AARoads Forum

Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length

Author Topic: The Raiders to San Antonio?  (Read 10746 times)

c172

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 34
  • Location: western USA
  • Last Login: February 21, 2018, 12:33:56 AM
Re: The Raiders to San Antonio?
« Reply #50 on: February 08, 2016, 07:55:52 PM »

If they build a stadium way the hell out in San Marcos, they cannot in good conscience call them the San Antonio Raiders.  That's two counties away from actual San Antonio.

And that would actually make it an Austin team. In fact, as much as Austin is mostly in Travis County, I think it's municipal limits extend slightly into whatever SM's county is.
Logged

jbnv

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 2444
  • Visionary

  • Age: 42
  • Location: Independence/Hammond, LA
  • Last Login: February 19, 2018, 05:07:19 PM
    • Personal Site
Re: The Raiders to San Antonio?
« Reply #51 on: February 08, 2016, 09:02:10 PM »

Goodell has thrown the idea of 34 teams around

Goodell must not be very good at math. That would mean that one division in each conference would have 5 teams. It would disrupt the mathematical harmony of the scheduling. I can't imagine that any of the owners would approve of being in the funky division.

(I could see them coming up with some sort of scheme where the expansion teams are not part of any division and schedule differently from the existing teams. The expansion teams could make the playoffs as wildcard teams. Especially if they let 8 teams rather than 6 in each conference. This might actually work well for the London team and another overseas team, since I doubt any of the current teams want to have an overseas team as a division rival.)
Logged
Keep Clearview, lose the government bureaucracies and the politicians who enable them.
US Redo | Louisiana Redo | Route Challenge | Photos

cl94

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 5081
  • Trust me, I'm a transportation engineer

  • Age: 23
  • Location: Troy, New York
  • Last Login: February 22, 2018, 11:49:05 PM
    • The Albany Hiker
Re: The Raiders to San Antonio?
« Reply #52 on: February 08, 2016, 09:04:21 PM »

Goodell has thrown the idea of 34 teams around

Goodell must not be very good at math. That would mean that one division in each conference would have 5 teams. It would disrupt the mathematical harmony of the scheduling. I can't imagine that any of the owners would approve of being in the funky division.

(I could see them coming up with some sort of scheme where the expansion teams are not part of any division and schedule differently from the existing teams. The expansion teams could make the playoffs as wildcard teams. Especially if they let 8 teams rather than 6 in each conference. This might actually work well for the London team and another overseas team, since I doubt any of the current teams want to have an overseas team as a division rival.)

They could also just redo the scheduling. They're tossing around the idea of 18 games as it is.
Logged
Please note: All posts represent my personal opinions and do not represent those of Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute or any of its partner agencies.

Travel Mapping (updated weekly)

Pete from Boston

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 5231
  • Location: Massachusetts, and all the roads radiating out of it
  • Last Login: February 22, 2018, 09:58:18 PM
The Raiders to San Antonio?
« Reply #53 on: February 08, 2016, 09:30:05 PM »

Goodell has thrown the idea of 34 teams around

Goodell must not be very good at math. That would mean that one division in each conference would have 5 teams. It would disrupt the mathematical harmony of the scheduling. I can't imagine that any of the owners would approve of being in the funky division.

(I could see them coming up with some sort of scheme where the expansion teams are not part of any division and schedule differently from the existing teams. The expansion teams could make the playoffs as wildcard teams. Especially if they let 8 teams rather than 6 in each conference. This might actually work well for the London team and another overseas team, since I doubt any of the current teams want to have an overseas team as a division rival.)

They could also just redo the scheduling. They're tossing around the idea of 18 games as it is.

They've been talking about lengthening the season again since at least the 1980s (it was increased from 14 to 16 games in 1978).

The players' union has objected that its members are injured enough as it is and more games will only exacerbate things (sounds about right to me).  I vaguely recall that when the bye week was added it was not just to have an additional week the NFL and its partners make money, but as a step toward a truly longer season.  That clearly hasn't happened but I guess the prospect of more money has not stopped being attractive.
« Last Edit: February 08, 2016, 09:34:23 PM by Pete from Boston »
Logged

oscar

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 4648
  • Age: 61
  • Location: Arlington, VA
  • Last Login: Today at 02:06:20 AM
    • my Hot Springs and Highways pages
Re: The Raiders to San Antonio?
« Reply #54 on: February 08, 2016, 09:43:51 PM »

I vaguely recall that when the bye week was added it was not just to have an additional week the NFL and its partners make money, but as a step toward a truly longer season.  That clearly hasn't happened but I guess the prospect of more money has not stopped being attractive.

Actually, the bye was added when the league expanded to an odd number of teams, so someone had to take a week off. But the concept became popular (probably for the reasons you gave, as well as giving players a week off to better recover from injuries), and remained in modified form after the NFL added another expansion team tl make the number even again,
Logged
my Hot Springs and Highways pages, with links to my roads sites:
http://www.alaskaroads.com/home.html

Big John

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 1477
  • Age: 50
  • Last Login: Today at 12:14:40 AM
Re: The Raiders to San Antonio?
« Reply #55 on: February 08, 2016, 09:47:46 PM »

I vaguely recall that when the bye week was added it was not just to have an additional week the NFL and its partners make money, but as a step toward a truly longer season.  That clearly hasn't happened but I guess the prospect of more money has not stopped being attractive.

Actually, the bye was added when the league expanded to an odd number of teams, so someone had to take a week off. But the concept became popular (probably for the reasons you gave, as well as giving players a week off to better recover from injuries), and remained in modified form after the NFL added another expansion team tl make the number even again,
It was added in 1990, and the odd number of teams was from 1999-2001 when the Browns were added back in 1999 and before Houston was added in 2002.

An 18 week schedule with 2 bye weeks was experimented in 1993 but turned out badly as the schedule was thin in the bye weeks.  The league was 28 teams then so it wouldn't be as weak now with 32 teams.
Logged

DandyDan

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 749
  • Age: 45
  • Location: Mason City Iowa
  • Last Login: February 19, 2018, 05:31:05 AM
Re: The Raiders to San Antonio?
« Reply #56 on: February 09, 2016, 07:07:53 AM »

I vaguely recall that when the bye week was added it was not just to have an additional week the NFL and its partners make money, but as a step toward a truly longer season.  That clearly hasn't happened but I guess the prospect of more money has not stopped being attractive.

Actually, the bye was added when the league expanded to an odd number of teams, so someone had to take a week off. But the concept became popular (probably for the reasons you gave, as well as giving players a week off to better recover from injuries), and remained in modified form after the NFL added another expansion team tl make the number even again,
It was added in 1990, and the odd number of teams was from 1999-2001 when the Browns were added back in 1999 and before Houston was added in 2002.

An 18 week schedule with 2 bye weeks was experimented in 1993 but turned out badly as the schedule was thin in the bye weeks.  The league was 28 teams then so it wouldn't be as weak now with 32 teams.
I thought that was possibly a good idea, but it was done stupidly because both of the byes occurred in the first half of the season.  If each team had a bye sometime between Weeks 3 and 9, and then another bye between Weeks 10 and 16, it would balance things out much better for an 18 week schedule.  Of course, one problem with the 18 week schedule is that the Super Bowl comes one week later yet, assuming they always begin the regular season the weekend after Labor Day.
Logged
CHICAGO CUBS 2016 WORLD SERIES CHAMPIONS!!!!!

Pete from Boston

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 5231
  • Location: Massachusetts, and all the roads radiating out of it
  • Last Login: February 22, 2018, 09:58:18 PM
Re: The Raiders to San Antonio?
« Reply #57 on: February 09, 2016, 09:32:09 AM »


I vaguely recall that when the bye week was added it was not just to have an additional week the NFL and its partners make money, but as a step toward a truly longer season.  That clearly hasn't happened but I guess the prospect of more money has not stopped being attractive.

Actually, the bye was added when the league expanded to an odd number of teams, so someone had to take a week off. But the concept became popular (probably for the reasons you gave, as well as giving players a week off to better recover from injuries), and remained in modified form after the NFL added another expansion team tl make the number even again,
It was added in 1990, and the odd number of teams was from 1999-2001 when the Browns were added back in 1999 and before Houston was added in 2002.

An 18 week schedule with 2 bye weeks was experimented in 1993 but turned out badly as the schedule was thin in the bye weeks.  The league was 28 teams then so it wouldn't be as weak now with 32 teams.
I thought that was possibly a good idea, but it was done stupidly because both of the byes occurred in the first half of the season.  If each team had a bye sometime between Weeks 3 and 9, and then another bye between Weeks 10 and 16, it would balance things out much better for an 18 week schedule.  Of course, one problem with the 18 week schedule is that the Super Bowl comes one week later yet, assuming they always begin the regular season the weekend after Labor Day.

The first year of the 17-week schedule, the extra week off between the Super Bowl and the playoffs was eliminated. 

I don't know how crucial that week is to the players or organizers.  Obviously it's a more hectic schedule, but not much more than the rest of the season.  Certainly less time for the media to over-cover every possible angle on this game.
Logged

Desert Man

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 765
  • Age: 38
  • Location: Sou Cal USA
  • Last Login: February 04, 2018, 03:22:53 PM
Re: The Raiders to San Antonio?
« Reply #58 on: February 09, 2016, 01:14:33 PM »

Temecula was a serious consideration?  Jesus, why not just build a stadium in Palm Springs...

Not at all, just recalling Temecula was a proposed site for a NFL standard stadium. More of an ideal location for minor league sports. In CA, the 5 largest cities in population: Los Angeles, San Diego, San Jose, San Francisco and Sacramento have major league sports teams, as well in Oakland and Anaheim. The other 3 largest out of ten CA's most populous: Long Beach near LA, Santa Ana near Anaheim and Fresno in the Central part of CA don't have one. 3 other cities with over 300,000 residents: Stockton, Riverside in the San Bernardino metro area and Bakersfield, are attuned to semipro and minor leagues. Palm Springs did have a spring training camp of the California Angels from 1961 to 1993 when they joined other MLB spring training camps in the Phoenix area.
Logged
Get your kicks...on Route 99! Like to turn 66 upside down. The other historic Main street of America.

1995hoo

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 8756
  • Age: 44
  • Location: Fairfax County, Virginia
  • Last Login: February 22, 2018, 10:13:58 PM
Re: The Raiders to San Antonio?
« Reply #59 on: February 09, 2016, 09:43:40 PM »

Regarding unbalanced divisions, recall that in the 28-team era there were three divisions in each conference, two with five teams each and one with four (in the NFC, the West had four; I don't remember as to the AFC and I'm not motivated to look it up).

When the NHL had 21 teams, the Patrick Division had six teams and the other three divisions had five each. I think the NBA was long similar since they had an odd number of teams until they added the (now former) Bobcats. MLB was the screwiest due to going with the stupid three-division alignment in each league with even numbers of teams, so the NL had 5/6/5 and the AL had 5/5/4.
Logged
"You know, you never have a guaranteed spot until you have a spot guaranteed."
—Olaf Kolzig, as quoted in the Washington Times on March 28, 2003,
commenting on the Capitals clinching a playoff spot.

"That sounded stupid, didn't it?"—Kolzig, to the same reporter a few seconds later.

Big John

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 1477
  • Age: 50
  • Last Login: Today at 12:14:40 AM
Re: The Raiders to San Antonio?
« Reply #60 on: February 09, 2016, 09:47:53 PM »

^^ The AFC Central had 4 teams in it.
Logged

jbnv

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 2444
  • Visionary

  • Age: 42
  • Location: Independence/Hammond, LA
  • Last Login: February 19, 2018, 05:07:19 PM
    • Personal Site
Re: The Raiders to San Antonio?
« Reply #61 on: February 09, 2016, 09:53:33 PM »

Just because all of the major leagues had imbalanced divisions before doesn't mean that they are a good idea now. Do you want your NFL team of choice to play in the one division in the conference that has 5 teams rather than 4? I don't.
Logged
Keep Clearview, lose the government bureaucracies and the politicians who enable them.
US Redo | Louisiana Redo | Route Challenge | Photos

1995hoo

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 8756
  • Age: 44
  • Location: Fairfax County, Virginia
  • Last Login: February 22, 2018, 10:13:58 PM
Re: The Raiders to San Antonio?
« Reply #62 on: February 10, 2016, 10:12:23 PM »

Just because all of the major leagues had imbalanced divisions before doesn't mean that they are a good idea now. Do you want your NFL team of choice to play in the one division in the conference that has 5 teams rather than 4? I don't.

My NHL team of choice played in the six-team Patrick Division. Never seemed to be a problem (but then, the Devils and Penguins were consistently bad in those days, so there wasn't a big problem with making the playoffs).
Logged
"You know, you never have a guaranteed spot until you have a spot guaranteed."
—Olaf Kolzig, as quoted in the Washington Times on March 28, 2003,
commenting on the Capitals clinching a playoff spot.

"That sounded stupid, didn't it?"—Kolzig, to the same reporter a few seconds later.

Pete from Boston

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 5231
  • Location: Massachusetts, and all the roads radiating out of it
  • Last Login: February 22, 2018, 09:58:18 PM
Re: The Raiders to San Antonio?
« Reply #63 on: February 10, 2016, 10:49:26 PM »


Just because all of the major leagues had imbalanced divisions before doesn't mean that they are a good idea now. Do you want your NFL team of choice to play in the one division in the conference that has 5 teams rather than 4? I don't.

My NHL team of choice played in the six-team Patrick Division. Never seemed to be a problem (but then, the Devils and Penguins were consistently bad in those days, so there wasn't a big problem with making the playoffs).

If I'm not mistaken, in those days all but a very small minority (5 out of 21?) of NHL teams made the playoffs.

I'm assuming you mean the mid-1980s, since the Devils were only around since '82 and had started to be somewhat respectable by the end of the decade.
Logged

bing101

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 1642
  • Location: Vacaville
  • Last Login: February 22, 2018, 09:35:17 PM
Re: The Raiders to San Antonio?
« Reply #64 on: October 06, 2016, 12:22:15 PM »

Logged

epzik8

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 787
  • Alive Since Ninety-Five

  • Age: 22
  • Location: Maryland, USA
  • Last Login: January 17, 2018, 07:43:24 AM
    • The Epzik8 Roadpage
Re: The Raiders to San Antonio?
« Reply #65 on: October 09, 2016, 08:37:27 PM »

Raiders belong in Oakland and that's that. They have too good a rivalry with the Chargers.
Logged
From the land of red, white, yellow and black.
____________________________

My clinched highways: http://tm.teresco.org/user/?u=epzik8
My clinched counties: http://mob-rule.com/user-gifs/epzik8.gif

 


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