Its been 20 years since the Raiders since Left LA for Oakland. What do you think of this Raiders Moving to San Antonio.
http://www.kens5.com/story/news/local/2014/10/09/raiders-san-antonio/17011315/
I have a feeling Los Angeles may be more likely, in part because it won't face the same stiff opposition from the Cowboys and the Texans that San Antonio would.
It's kind of amusing that all three teams being mentioned in conjunction with Los Angeles used to play there (the Rams, the Raiders, and the Chargers–the Chargers originated in Los Angeles but moved because the city couldn't support two teams).
Quote from: 1995hoo on October 10, 2014, 11:08:15 AM
I have a feeling Los Angeles may be more likely, in part because it won't face the same stiff opposition from the Cowboys and the Texans that San Antonio would.
It's kind of amusing that all three teams being mentioned in conjunction with Los Angeles used to play there (the Rams, the Raiders, and the Chargers–the Chargers originated in Los Angeles but moved because the city couldn't support two teams).
What about the fanbase is low for football while Basketball, Hockey, futbol and Baseball do better in LA. But somehow LA does better in NBA , NHL, MLS, and MLB deals compared to the NFL.
Another factor is that Oakland still has to negotiate a new MLB and NFL stadium deal but San Jose is still at play here for the Oakland A's while Los Angeles was still fighting for an NFL deal but cracked.
Sacramento is a possibility. They have the Kings from NBA. They'd end up as the Sacramento Raiders. Moving to San Antonio would not be a very sound investment because SA would face hefty opposition from Dallas and Houston and blow them off the walls.
More major-league extortion. Whoever mentioned playing off car dealers against one another was in the wrong thread.
This sucks for Oakland but Oakland has much bigger problems and should not kowtow to the extremely rich at the expense of the extremely poor. Let San Antonio be the next sucker to be held captive to the demands for corporate welfare with dubious benefits.
It's all about the money. The Raiders would move to Dallas if Dallas gave them a billion dollars for a new stadium. They could care less about that other Dallas team.
Was there ever supposed to be a football stadium near Staples Center at one point? But Wait Didn't the Raiders hold on to Los Angeles Territory even though the team has been in Oakland for 20 years.
http://www.kgw.com/story/local/2014/10/10/12614046/
Apparently The Raiders were planning to go to Portland, Oregon too.
With all the rumors of the Buffalo Bills moving to Toronto.... (But they had now a new owner Terry Pegula http://grantland.com/the-triangle/whos-that-guy-new-buffalo-bills-owner-terry-pegula/ )
Could we imagine the Raiders moving to Toronto? ;) "Toronto Raiders" rings well to my ears. ;) Some folks in Toronto wish a NFL franchise even at the risk to kill the Argonauts of the CFL.
http://www.scpr.org/news/2014/10/10/47318/la-committee-backs-bid-for-more-time-to-lure-nfl/
A Los Angeles committee is backing AEG's request for more time to lure a professional football team to Los Angeles.
The City Council's Economic Development Committee on Friday approved a six-month extension of an agreement with the developer to find an NFL team to play at a downtown stadium.
If the full council approves next week, AEG will have until April to find a team.
It's had no luck so far but Mayor Eric Garcetti said Thursday that a team is "highly likely" to come to the city in the next year.
Speaking on KNX-AM radio, the mayor said he thinks the NFL is finally interested in LA again.
By KPCC News.
Since we all are surmising where the Raiders can go, how about Oklahoma City?
Raiders have quite a fan base this side of the Atlantic that the Jags certainly don't have and only a couple of teams can boast similar support here that aren't going anywhere. It comes down to the 80s exposure to the game and the 49ers being successful and the Raiders being their rivals and thus getting British attention (and support as we like the underdog). Plus they marketed it well and so their logo is going to be the most recognised of the 32 in England (even if people don't know what the logo is for).
London Raiders anyone? Obviously they'd need to change Divisions, as a West Coast division and 8/9 hour time difference isn't going to be good!
Quote from: Billy F 1988 on October 10, 2014, 11:58:57 AM
Sacramento is a possibility. They have the Kings from NBA. They'd end up as the Sacramento Raiders. Moving to San Antonio would not be a very sound investment because SA would face hefty opposition from Dallas and Houston and blow them off the walls.
Since most of their California fan base is in LA, they played in LA, Oakland, and if they went to Sacramento, why not the California Raiders? or better yet West Coast Raiders to sound like that show?
Quote from: bing101 on October 10, 2014, 10:51:38 AM
Its been 20 years since the Raiders since Left LA for Oakland. What do you think of this Raiders Moving to San Antonio.
http://www.kens5.com/story/news/local/2014/10/09/raiders-san-antonio/17011315/
Would be a great in-state rival for the Cowboys. SA is big enough for a team but SA people do love the Cowboys.
The problem with a team in London is that each team only plays six games in its division. Most of the other games are teams in some other division (two, actually–one NFC and one AFC). You're going to periodically end up with a season where four or more games involve a 9-hour time difference between teams and 5,000-mile flights.
Toronto would have stadium issues. The Raiders currently play in the second-smallest stadium in the league. SkyDome would be the smallest stadium and would likely have very high ticket prices (I think I read somewhere tickets average $183 when the Bills play there).
The bigger question would be whether Parliament would take steps to prevent an NFL team from moving to Toronto. Back in the 1970s they enacted legislation to protect the CFL that caused the World Football League's planned Toronto franchise to move to Memphis before playing even a single game.
Let me see here....
- The St Louis Ram were originally the Los Angeles Rams, and played in Los Angeles from 1946 to 1994.
- The Oakland Raiders were temporarily the Los Angeles Raiders from 1982-1994.
- San Diego Charges were originally the Los Angeles Chargers in 1960 before moving the San Diego in 1961.
In terms of media market size, Los Angeles is number 2, while New York City is number 1. In fact, the top 18 Neilson markets with the exception of Los Angeles all have a NFL team.
Also, after the Rams and Raiders left, Los Angeles was very bitter towards the NFL, and I don't hear any screaming for a NFL franchise.
Quote from: Pete from Boston on October 11, 2014, 09:56:55 AMThe problem with a team in London is that each team only plays six games in its division. Most of the other games are teams in some other division (two, actually–one NFC and one AFC). You're going to periodically end up with a season where four or more games involve a 9-hour time difference between teams and 5,000-mile flights.
Indeed, but the NFL want a London team by 2022 despite that.
And a game every year with another 3 games every 3 years and another 4 games every 4 years is better than 6 games a year with Western division teams after a move - hence why Raiders would need to change divisions (and why the Jags are the team they are trying to get Londoners to endere to the most).
Quote from: texaskdog on October 11, 2014, 09:54:26 AM
Quote from: bing101 on October 10, 2014, 10:51:38 AM
Its been 20 years since the Raiders since Left LA for Oakland. What do you think of this Raiders Moving to San Antonio.
http://www.kens5.com/story/news/local/2014/10/09/raiders-san-antonio/17011315/
Would be a great in-state rival for the Cowboys. SA is big enough for a team but SA people do love the Cowboys.
That would make three Texas teams (one for each large metro area) with the Cowboys, Texans, and then Raiders (if moved).
Quote from: ZLoth on October 12, 2014, 01:59:37 AM
Let me see here....
- The St Louis Ram were originally the Los Angeles Rams, and played in Los Angeles from 1946 to 1994.
- The Oakland Raiders were temporarily the Los Angeles Raiders from 1982-1994.
- San Diego Charges were originally the Los Angeles Chargers in 1960 before moving the San Diego in 1961.
In terms of media market size, Los Angeles is number 2, while New York City is number 1. In fact, the top 18 Neilson markets with the exception of Los Angeles all have a NFL team.
Also, after the Rams and Raiders left, Los Angeles was very bitter towards the NFL, and I don't hear any screaming for a NFL franchise.
The St. Louis Rams were originally the Cleveland Rams, actually.
Quote from: english si on October 12, 2014, 04:31:32 AM
Quote from: Pete from Boston on October 11, 2014, 09:56:55 AMThe problem with a team in London is that each team only plays six games in its division. Most of the other games are teams in some other division (two, actually–one NFC and one AFC). You're going to periodically end up with a season where four or more games involve a 9-hour time difference between teams and 5,000-mile flights.
Indeed, but the NFL want a London team by 2022 despite that.
And a game every year with another 3 games every 3 years and another 4 games every 4 years is better than 6 games a year with Western division teams after a move - hence why Raiders would need to change divisions (and why the Jags are the team they are trying to get Londoners to endere to the most).
It would make more sense to have a London team in an eastern rather than a western division, but it puts at least one team at a disadvantage in the inevitable very-long-distance games. It isn't good for parity of play, no matter how much the NFL likes putting marketing above the limitations of reality in every way possible.
Quote from: Pete from Boston on October 10, 2014, 12:09:24 PM
More major-league extortion. Whoever mentioned playing off car dealers against one another was in the wrong thread.
This sucks for Oakland but Oakland has much bigger problems and should not kowtow to the extremely rich at the expense of the extremely poor. Let San Antonio be the next sucker to be held captive to the demands for corporate welfare with dubious benefits.
Pretty much this. It makes no logical sense that taxpayers end up having to pay the bill for football teams to have new fancy stadiums. The teams make all of the profits while the taxpayers are the losers. Don't like the stadium in Oakland? Then build your own damn new stadium. Instead, they'll just wait for a new city full of taxpaying suckers to build them a new stadium.
/endrant
Quote from: ZLoth on October 12, 2014, 01:59:37 AM
Let me see here....
- The St Louis Ram were originally the Los Angeles Rams, and played in Los Angeles from 1946 to 1994.
- The Oakland Raiders were temporarily the Los Angeles Raiders from 1982-1994.
- San Diego Charges were originally the Los Angeles Chargers in 1960 before moving the San Diego in 1961.
In terms of media market size, Los Angeles is number 2, while New York City is number 1. In fact, the top 18 Neilson markets with the exception of Los Angeles all have a NFL team.
Also, after the Rams and Raiders left, Los Angeles was very bitter towards the NFL, and I don't hear any screaming for a NFL franchise.
Yet they keep considering giving them TWO. What's wrong with one?
Quote from: Brandon on October 12, 2014, 08:05:24 AM
Quote from: texaskdog on October 11, 2014, 09:54:26 AM
Quote from: bing101 on October 10, 2014, 10:51:38 AM
Its been 20 years since the Raiders since Left LA for Oakland. What do you think of this Raiders Moving to San Antonio.
http://www.kens5.com/story/news/local/2014/10/09/raiders-san-antonio/17011315/
Would be a great in-state rival for the Cowboys. SA is big enough for a team but SA people do love the Cowboys.
That would make three Texas teams (one for each large metro area) with the Cowboys, Texans, and then Raiders (if moved).
And it's a huge state, and California has three, four if LA gets a team. Still don't know why the bay has TWO, especially when neither play in SF anymore.
Quote from: texaskdog on October 12, 2014, 08:30:47 PM
And it's a huge state, and California has three, four if LA gets a team. Still don't know why the bay has TWO, especially when neither play in SF anymore.
First, why would it matter whether the teams play in SF or not, as long as they're playing somewhere in the market? The Cowboys don't play in Dallas, correct? Both New York teams play in New Jersey, right?
Second, the Bay Area has two teams because historically they have been one of the largest markets in the country. According to Nielsen, San Francisco-Oakland-San Jose is currently #6, just behind Dallas, but they have the #20 market (Sacramento-Stockton) immediately adjacent. If you combined the two you'd have the #3 market in an area geographically comparable in size to the Dallas market, and the markets adjacent to Dallas are nowhere near that large (Waco is #88).
All that said, San Antonio (or Austin) could easily support an NFL team, and should be a serious candidate for any relocation or expansion.
Quote from: DTComposer on October 12, 2014, 11:16:47 PM
Quote from: texaskdog on October 12, 2014, 08:30:47 PM
And it's a huge state, and California has three, four if LA gets a team. Still don't know why the bay has TWO, especially when neither play in SF anymore.
First, why would it matter whether the teams play in SF or not, as long as they're playing somewhere in the market? The Cowboys don't play in Dallas, correct? Both New York teams play in New Jersey, right?
Second, the Bay Area has two teams because historically they have been one of the largest markets in the country. According to Nielsen, San Francisco-Oakland-San Jose is currently #6, just behind Dallas, but they have the #20 market (Sacramento-Stockton) immediately adjacent. If you combined the two you'd have the #3 market in an area geographically comparable in size to the Dallas market, and the markets adjacent to Dallas are nowhere near that large (Waco is #88).
All that said, San Antonio (or Austin) could easily support an NFL team, and should be a serious candidate for any relocation or expansion.
SA could easily support a team. I don't think Austin would be a great market because the Longhorns are so big here and with a college football team that popular the "supporting two teams" argument would be valid. Raiders would be a good team because it would take a while for an expansion team or a Jaguars to burn in.
Quote from: texaskdog on October 13, 2014, 08:16:19 AM
I don't think Austin would be a great market because the Longhorns are so big here and with a college football team that popular the "supporting two teams" argument would be valid.
Thousands of people in Baton Rouge support both the Saints and LSU football. And I'm pretty sure that Baton Rouge is smaller than Austin.
Quote from: jbnv on October 17, 2014, 12:50:37 PM
Quote from: texaskdog on October 13, 2014, 08:16:19 AM
I don't think Austin would be a great market because the Longhorns are so big here and with a college football team that popular the "supporting two teams" argument would be valid.
Thousands of people in Baton Rouge support both the Saints and LSU football. And I'm pretty sure that Baton Rouge is smaller than Austin.
yes but what if the saints were wholly dependent on the population of baton rouge to be successful?
Quote from: texaskdog on October 17, 2014, 05:21:21 PM
Quote from: jbnv on October 17, 2014, 12:50:37 PM
Quote from: texaskdog on October 13, 2014, 08:16:19 AM
I don't think Austin would be a great market because the Longhorns are so big here and with a college football team that popular the "supporting two teams" argument would be valid.
Thousands of people in Baton Rouge support both the Saints and LSU football. And I'm pretty sure that Baton Rouge is smaller than Austin.
yes but what if the saints were wholly dependent on the population of baton rouge to be successful?
Then you have the following:
Columbus, Ohio: Buckeyes (NCAA) and Blue Jackets (NHL)
Minneapolis, Minnesota: Golden Gophers (NCAA), Timberwolves (NBA), Wild (NHL), Vikings (NFL), and Twins (AL)
Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania: Panthers (NCAA), Penguins (NHL), Steelers (NFL), and Pirates (NL)
One can make the argument that Baton Rouge roots for the Saints in the way that Green Bay roots for the Badgers.
Quote from: Brandon on October 17, 2014, 05:39:21 PM
One can make the argument that Baton Rouge roots for the Saints in the way that Green Bay roots for the Badgers.
Or Madison for the Packers. From what I observed living there for over a year, I'd say they can support both quite well.
Quote from: jbnv on October 17, 2014, 09:17:41 PM
Quote from: Brandon on October 17, 2014, 05:39:21 PM
One can make the argument that Baton Rouge roots for the Saints in the way that Green Bay roots for the Badgers.
Or Madison for the Packers. From what I observed living there for over a year, I'd say they can support both quite well.
You might as well go ahead and call the Packers the Wisconsin Packers, as they pretty much have a statewide following. The team may be based in Green Bay, but the support does not end there, which is one reason why the team is able to survive in such a small market.
Quote from: Brandon on October 17, 2014, 05:39:21 PM
Quote from: texaskdog on October 17, 2014, 05:21:21 PM
Quote from: jbnv on October 17, 2014, 12:50:37 PM
Quote from: texaskdog on October 13, 2014, 08:16:19 AM
I don't think Austin would be a great market because the Longhorns are so big here and with a college football team that popular the "supporting two teams" argument would be valid.
Thousands of people in Baton Rouge support both the Saints and LSU football. And I'm pretty sure that Baton Rouge is smaller than Austin.
yes but what if the saints were wholly dependent on the population of baton rouge to be successful?
Then you have the following:
Columbus, Ohio: Buckeyes (NCAA) and Blue Jackets (NHL)
Minneapolis, Minnesota: Golden Gophers (NCAA), Timberwolves (NBA), Wild (NHL), Vikings (NFL), and Twins (AL)
Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania: Panthers (NCAA), Penguins (NHL), Steelers (NFL), and Pirates (NL)
One can make the argument that Baton Rouge roots for the Saints in the way that Green Bay roots for the Badgers.
Bad arguments:
Columbus: they play differents sports
Minnesota: The Gophers aren't that big a deal. I know, I went to the U of M.
Pitt: same with the panthers.
I'm talking about the big name colleges: Texas, Oklahoma, Ohio State, Florida, Alabama...... is there even one NFL city that also has a high level college team? I can't think of one. I think it could work in LA but that's the exception.
Quote from: texaskdog on October 20, 2014, 11:33:28 AM
I'm talking about the big name colleges: Texas, Oklahoma, Ohio State, Florida, Alabama...... is there even one NFL city that also has a high level college team? I can't think of one. I think it could work in LA but that's the exception.
Miami has an NFL team and a major NCAA team (U. of Miami).
LSU may not be in New Orleans, but it draws people from all directions. LSU is almost as big in Houston as it is in New Orleans.
The Georgia Bulldogs aren't too far from Atlanta either.
Quote from: texaskdog on October 20, 2014, 11:33:28 AM
I'm talking about the big name colleges: Texas, Oklahoma, Ohio State, Florida, Alabama...... is there even one NFL city that also has a high level college team? I can't think of one. I think it could work in LA but that's the exception.
(assuming the definition of big name colleges = ACC, Big 10, Big 12, Pac 12, SEC; and assuming NFL city includes the immediately surrounding area, say a half-hour drive):
Denver Broncos/U of Colorado
Seattle Seahawks/U of Washington
San Francisco 49ers/Oakland Raiders/Stanford/U of California
Arizona Cardinals/Arizona State U
Detroit Lions/U of Michigan
etc.
http://www.theatlantic.com/technology/archive/2014/09/the-geography-of-nfl-fandom/379729/?utm_source=taboola
The Raiders still have Los Angeles territory
Quote from: bing101 on October 21, 2014, 10:44:29 AM
http://www.theatlantic.com/technology/archive/2014/09/the-geography-of-nfl-fandom/379729/?utm_source=taboola
The Raiders still have Los Angeles territory
Yet not Oakland!
Quote from: jbnv on October 20, 2014, 06:19:57 PM
Quote from: texaskdog on October 20, 2014, 11:33:28 AM
I'm talking about the big name colleges: Texas, Oklahoma, Ohio State, Florida, Alabama...... is there even one NFL city that also has a high level college team? I can't think of one. I think it could work in LA but that's the exception.
Miami has an NFL team and a major NCAA team (U. of Miami).
LSU may not be in New Orleans, but it draws people from all directions. LSU is almost as big in Houston as it is in New Orleans.
Okay, Miami is one exception. LSU does draw from other markets but not the same city, same with Athens/Atlanta.
Quote from: texaskdog on October 20, 2014, 11:33:28 AM
Bad arguments:
Columbus: they play differents sports
OSU does in fact have a hockey team.
Map of college football preferences as stated on facebook:
http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2014/10/03/upshot/ncaa-football-map.html
Quote from: Pete from Boston on October 21, 2014, 11:35:54 AM
Quote from: bing101 on October 21, 2014, 10:44:29 AM
http://www.theatlantic.com/technology/archive/2014/09/the-geography-of-nfl-fandom/379729/?utm_source=taboola
The Raiders still have Los Angeles territory
Yet not Oakland!
This would be the perfect opportunity for L.A. to lure the Raiders back! And if not them, then either the Rams or Chargers could come back, with the stadium situations in their respective cities being just as bad, if not worse. The Cardinals and Padres have already built new stadiums of their own, thus leaving their NFL counterparts in the lurch.
I think your point about St. Louis is slightly out of step. Both the Cardinals and Rams got new stadiums, albeit ten years apart. The football Cardinals and baseball Cardinals played in the 1966 Busch Stadium. When the Rams arrived, they initially did as well before moving to the brand-new TWA Dome. The Cardinals continued playing baseball in Busch until the new Busch was built in 2005. To say this leaves the Rams in the lurch or leaves them slighted in any way gives them way too much credit.
I believe St. Louis built that dome specifically because of the football Cardinals leaving town and that construction began before the city managed to lure a new team.
That's true. I think it was completed about when the Rams arrived (or just after, since they apparently did play at the old Busch).
Which means their 19-year-old facility is now obsolete to them. Granted, the Braves have this infantilism beat by two years, but it's still quite a ballsy position to take.
I think the Rams played a partial season at Busch stadium if memory serves (I'm too lazy to look it up).
I tend to think nowadays just about any fixed-roof dome, as opposed to a retractable-roof stadium, is obsolete in most of North America. There are a few cities where a facility of that sort could be a good thing. Mexico City comes to mind immediately because of the air pollution (and man, can you imagine how loud it would be if they put a roof on Azteca?!!!). But I understand why in some cases the cost mandates a fixed roof. I believe the new Minnesota Vikings stadium is to have a fixed roof because a retractable roof was deemed too expensive and the government refused to help with the cost unless a roof were included. In Minnesota that's pretty reasonable given that an open-air facility couldn't be used for other purposes during the winter, whereas an enclosed facility can be.
Quote from: Brandon on October 21, 2014, 02:28:00 PM
Quote from: texaskdog on October 20, 2014, 11:33:28 AM
Bad arguments:
Columbus: they play differents sports
OSU does in fact have a hockey team.
I'm talking about hugely successful teams in college football vs having a pro team. Miami is the only one I can think of that is a powerhouse in college yet they also have a pro team. Minnesota, Pitt, Northwestern are not college powerhouse football teams. Wisconsin plays in a completely different part of the state. LA has no pro team. Maybe Arizona too. My point is that you can't just plop a pro team in Austin or Columbus and have it be successful because the college team has such pro-level support. Yes we in Austin like the Cowboys but the Longhorns are our team.
Quote from: texaskdog on October 23, 2014, 08:35:29 AM
I'm talking about hugely successful teams in college football vs having a pro team. Miami is the only one I can think of that is a powerhouse in college yet they also have a pro team.
Miami, the powerhouse team:
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Ftapatalk.imageshack.com%2Fv2%2F14%2F10%2F27%2F392395ac25b65f726195145371fa5ea2.jpg&hash=f25ed9e41c7e7f90c5f40ac3a7c604003aebb6f3)
I think it speaks volumes that AEG, even with an $800 Million naming rights deal with Farmer's Insurance STILL can't get a Los Angeles deal done.
http://www.sfgate.com/raiders/article/Former-San-Antonio-mayor-calls-Raiders-move-5876849.php
Raiders Update to Texas?
Quote from: 1995hoo on October 22, 2014, 03:51:10 PM
I tend to think nowadays just about any fixed-roof dome, as opposed to a retractable-roof stadium, is obsolete in most of North America. There are a few cities where a facility of that sort could be a good thing. Mexico City comes to mind immediately because of the air pollution (and man, can you imagine how loud it would be if they put a roof on Azteca?!!!). But I understand why in some cases the cost mandates a fixed roof. I believe the new Minnesota Vikings stadium is to have a fixed roof because a retractable roof was deemed too expensive and the government refused to help with the cost unless a roof were included. In Minnesota that's pretty reasonable given that an open-air facility couldn't be used for other purposes during the winter, whereas an enclosed facility can be.
Retractable roofs on NFL stadiums are a huge waste of money. Pay attention to them every Sunday. They are almost always closed. Dallas, Indy, Houston, even Phoenix where it never rains; they rarely play games with those expensive fancy roofs open.
Build a dome or build a stadium. There's only 8 games a year. (10 if you include preseason.) Bad enough these teams all want handouts from taxpayers to build the damn things in the first place. Minneapolis at least got it right to reject any concepts with retractable roofs.
Save the movable roofs for baseball teams. They host 80 games every year and the season covers 3 of the 4 seasons. Much more useful.
http://mobile.nytimes.com/2014/11/09/sports/football/los-angeles-has-32-home-teams-in-the-nfl-but-none-to-watch-in-person.html?referrer=
Ny times has an update on Los Angeles and the NFL today.
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/Themes/Button_Copy/images/buttons/mutcd_merge.png)Post Merge: November 10, 2014, 05:14:33 PM
http://houston.cbslocal.com/2014/11/10/report-oakland-raiders-not-moving-to-san-antonio/
Raiders will not move to San Antonio?
http://www.pressdemocrat.com/sports/3086912-181/raiders-losing-streak-reaches-15
Umm?