleacher Report, the Raiders have already secured land in the Austin/San Antonio area for a potential stadium. With the Alamodome already in place, this strongly suggests that the Raiders could be playing in Texas as soon as next season.
Cole presents the land in Texas as "leverage" against the city of Oakland. But if a new stadium can't be built in the Bay Area, then Texas seems likely to be the next destination for Raider Nation.
Quote from: Alex on January 13, 2016, 12:30:02 PM
Raiders to San Antonio?
NFL vote means Raiders could be playing in Texas as soon as next season (http://www.businessinsider.com/where-will-the-raiders-be-in-2016-1)
QuoteThe bigger mystery is where the Raiders will play next season, and the possibilities are seemingly endless but may point to a choice between staying in Oakland or moving to San Antonio.
The Raiders' lease at the Coliseum in Oakland has expired, which means the team is free to move anywhere.
When Raiders owner Mark Davis addressed the media, it was clear that he was not happy with the outcome of Tuesday's meetings, saying, "This is not a win for the Raiders today."
QuoteIn 2014, the Raiders met with San Antonio officials about a potential move. While many shrugged that off at the time, there is now a feeling that such a move is possible. According to Jason Cole of Bleacher Report, the Raiders have already secured land in the Austin/San Antonio area for a potential stadium. With the Alamodome already in place, this strongly suggests that the Raiders could be playing in Texas as soon as next season.
Cole presents the land in Texas as "leverage" against the city of Oakland. But if a new stadium can't be built in the Bay Area, then Texas seems likely to be the next destination for Raider Nation.
If that does happen, then we'd have 3 of the 4 regional division areas playing in one state (East, West, South).
Quote from: Alex on January 13, 2016, 11:24:43 AM
Quote from: Billy F 1988 on January 13, 2016, 09:54:51 AM
The moving to L.A. to me probably is a result of how the St. Louis team continually sucked badly these eleven years after they've made their 2004 playoff appearance and gave the city their only Super Bowl in 1999. My guess is that St. Louis citizens who've followed the Rams when they moved out of L.A. the first time just about had enough of their mediocrity and because of that, those same Rams fans are now gonna have to head to L.A. if this deal goes through as planned.
From what I read, the owner put minimal interest in having the team be successful the last 5-10 years. Some speculated that it was an effort to railroad the team so they could eventually relocate. Difficult to keep a fan base when your team continuously plays poorly.
Tell that to the Ford family.
http://abc7news.com/sports/oakland-mayor-working-on-new-stadium-deal-for-raiders/1157773/
Well the City of Oakland is negotiating a deal for the Raiders. I'm shocked that San Jose is not at play here. I know San Jose was the rumored to get the Raiders at one point but that was shot down because of the 49ers and Levi's Stadium.
http://sanfrancisco.cbslocal.com/2015/02/23/oakland-raiders-levis-stadium-santa-clara-san-francisco-49ers-nfl-football-san-diego-chargers/
Quote from: bing101 on January 13, 2016, 08:07:40 PM
http://abc7news.com/sports/oakland-mayor-working-on-new-stadium-deal-for-raiders/1157773/
Well the City of Oakland is negotiating a deal for the Raiders. I'm shocked that San Jose is not at play here. I know San Jose was the rumored to get the Raiders at one point but that was shot down because of the 49ers and Levi's Stadium.
http://sanfrancisco.cbslocal.com/2015/02/23/oakland-raiders-levis-stadium-santa-clara-san-francisco-49ers-nfl-football-san-diego-chargers/
While the Raiders sharing Levi's with the 49ers is still a possibility (although not ideal), San Jose would never be in play, since that would put two NFL-size stadiums within 10 miles of each other, which is silly.
Oakland should have have put all their efforts into a Raiders solution years ago and let the A's go (hopefully striking some deal with the Giants that would have let the A's go to San Jose). Instead, in all likelihood within five years all of Oakland's teams will have left town - I'm pretty sure that would make Oakland the first city to have hosted all four major sports (they had the NHL Seals in the '70s) and subsequently lost them all.
Politics got in the way as Usual. The Oakland A's had places within the San Jose Area including the area now known as Levi's stadium. A Fremont location was mentioned at one point but those ideas got shot down for political reasons by MLB and the cities.
As I said, the Warriors' impending move back to San Francisco could open the door to redevelopment of the Coliseum area. Tear down both Oracle Arena and O.Co Coliseum, then build two new stadiums on the site: one football-only and the other baseball-only. The A's are still committed to trying to get a new stadium built in the area, so that's an encouraging sign. Another is the fact that the NFL will offer the Raiders (and Chargers) $100 million to fund new stadiums in their current cities. If anything, the Raiders belong in Oakland more than they ever did in L.A.
I suspect that the threat of the Chargers leaving San Diego will get voters to change their minds and approve a new stadium there. If not, off to L.A. they go.
Quote from: Henry on January 14, 2016, 10:50:08 AM
I suspect that the threat of the Chargers leaving San Diego will get voters to change their minds and approve a new stadium there. If not, off to L.A. they go.
The Chargers have been threatening to leave for some time, including before the last time voters turned down a new stadium.
FOX Sports has just reported that the Raider's have acquired the site for a new stadium in San Antonio
Quote from: ARMOURERERIC on January 14, 2016, 10:46:27 PM
FOX Sports has just reported that the Raider's have acquired the site for a new stadium in San Antonio
That is a terrific metro area for football. San Antonio/Austin have grown like hotcakes for 20 years and deserve more than a basketball team total. Just sad that the Raiders have to be the ones - they have quite the following. That said, I hate Raiders fans, so I'm not crying.
Of course, taxpayers are still on the hook for the stadium in St Louis
http://ftw.usatoday.com/2016/01/missouri-taxpayers-still-owe-millions-for-the-rams-stadium-they-helped-build
Isn't San Antonio pretty much full-on Cowboys territory anyway? Jerry Jones seems to think so.
http://www.sandiegouniontribune.com/news/2016/jan/29/chargers-rams-agree-principle-decision/
Update Chargers are with the Rams in Inglewood.
^^ I just saw that the Chargers will stay in San Diego for the 2016 season.
Quote from: Big John on January 29, 2016, 06:04:18 PM
^^ I just saw that the Chargers will stay in San Diego for the 2016 season.
True and the chargers had an agreement with the Rams until a stadium is made for the chargers or open the option for the Chargers to go to Inglewood somewhere down the line.
I hope Chargers fans are canceling their season tickets.
This is like one of 3 threads about the same issue: NFL relocation to L.A. My post made in June 2015 when this was uncertain is totally the opposite now. The Raider fan base in both Nor and So CA indicates they're the most popular major league sports team in CA, esp. street gangs in Oakland and South L.A. use their logo, colors and insignia. Oddly, the back-to-L.A. Rams and soon-L.A. Chargers have the same team colors: blue and yellow, but in different conferences.