AARoads Forum

Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
Advanced search  

News:

New rules for political content in signatures and user profiles. See this thread for details.

Author Topic: The Raiders to San Antonio?  (Read 12859 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: 2674
  • Visionary

  • Age: 42
  • Location: Independence/Hammond, LA
  • Last Login: November 15, 2018, 10:32:16 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: 5446
  • Trust me, I'm a transportation engineer

  • Age: 24
  • Location: Troy, New York
  • Last Login: Today at 01:02:14 AM
    • 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: 5245
  • Location: Massachusetts, and all the roads radiating out of it
  • Last Login: September 10, 2018, 07:34:46 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: 5669
  • Age: 62
  • Location: Arlington, VA
  • Last Login: Today at 01:12:31 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: 1630
  • Age: 51
  • Last Login: November 15, 2018, 11:20:53 PM
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: 809
  • Age: 45
  • Location: Mason City Iowa
  • Last Login: November 14, 2018, 05:20:49 PM
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: 5245
  • Location: Massachusetts, and all the roads radiating out of it
  • Last Login: September 10, 2018, 07:34:46 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: 822
  • Age: 38
  • Location: Sou Cal USA
  • Last Login: September 28, 2018, 08:52:02 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: 9277
  • Age: 45
  • Location: Fairfax County, Virginia
  • Last Login: November 15, 2018, 10:12:44 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: 1630
  • Age: 51
  • Last Login: November 15, 2018, 11:20:53 PM
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: 2674
  • Visionary

  • Age: 42
  • Location: Independence/Hammond, LA
  • Last Login: November 15, 2018, 10:32:16 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: 9277
  • Age: 45
  • Location: Fairfax County, Virginia
  • Last Login: November 15, 2018, 10:12:44 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: 5245
  • Location: Massachusetts, and all the roads radiating out of it
  • Last Login: September 10, 2018, 07:34:46 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: 2164
  • Last Login: November 15, 2018, 09:22:17 AM
Re: The Raiders to San Antonio?
« Reply #64 on: October 06, 2016, 12:22:15 PM »

Logged

epzik8

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 834
  • Alive Since Ninety-Five

  • Age: 23
  • Location: Maryland, USA
  • Last Login: November 15, 2018, 12:16:09 PM
    • 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.

Washington Capitals, 2018 Stanley Cup CHAMPIONS!!!
____________________________

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

Desert Man

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 822
  • Age: 38
  • Location: Sou Cal USA
  • Last Login: September 28, 2018, 08:52:02 PM
Re: The Raiders to San Antonio?
« Reply #66 on: April 30, 2018, 10:26:47 PM »

http://news3lv.com/news/local/governor-sandoval-announces-special-session-start-date-to-tackle-nfl-stadium-proposal

Las Vegas is the bargaining chip city for the Raiders.

From the wikipedia article of the Oakland Raiders:
On March 27, 2017, NFL team owners voted nearly unanimously to approve the Raiders' application to relocate from Oakland to Las Vegas, Nevada, in a 31-to-1 vote at the annual league meetings in Phoenix, Arizona. The Raiders plan to remain in Oakland through 2018 – and possibly 2019 – and relocate to Las Vegas in either 2019 or 2020, depending on the completion of the team's planned new stadium.[13][14]

The Raiders plan to relocate to Las Vegas in the 2019 season, where a stadium is being constructed and I'm afraid San Antonio, as well Orlando (tried to get the Raiders in the 1990s), San Diego (formerly home to the Chargers, 1961-2017), St Louis (formerly had the Rams for 2 decades, 1995-2015, back in LA) and Oakland itself can start a league of their own (plus Toronto who tried to bring the Buffalo Bills, and the CFL with the local Argonauts team stopped this plan).
Logged
Get your kicks...on Route 99! Like to turn 66 upside down. The other historic Main street of America.

MisterSG1

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 454
  • Civil Engineering Student - Better Late Than Never

  • Age: 31
  • Location: Brampton, ON
  • Last Login: October 06, 2018, 01:37:24 PM
Re: The Raiders to San Antonio?
« Reply #67 on: April 30, 2018, 10:33:35 PM »

http://news3lv.com/news/local/governor-sandoval-announces-special-session-start-date-to-tackle-nfl-stadium-proposal

Las Vegas is the bargaining chip city for the Raiders.

From the wikipedia article of the Oakland Raiders:
On March 27, 2017, NFL team owners voted nearly unanimously to approve the Raiders' application to relocate from Oakland to Las Vegas, Nevada, in a 31-to-1 vote at the annual league meetings in Phoenix, Arizona. The Raiders plan to remain in Oakland through 2018 – and possibly 2019 – and relocate to Las Vegas in either 2019 or 2020, depending on the completion of the team's planned new stadium.[13][14]

The Raiders plan to relocate to Las Vegas in the 2019 season, where a stadium is being constructed and I'm afraid San Antonio, as well Orlando (tried to get the Raiders in the 1990s), San Diego (formerly home to the Chargers, 1961-2017), St Louis (formerly had the Rams for 2 decades, 1995-2015, back in LA) and Oakland itself can start a league of their own (plus Toronto who tried to bring the Buffalo Bills, and the CFL with the local Argonauts team stopped this plan).

You sure about that, the reason the Toronto group never won the Buffalo Bills bid was because they were simply outbid, the Argonauts didn't stop the NFL from coming. The CFL and the Argos are the least of the worries when one wants to talk about an NFL team in Toronto.....
Logged

MantyMadTown

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 286
  • UW-Madison

  • Age: 20
  • Location: Madison, WI
  • Last Login: Today at 03:26:49 AM
Re: The Raiders to San Antonio?
« Reply #68 on: May 01, 2018, 02:37:26 AM »

http://news3lv.com/news/local/governor-sandoval-announces-special-session-start-date-to-tackle-nfl-stadium-proposal

Las Vegas is the bargaining chip city for the Raiders.

From the wikipedia article of the Oakland Raiders:
On March 27, 2017, NFL team owners voted nearly unanimously to approve the Raiders' application to relocate from Oakland to Las Vegas, Nevada, in a 31-to-1 vote at the annual league meetings in Phoenix, Arizona. The Raiders plan to remain in Oakland through 2018 – and possibly 2019 – and relocate to Las Vegas in either 2019 or 2020, depending on the completion of the team's planned new stadium.[13][14]

The Raiders plan to relocate to Las Vegas in the 2019 season, where a stadium is being constructed and I'm afraid San Antonio, as well Orlando (tried to get the Raiders in the 1990s), San Diego (formerly home to the Chargers, 1961-2017), St Louis (formerly had the Rams for 2 decades, 1995-2015, back in LA) and Oakland itself can start a league of their own (plus Toronto who tried to bring the Buffalo Bills, and the CFL with the local Argonauts team stopped this plan).

I wonder if those cities can host XFL teams in the future? The only one I see a problem with would be Oakland, because having to play in Oakland Coliseum was why I think they wanted to leave Oakland in the first place...
Logged
Forget the I-41 haters

jbnv

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 2674
  • Visionary

  • Age: 42
  • Location: Independence/Hammond, LA
  • Last Login: November 15, 2018, 10:32:16 PM
    • Personal Site
Re: The Raiders to San Antonio?
« Reply #69 on: May 02, 2018, 03:45:40 PM »

I don't see anybody reusing the Oilers brand. Maybe someone from Houston or Texas can tell me how fond people are of it.

I don't see San Antonio having a pro-football team unless the Houston Texans move there. Too much loyalty to the Cowboys.
Logged
Keep Clearview, lose the government bureaucracies and the politicians who enable them.
US Redo | Louisiana Redo | Route Challenge | Photos

1995hoo

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 9277
  • Age: 45
  • Location: Fairfax County, Virginia
  • Last Login: November 15, 2018, 10:12:44 PM
Re: The Raiders to San Antonio?
« Reply #70 on: May 03, 2018, 08:42:33 AM »

I believe the NFL announced they were "retiring" the name "Oilers" when the Nashville franchise changed its name to "Titans."
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.

Flint1979

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 1309
  • Age: 39
  • Location: Michigan
  • Last Login: November 15, 2018, 11:24:57 PM
Re: The Raiders to San Antonio?
« Reply #71 on: May 21, 2018, 01:42:44 PM »

I don't see anybody reusing the Oilers brand. Maybe someone from Houston or Texas can tell me how fond people are of it.

I don't see San Antonio having a pro-football team unless the Houston Texans move there. Too much loyalty to the Cowboys.
I don't see why the Texans would move out of Houston since they already sell out every game and are in a much more populated area than San Antonio even combined with Austin they are still in a much more populated area. The loyalty to the Cowboys extends much further than just Texas too.
Logged

jbnv

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 2674
  • Visionary

  • Age: 42
  • Location: Independence/Hammond, LA
  • Last Login: November 15, 2018, 10:32:16 PM
    • Personal Site
Re: The Raiders to San Antonio?
« Reply #72 on: May 21, 2018, 02:11:29 PM »

I don't see San Antonio having a pro-football team unless the Houston Texans move there.
I don't see why the Texans would move out of Houston since they already sell out every game and are in a much more populated area than San Antonio even combined with Austin they are still in a much more populated area.

I'm not suggesting that there's any possibility of the Texans moving.
Logged
Keep Clearview, lose the government bureaucracies and the politicians who enable them.
US Redo | Louisiana Redo | Route Challenge | Photos

dvferyance

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 1015
  • Location: New Berlin WI
  • Last Login: November 15, 2018, 07:41:32 PM
Re: The Raiders to San Antonio?
« Reply #73 on: May 21, 2018, 04:04:35 PM »

You could move the Chargers there. The LA thing is going to flop and there is no way they are moving back to San Diego.
Logged

sparker

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 4643
  • Location: Bay Area, CA
  • Last Login: Today at 03:02:40 AM
Re: The Raiders to San Antonio?
« Reply #74 on: July 05, 2018, 06:58:23 PM »

You could move the Chargers there. The LA thing is going to flop and there is no way they are moving back to San Diego.

Spanos Central (where the family hails from and has most of their commercial interests) is Stockton; seeing how that town just is not going to get a NFL team, nearby Sacramento might be a contender if they can select a site for a stadium+parking (likely back out in Natomas or across the river in West Sac -- or even down in Elk Grove) -- if the L.A. situation eventually shows that it can't support two teams.   
Logged

 


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.