From ESPN: http://www.espn.com/nfl/story/_/id/17834575/owner-mark-davis-says-city-dropped-ball-keeping-oakland-raiders
QuoteRaiders owner Mark Davis could not have been more clear about his intentions Wednesday, when he informed fellow owners that, barring an unexpected surprise, he plans in January to file papers to move his team from Oakland to Las Vegas, multiple sources told ESPN.
"Mark Davis said that he was committed to Las Vegas 100 percent, and that there were several market studies being done by the Raiders," said one source who was present when Davis made his presentation at the league meetings in Houston.
There appears to be growing support for Davis among some owners as he has made no progress with Oakland officials over the last few years and was given clearance to file for relocation to Los Angeles earlier this year, though he lost out to Rams owner Stan Kroenke. Also, Las Vegas has committed $750 million in public money toward building a new stadium, presumably near the Strip.
"I don't know what there is to say other than, 'Congrats, Raiders on getting the largest public subsidy ever and cleaning up our L.A. [mess]," another source familiar with the Raiders' presentation told ESPN. "They've busted their ass to get something done. I respect that. ... Once you've stepped up and produced something, you deserve better."
Barring this thing falling through or the owners unexpectedly blocking the move, we could see the second move in as many years.
About time they get an NFL team out there. L.A. doesn't deserve more than one team....we'll see if they can really hang onto the Rams down the line.
So Las Vegas will get the NFL and the NHL. There's still the NBA and MLB.
Quote from: Brandon on October 19, 2016, 05:51:34 PM
So Las Vegas will get the NFL and the NHL. There's still the NBA and MLB.
I hope never for the MLB.
Quote from: jeffandnicole on October 19, 2016, 06:11:52 PM
Quote from: Brandon on October 19, 2016, 05:51:34 PM
So Las Vegas will get the NFL and the NHL. There's still the NBA and MLB.
I hope never for the MLB.
Won't happen, MLB has too strong of an anti-gambling stance.
It's way too hot for an outdoor stadium, and I've yet to see an indoor stadium that offers any sort of enjoyable atmosphere. Unlike football where noise can really mess with an opponent making a dome an asset (not to mention keeping the team out of freezing temps), baseball communication is mostly done by signals.
Quote from: jeffandnicole on October 19, 2016, 06:18:44 PM
It's way too hot for an outdoor stadium, and I've yet to see an indoor stadium that offers any sort of enjoyable atmosphere. Unlike football where noise can really mess with an opponent making a dome an asset (not to mention keeping the team out of freezing temps), baseball communication is mostly done by signals.
Meh...just play the games at night. I remember the Cardinals when they were in Sun Devil Stadium. Most of their games were during the day and it never really bothered me unless it was over 110F. Vegas is about 10-15F cooler than Phoenix on an average day and it's bone dry.
So...what does that do for the Chargers' chances to move out of San Diego and become Kroenke's stadium partner? Also, is Oakland now on the clock for a makeup franchise (maybe Jacksonville or even....horrors....New Orleans after Tom Benson's passing) like what Houston and Baltimore got after the Oilers/Titans and Colts bolted?
Quote from: Anthony_JK on October 19, 2016, 07:30:02 PM
So...what does that do for the Chargers' chances to move out of San Diego and become Kroenke's stadium partner? Also, is Oakland now on the clock for a makeup franchise (maybe Jacksonville or even....horrors....New Orleans after Tom Benson's passing) like what Houston and Baltimore got after the Oilers/Titans and Colts bolted?
Baltimore is a special case because the Colts left in the middle of the night. Granted, the Ravens left Cleveland in a similar fashion. Oakland has shown zero desire to put up anything for a football team. Their only proposals have been to build a new baseball stadium with either the Raiders as a secondary tenant or have them play in a college stadium. That's not going to attract anyone.
An argument was made here recently that L.A. should only keep the one team, I would make the same for the Bay Area, one football team there (the 49ers.) I have no idea what the situation is like down in San Diego, but I would honestly like to see the Chargers stay there. A metropolitan area as large as San Diego should have two pro teams, if Las Vegas is going to have two as it likely will be. Provided the Chargers get an updated stadium deal at least. I never understood why L.A. should have two football teams if they couldn't keep the Raiders and the Rams for the time they had them. Leave them with one team and see how it goes.
I don't think the SF market can handle 2 NFL teams, either. As a base of comparison, the market for the Giants/Jets is at least twice as large. Heck, the Bills might have a larger market as it effectively includes the Toronto metro area. I expect San Diego to figure out a stadium deal there now that the Raiders have made leaving official.
If the people of Oakland are smart, they will spend the money saved by not building a new stadium on roads, hospitals, schools, and police. Or cut taxes and allow those who earned the money to spend it on what they wish.
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on October 19, 2016, 06:55:21 PM
Quote from: jeffandnicole on October 19, 2016, 06:18:44 PM
It's way too hot for an outdoor stadium, and I've yet to see an indoor stadium that offers any sort of enjoyable atmosphere. Unlike football where noise can really mess with an opponent making a dome an asset (not to mention keeping the team out of freezing temps), baseball communication is mostly done by signals.
Meh...just play the games at night. I remember the Cardinals when they were in Sun Devil Stadium. Most of their games were during the day and it never really bothered me unless it was over 110F. Vegas is about 10-15F cooler than Phoenix on an average day and it's bone dry.
Average highs are well over 100 in Vegas as well, approaching 115 - 120 degrees. Even at 7pm, temps will still be a stifling 105 - 110. And I don't care how low the humidity is, it's still fricken hot at that temperature.
All teams play at night during the week except for the occasional day game, so that's nothing unusual. Even the Cubs try playing as many night games as possible.
Quote from: jeffandnicole on October 20, 2016, 09:57:07 AM
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on October 19, 2016, 06:55:21 PM
Quote from: jeffandnicole on October 19, 2016, 06:18:44 PM
It's way too hot for an outdoor stadium, and I've yet to see an indoor stadium that offers any sort of enjoyable atmosphere. Unlike football where noise can really mess with an opponent making a dome an asset (not to mention keeping the team out of freezing temps), baseball communication is mostly done by signals.
Meh...just play the games at night. I remember the Cardinals when they were in Sun Devil Stadium. Most of their games were during the day and it never really bothered me unless it was over 110F. Vegas is about 10-15F cooler than Phoenix on an average day and it's bone dry.
Average highs are well over 100 in Vegas as well, approaching 115 - 120 degrees. Even at 7pm, temps will still be a stifling 105 - 110. And I don't care how low the humidity is, it's still fricken hot at that temperature.
All teams play at night during the week except for the occasional day game, so that's nothing unusual. Even the Cubs try playing as many night games as possible.
I know, I lived there. Fricken hot yes, stifling...meh not really. An average 90F in Orlando or Tampa was way worse than a 110 F in Las Vegas. The worst was a post-monsoon day in Phoenix since the humidity would linger for almost a full day at 50-70%. Not that I'm saying say in a hypothetical situation where a MLB went to Vegas that they wouldn't get a retractable dome. They sure did one in Phoenix and you have a lot more tourists who aren't used to the blast furnace that wouldn't go otherwise.
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on October 20, 2016, 12:13:01 PM
Quote from: jeffandnicole on October 20, 2016, 09:57:07 AM
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on October 19, 2016, 06:55:21 PM
Quote from: jeffandnicole on October 19, 2016, 06:18:44 PM
It's way too hot for an outdoor stadium, and I've yet to see an indoor stadium that offers any sort of enjoyable atmosphere. Unlike football where noise can really mess with an opponent making a dome an asset (not to mention keeping the team out of freezing temps), baseball communication is mostly done by signals.
Meh...just play the games at night. I remember the Cardinals when they were in Sun Devil Stadium. Most of their games were during the day and it never really bothered me unless it was over 110F. Vegas is about 10-15F cooler than Phoenix on an average day and it's bone dry.
Average highs are well over 100 in Vegas as well, approaching 115 - 120 degrees. Even at 7pm, temps will still be a stifling 105 - 110. And I don't care how low the humidity is, it's still fricken hot at that temperature.
All teams play at night during the week except for the occasional day game, so that's nothing unusual. Even the Cubs try playing as many night games as possible.
I know, I lived there. Fricken hot yes, stifling...meh not really. An average 90F in Orlando or Tampa was way worse than a 110 F in Las Vegas. The worst was a post-monsoon day in Phoenix since the humidity would linger for almost a full day at 50-70%. Not that I'm saying say in a hypothetical situation where a MLB went to Vegas that they wouldn't get a retractable dome. They sure did one in Phoenix and you have a lot more tourists who aren't used to the blast furnace that wouldn't go otherwise.
Arizona ranks 21st in average attendance. Tampa Bay is dead last. Your examples really aren't helping your argument.
http://www.espn.com/mlb/attendance
What argument? I never said that an MLB team was ever going to Las Vegas. All I ever said was that the heat in Nevada is a lot more tolerable than a humid climate in the south east. At least to me that is....so am I arguing with myself to convince myself otherwise? It sounds like your opinion is opposite of mine, that being the case that's fine to.
NOW, what am I really surprised never got much traction in Las Vegas was an NBA team. You'd think that with the big huge following UNLV had that it would be a natural fit. Basketball is also almost always played at during the evening hours which fits right with when most tourists out gambling like to be out.
I spend way too much time in LV, and plan to retire there in a few years.
The economics of the 4 major sports are different.
The NFL is, for want of a better word, socialist. National TV contract covers all the games and the teams share the TV money equally, as they do most liscensing and sponsorships. That is why there can be a team in a small town in Wisconsin. LV can have a team, SFO can have 2, whatever. They could put a team in Missoula and it would work.
MLB is the exact opposite. The national TV contract is just the playoffs and a couple of random games per week. The big TV money is in the local TV deals, and the live gate matters. Clark County is 2 million people, but that is it. The only other part of Nevada with people is still much closer to SFO and would retain that loyality in TV teams and certainly are not going to drive 450 miles to games, and the rest is just sand and oddballs. And it is 81 games, played every day of the week, contasted to 8 football games, mostly played on Sunday afternoons. Remember that LV, due to the nature of the local main industry, certainly has the largest proportion of people who work odd shifts.
The two arena sports are a much easier sell. Those games are naturally played indoors anyway, and a great crowd is less than half what a baseball game would need to say the same. And it is only half as many games. As between the NBA and NHL, the NBA had the strippers and drugs party that ended up in a shootout when it played the ASG there, and it is not going back. The NHL is a different deal and will do well. One thing they are doing is marketing towards the visiting teams. That will work, because a mid-winter trip to LV for a few days, catch your hockey team play and the do other LV stuff will be an easy sell in cold weather cities. And the NHL has far better demographics (wealthier fans) than the NBA.
The only other thing I would say about LV is that everybody is from someplace else. And probably the majority is from the northeast or midwest, which is why the NHL is a good choice. Even people born there think of where their parents were from as "back home". And they mostly retain sports loyalities based on that. It is that kind of place. South Florida is similar, but LV is way more than that even.
Interesting: the Raiders founded in Minneapolis-st. Paul (never played there), went to Oakland, then LA, returned to Oakland and now headed to Vegas. And the other LA team the Rams, began in Cleveland (someone told me in a sports bar about Baltimore), moved to LA (also Anaheim stadium), briefly in St Louis and again in LA. And who knows the Chargers after their first year in LA may abandon San Diego for a new site in the LA metro area (Inglewood or Carson).
I like to see a second professional American Football League to fill the voids of St Louis, Oakland and San Diego, grant teams in Birmingham, OK City or Tulsa, Orlando and Toronto (Buffalo keeps its storied Bills). A team in the Chicago metro area is a good idea, then in Omaha and Connecticut (Hartford or New Haven?), and finally, San Antonio and El Paso on the Mexican border.
And not only the NHL, Vegas has the NFL and seeks the NBA. They might not be the best site for MLB nor MLS (a smaller league). This desert resort city and metro area has grow 100x since 1950, technically another LA, Phoenix and SF (rapid post-WW2 sunbelt suburbanization). They can now handle the Raiders, the NHL and future NBA prospects...and perfect fit for the AFC West division.
Having an NFL team in Vegas makes sense because, as people have already mentioned, fans of other teams will just plan their Vegas vacations around the game. Build a football-themed casino resort owned by the team, offer vacation packages including game tickets and they'll get tons of people.
Quote from: cl94 on October 20, 2016, 10:31:39 PM
Having an NFL team in Vegas makes sense because, as people have already mentioned, fans of other teams will just plan their Vegas vacations around the game. Build a football-themed casino resort owned by the team, offer vacation packages including game tickets and they'll get tons of people.
I feel like this might be a bit of a long term problem though. It's a magnification of the problems faced by any Sun Belt expansion team, people generally already have allegiances and it's more difficult to establish a local base of support. You don't want a team where every home game is basically an away game.
Quote from: The Nature Boy on October 21, 2016, 10:01:37 AM
Quote from: cl94 on October 20, 2016, 10:31:39 PM
Having an NFL team in Vegas makes sense because, as people have already mentioned, fans of other teams will just plan their Vegas vacations around the game. Build a football-themed casino resort owned by the team, offer vacation packages including game tickets and they'll get tons of people.
I feel like this might be a bit of a long term problem though. It's a magnification of the problems faced by any Sun Belt expansion team, people generally already have allegiances and it's more difficult to establish a local base of support. You don't want a team where every home game is basically an away game.
And while some people will travel for an away game, it happens less often than people realize. Unlike in some college football stadiums where there's entire sections dedicated to the opposing team's fans, in the NFL the home team's fans fill up the entire stadium, and the opposing fans are generally scattered about. While there may be some people that'll travel for an away game, and Vegas is an ideal trip for that, don't expect too many fans to do that.
Quote from: The Nature Boy on October 21, 2016, 10:01:37 AM
Quote from: cl94 on October 20, 2016, 10:31:39 PM
Having an NFL team in Vegas makes sense because, as people have already mentioned, fans of other teams will just plan their Vegas vacations around the game. Build a football-themed casino resort owned by the team, offer vacation packages including game tickets and they'll get tons of people.
I feel like this might be a bit of a long term problem though. It's a magnification of the problems faced by any Sun Belt expansion team, people generally already have allegiances and it's more difficult to establish a local base of support. You don't want a team where every home game is basically an away game.
As long as butts are in the seats does it really matter? That's how a lot of Phoenix sports teams got by for years on ticket sales. You'd have a huge following from the opposing team that would buy up a chunk of the unsold tickets whether they were local residents or just people on vacation. Back when the Lions and Cardinals were really bad they would basically play each other in Arizona every other year. I would speculate one third of the stadium was Detroit fans. You'd think that would be a huge thing in Las Vegas with people coming in from out of town or just among the crowd that moved Vegas.
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on October 21, 2016, 10:20:38 AM
Quote from: The Nature Boy on October 21, 2016, 10:01:37 AM
Quote from: cl94 on October 20, 2016, 10:31:39 PM
Having an NFL team in Vegas makes sense because, as people have already mentioned, fans of other teams will just plan their Vegas vacations around the game. Build a football-themed casino resort owned by the team, offer vacation packages including game tickets and they'll get tons of people.
I feel like this might be a bit of a long term problem though. It's a magnification of the problems faced by any Sun Belt expansion team, people generally already have allegiances and it's more difficult to establish a local base of support. You don't want a team where every home game is basically an away game.
As long as butts are in the seats does it really matter? That's how a lot of Phoenix sports teams got by for years on ticket sales. You'd have a huge following from the opposing team that would buy up a chunk of the unsold tickets whether they were local residents or just people on vacation. Back when the Lions and Cardinals were really bad they would basically play each other in Arizona every other year. I would speculate one third of the stadium was Detroit fans. You'd think that would be a huge thing in Las Vegas with people coming in from out of town or just among the crowd that moved Vegas.
Merch sales are a big one and there is actually a psychological advance to having a home crowd that actually cheers for you (the Seahawks understand this one very well). If you want a terrible team that just acts as a way for transplants to see their favorite teams, this model works.
Quote from: The Nature Boy on October 21, 2016, 10:37:01 AM
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on October 21, 2016, 10:20:38 AM
Quote from: The Nature Boy on October 21, 2016, 10:01:37 AM
Quote from: cl94 on October 20, 2016, 10:31:39 PM
Having an NFL team in Vegas makes sense because, as people have already mentioned, fans of other teams will just plan their Vegas vacations around the game. Build a football-themed casino resort owned by the team, offer vacation packages including game tickets and they'll get tons of people.
I feel like this might be a bit of a long term problem though. It's a magnification of the problems faced by any Sun Belt expansion team, people generally already have allegiances and it's more difficult to establish a local base of support. You don't want a team where every home game is basically an away game.
As long as butts are in the seats does it really matter? That's how a lot of Phoenix sports teams got by for years on ticket sales. You'd have a huge following from the opposing team that would buy up a chunk of the unsold tickets whether they were local residents or just people on vacation. Back when the Lions and Cardinals were really bad they would basically play each other in Arizona every other year. I would speculate one third of the stadium was Detroit fans. You'd think that would be a huge thing in Las Vegas with people coming in from out of town or just among the crowd that moved Vegas.
Merch sales are a big one and there is actually a psychological advance to having a home crowd that actually cheers for you (the Seahawks under this one very well). If you want a terrible team that just acts as a way for transplants to see their favorite teams, this model works.
Which is basically how things worked in Phoenix until the local fan-base figured out the Bidwells had been historic cheap-skates and basically started to refused the follow the team. Surprisingly that seemed to got their attention or at minimum they got Kurt Warner when it looked like he was finished. Now the team has a pretty decent following...used to be a total Denver Broncos town.
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on October 21, 2016, 10:42:10 AM
Quote from: The Nature Boy on October 21, 2016, 10:37:01 AM
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on October 21, 2016, 10:20:38 AM
Quote from: The Nature Boy on October 21, 2016, 10:01:37 AM
Quote from: cl94 on October 20, 2016, 10:31:39 PM
Having an NFL team in Vegas makes sense because, as people have already mentioned, fans of other teams will just plan their Vegas vacations around the game. Build a football-themed casino resort owned by the team, offer vacation packages including game tickets and they'll get tons of people.
I feel like this might be a bit of a long term problem though. It's a magnification of the problems faced by any Sun Belt expansion team, people generally already have allegiances and it's more difficult to establish a local base of support. You don't want a team where every home game is basically an away game.
As long as butts are in the seats does it really matter? That's how a lot of Phoenix sports teams got by for years on ticket sales. You'd have a huge following from the opposing team that would buy up a chunk of the unsold tickets whether they were local residents or just people on vacation. Back when the Lions and Cardinals were really bad they would basically play each other in Arizona every other year. I would speculate one third of the stadium was Detroit fans. You'd think that would be a huge thing in Las Vegas with people coming in from out of town or just among the crowd that moved Vegas.
Merch sales are a big one and there is actually a psychological advance to having a home crowd that actually cheers for you (the Seahawks under this one very well). If you want a terrible team that just acts as a way for transplants to see their favorite teams, this model works.
Which is basically how things worked in Phoenix until the local fan-base figured out the Bidwells had been historic cheap-skates and basically started to refused the follow the team. Surprisingly that seemed to got their attention or at minimum they got Kurt Warner when it looked like he was finished. Now the team has a pretty decent following...used to be a total Denver Broncos town.
If a Las Vegas team would be fine with that then that's fine.
The Raiders may have some advantage in getting local traction since they're already a known commodity.
Quote from: The Nature Boy on October 21, 2016, 10:52:07 AM
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on October 21, 2016, 10:42:10 AM
Quote from: The Nature Boy on October 21, 2016, 10:37:01 AM
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on October 21, 2016, 10:20:38 AM
Quote from: The Nature Boy on October 21, 2016, 10:01:37 AM
Quote from: cl94 on October 20, 2016, 10:31:39 PM
Having an NFL team in Vegas makes sense because, as people have already mentioned, fans of other teams will just plan their Vegas vacations around the game. Build a football-themed casino resort owned by the team, offer vacation packages including game tickets and they'll get tons of people.
I feel like this might be a bit of a long term problem though. It's a magnification of the problems faced by any Sun Belt expansion team, people generally already have allegiances and it's more difficult to establish a local base of support. You don't want a team where every home game is basically an away game.
As long as butts are in the seats does it really matter? That's how a lot of Phoenix sports teams got by for years on ticket sales. You'd have a huge following from the opposing team that would buy up a chunk of the unsold tickets whether they were local residents or just people on vacation. Back when the Lions and Cardinals were really bad they would basically play each other in Arizona every other year. I would speculate one third of the stadium was Detroit fans. You'd think that would be a huge thing in Las Vegas with people coming in from out of town or just among the crowd that moved Vegas.
Merch sales are a big one and there is actually a psychological advance to having a home crowd that actually cheers for you (the Seahawks under this one very well). If you want a terrible team that just acts as a way for transplants to see their favorite teams, this model works.
Which is basically how things worked in Phoenix until the local fan-base figured out the Bidwells had been historic cheap-skates and basically started to refused the follow the team. Surprisingly that seemed to got their attention or at minimum they got Kurt Warner when it looked like he was finished. Now the team has a pretty decent following...used to be a total Denver Broncos town.
If a Las Vegas team would be fine with that then that's fine.
The Raiders may have some advantage in getting local traction since they're already a known commodity.
The weird thing to me is that there is a ton of Raiders fans that I know out here in California. Almost none of them feel bad that they are moving to Las Vegas or not going to L.A. They all seem pretty excited they can go see their team when they head up to Vegas. I guess that's the weird thing about the Raiders team, I always kind of felt like they were the "state" team unlike something like the 49ers which seems to have a much more localized following the Bay Area. There are a ton of Californian transplants already out in Vegas so I don't think a home following will be the same issue it was in Phoenix.
The other winner here, IMHO, is UNLV. UNLV currently plays in Sam Boyd Stadium, which is an aminity free stadium far off campus and pretty much on the edge of the populated area. Way off campus and pretty much out of sight out of mind. UNLV will be a co-tenant in this deal, which will be located just next to campus. Combined with the new hockey arena, which is taking events previously housed at UNLV.'s Thomas & Mack Center, thus freeing it up for basketball uses without worrying about other acts, I can see UNLV moving up in the world.
Another thing moving up will be the LV Bowl. Generally one of those forgettable bowls, and often burdened with BYU (whose fans, as the saying goes, came to town with a $10 bill and copy of the 10 Commandments and broke neither), suddenly becomes one of the top of the non playoff bowls.
As to the idea that a lot of Raider fans will come in from NoCal or SoCal or elsewhere and see the games, probably. But the one word of caution is what happened with NASCAR. The casinos spent a lot of $$ developing the NASCAR track on pretty much the same idea. Turned out that NASCAR fans show up at the track watch the race and go home, without setting foot on the casino floors.
Raider Nation is all over the nation. I also liked Max's description of the Raiders being the "state" team. There have been games in San Diego which were loaded up with Silver and Black fans. The Raiders are bigtime popular in the Southland as well. As an Oregonian, I grew up watching the AFL and AFC, which featured Raider games, so they're liked in the Beaver State as well although the long losing season streak has taken the bloom off their rose.
Now we see the Raiders coming up in the standings. About the time a Vegas stadium is completed, this team will be solidly in the hunt for the Super Bowl once more.
Rick
The Raiders, like the Bills, Cowboys and Steelers, have fans everywhere. Everywhere. I don't know if they're like the Bills with backer bars in every state and a dozen countries, but the Raiders are a national team.
Quote from: cl94 on October 21, 2016, 05:07:17 PM
The Raiders, like the Bills, Cowboys and Steelers, have fans everywhere. Everywhere. I don't know if they're like the Bills with backer bars in every state and a dozen countries, but the Raiders are a national team.
Nationally despised for the antics of their fans, that is. (Though not so much lately, I'll admit.)
I do not associate with the idiots at what is now known as New Era Field that Deadspin and SportsCenter show every Sunday. The videos from this weekend were nothing short of shocking.
As far as bars, yeah, the Raiders have them (http://www.silverandblackpride.com/2014/9/6/6113537/oakland-raiders-bars-across-the-united-states), but not nearly as many as the Bills, who have around 200 backer bars (http://www.buffalobills.com/fans/billsbackers/backer-locator-map.html), almost all outside of the market area and most major cities in the US have at least one. I don't think any other team comes close to that.
Quote from: Anthony_JK on October 19, 2016, 07:30:02 PM
So...what does that do for the Chargers' chances to move out of San Diego and become Kroenke's stadium partner? Also, is Oakland now on the clock for a makeup franchise (maybe Jacksonville or even....horrors....New Orleans after Tom Benson's passing) like what Houston and Baltimore got after the Oilers/Titans and Colts bolted?
Oakland has other issues such as the Warriors moving to San Francisco and the Oakland A's moving to San Jose (allegedly).
The Las Vegas Raiders. Ridiculous.
Quote from: epzik8 on October 22, 2016, 06:50:21 PM
The Las Vegas Raiders. Ridiculous.
Sounds better than St. Louis Rams, which never sounded right even after 20 years.
Quote from: 1995hoo on October 22, 2016, 07:22:27 PM
Quote from: epzik8 on October 22, 2016, 06:50:21 PM
The Las Vegas Raiders. Ridiculous.
Sounds better than St. Louis Rams, which never sounded right even after 20 years.
Two words: Utah Jazz. 'Nuff said.
Quote from: Rothman on October 26, 2016, 12:55:00 PM
Quote from: 1995hoo on October 22, 2016, 07:22:27 PM
Quote from: epzik8 on October 22, 2016, 06:50:21 PM
The Las Vegas Raiders. Ridiculous.
Sounds better than St. Louis Rams, which never sounded right even after 20 years.
Two words: Utah Jazz. 'Nuff said.
If you know the history behind the name, the Los Angeles Dodgers is pretty ridiculous sounding too.
The Dodgers name comes from trolley dodging and was a reference to the dangers of the trolleys in Brooklyn at the turn of the century.
Quote from: The Nature Boy on October 26, 2016, 01:33:32 PM
Quote from: Rothman on October 26, 2016, 12:55:00 PM
Quote from: 1995hoo on October 22, 2016, 07:22:27 PM
Quote from: epzik8 on October 22, 2016, 06:50:21 PM
The Las Vegas Raiders. Ridiculous.
Sounds better than St. Louis Rams, which never sounded right even after 20 years.
Two words: Utah Jazz. 'Nuff said.
If you know the history behind the name, the Los Angeles Dodgers is pretty ridiculous sounding too.
The Dodgers name comes from trolley dodging and was a reference to the dangers of the trolleys in Brooklyn at the turn of the century.
I agree. Heck, I know a ton of people upset that they didn't change the name when they moved.
Quote from: cl94 on October 26, 2016, 03:39:08 PM
Quote from: The Nature Boy on October 26, 2016, 01:33:32 PM
Quote from: Rothman on October 26, 2016, 12:55:00 PM
Quote from: 1995hoo on October 22, 2016, 07:22:27 PM
Quote from: epzik8 on October 22, 2016, 06:50:21 PM
The Las Vegas Raiders. Ridiculous.
Sounds better than St. Louis Rams, which never sounded right even after 20 years.
Two words: Utah Jazz. 'Nuff said.
If you know the history behind the name, the Los Angeles Dodgers is pretty ridiculous sounding too.
The Dodgers name comes from trolley dodging and was a reference to the dangers of the trolleys in Brooklyn at the turn of the century.
I agree. Heck, I know a ton of people upset that they didn't change the name when they moved.
Same with the Lakers. 10,000 lakes in Minnesota. Not so many in Cali.
After 32 years, many think Indianapolis Colts still sounds weird.
Quote from: jp the roadgeek on October 26, 2016, 05:05:29 PM
Same with the Lakers. 10,000 lakes in Minnesota. Not so many in Cali.
Should I mention that there are no Grizzlies in Memphis? (originally was the Vancouver Grizzlies)
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on October 20, 2016, 12:13:01 PM
Quote from: jeffandnicole on October 20, 2016, 09:57:07 AM
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on October 19, 2016, 06:55:21 PM
Quote from: jeffandnicole on October 19, 2016, 06:18:44 PM
It's way too hot for an outdoor stadium, and I've yet to see an indoor stadium that offers any sort of enjoyable atmosphere. Unlike football where noise can really mess with an opponent making a dome an asset (not to mention keeping the team out of freezing temps), baseball communication is mostly done by signals.
Meh...just play the games at night. I remember the Cardinals when they were in Sun Devil Stadium. Most of their games were during the day and it never really bothered me unless it was over 110F. Vegas is about 10-15F cooler than Phoenix on an average day and it's bone dry.
Average highs are well over 100 in Vegas as well, approaching 115 - 120 degrees. Even at 7pm, temps will still be a stifling 105 - 110. And I don't care how low the humidity is, it's still fricken hot at that temperature.
All teams play at night during the week except for the occasional day game, so that's nothing unusual. Even the Cubs try playing as many night games as possible.
I know, I lived there. Fricken hot yes, stifling...meh not really. An average 90F in Orlando or Tampa was way worse than a 110 F in Las Vegas. The worst was a post-monsoon day in Phoenix since the humidity would linger for almost a full day at 50-70%. Not that I'm saying say in a hypothetical situation where a MLB went to Vegas that they wouldn't get a retractable dome. They sure did one in Phoenix and you have a lot more tourists who aren't used to the blast furnace that wouldn't go otherwise.
Creative scheduling can fix this issue as well. Play the first two games away, and the third one at night, and you're all the way to the first weekend of October, where the average high in Vegas is 86. It might be hot in Vegas, but it cools off pretty quickly from being so high up and so far north.
Besides, I don't think anyone else in the NFL would mind playing more Vegas games in winter.
Quote from: TXtoNJ on October 26, 2016, 07:11:00 PM
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on October 20, 2016, 12:13:01 PM
Quote from: jeffandnicole on October 20, 2016, 09:57:07 AM
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on October 19, 2016, 06:55:21 PM
Quote from: jeffandnicole on October 19, 2016, 06:18:44 PM
It's way too hot for an outdoor stadium, and I've yet to see an indoor stadium that offers any sort of enjoyable atmosphere. Unlike football where noise can really mess with an opponent making a dome an asset (not to mention keeping the team out of freezing temps), baseball communication is mostly done by signals.
Meh...just play the games at night. I remember the Cardinals when they were in Sun Devil Stadium. Most of their games were during the day and it never really bothered me unless it was over 110F. Vegas is about 10-15F cooler than Phoenix on an average day and it's bone dry.
Average highs are well over 100 in Vegas as well, approaching 115 - 120 degrees. Even at 7pm, temps will still be a stifling 105 - 110. And I don't care how low the humidity is, it's still fricken hot at that temperature.
All teams play at night during the week except for the occasional day game, so that's nothing unusual. Even the Cubs try playing as many night games as possible.
I know, I lived there. Fricken hot yes, stifling...meh not really. An average 90F in Orlando or Tampa was way worse than a 110 F in Las Vegas. The worst was a post-monsoon day in Phoenix since the humidity would linger for almost a full day at 50-70%. Not that I'm saying say in a hypothetical situation where a MLB went to Vegas that they wouldn't get a retractable dome. They sure did one in Phoenix and you have a lot more tourists who aren't used to the blast furnace that wouldn't go otherwise.
Creative scheduling can fix this issue as well. Play the first two games away, and the third one at night, and you're all the way to the first weekend of October, where the average high in Vegas is 86. It might be hot in Vegas, but it cools off pretty quickly from being so high up and so far north.
Besides, I don't think anyone else in the NFL would mind playing more Vegas games in winter.
Of course, the northern teams won't necessarily like that. Bills, Vikings, Packers, Bears and Browns have a huge advantage in December at home because they're used to the weather.
Quote from: cl94 on October 26, 2016, 09:38:34 PM
Quote from: TXtoNJ on October 26, 2016, 07:11:00 PM
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on October 20, 2016, 12:13:01 PM
Quote from: jeffandnicole on October 20, 2016, 09:57:07 AM
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on October 19, 2016, 06:55:21 PM
Quote from: jeffandnicole on October 19, 2016, 06:18:44 PM
It's way too hot for an outdoor stadium, and I've yet to see an indoor stadium that offers any sort of enjoyable atmosphere. Unlike football where noise can really mess with an opponent making a dome an asset (not to mention keeping the team out of freezing temps), baseball communication is mostly done by signals.
Meh...just play the games at night. I remember the Cardinals when they were in Sun Devil Stadium. Most of their games were during the day and it never really bothered me unless it was over 110F. Vegas is about 10-15F cooler than Phoenix on an average day and it's bone dry.
Average highs are well over 100 in Vegas as well, approaching 115 - 120 degrees. Even at 7pm, temps will still be a stifling 105 - 110. And I don't care how low the humidity is, it's still fricken hot at that temperature.
All teams play at night during the week except for the occasional day game, so that's nothing unusual. Even the Cubs try playing as many night games as possible.
I know, I lived there. Fricken hot yes, stifling...meh not really. An average 90F in Orlando or Tampa was way worse than a 110 F in Las Vegas. The worst was a post-monsoon day in Phoenix since the humidity would linger for almost a full day at 50-70%. Not that I'm saying say in a hypothetical situation where a MLB went to Vegas that they wouldn't get a retractable dome. They sure did one in Phoenix and you have a lot more tourists who aren't used to the blast furnace that wouldn't go otherwise.
Creative scheduling can fix this issue as well. Play the first two games away, and the third one at night, and you're all the way to the first weekend of October, where the average high in Vegas is 86. It might be hot in Vegas, but it cools off pretty quickly from being so high up and so far north.
Besides, I don't think anyone else in the NFL would mind playing more Vegas games in winter.
Of course, the northern teams won't necessarily like that. Bills, Vikings, Packers, Bears and Browns have a huge advantage in December at home because they're used to the weather.
Not sure if you are all aware but it does every now and then actually snow in Vegas. The lows in December/January are actually in the high 30s annually. You can have a 40 degree temperature swing basically at any given point during the year due to lack of moisture in the atmosphere.
Quote from: cl94 on October 26, 2016, 09:38:34 PM
Quote from: TXtoNJ on October 26, 2016, 07:11:00 PM
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on October 20, 2016, 12:13:01 PM
Quote from: jeffandnicole on October 20, 2016, 09:57:07 AM
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on October 19, 2016, 06:55:21 PM
Quote from: jeffandnicole on October 19, 2016, 06:18:44 PM
It's way too hot for an outdoor stadium, and I've yet to see an indoor stadium that offers any sort of enjoyable atmosphere. Unlike football where noise can really mess with an opponent making a dome an asset (not to mention keeping the team out of freezing temps), baseball communication is mostly done by signals.
Meh...just play the games at night. I remember the Cardinals when they were in Sun Devil Stadium. Most of their games were during the day and it never really bothered me unless it was over 110F. Vegas is about 10-15F cooler than Phoenix on an average day and it's bone dry.
Average highs are well over 100 in Vegas as well, approaching 115 - 120 degrees. Even at 7pm, temps will still be a stifling 105 - 110. And I don't care how low the humidity is, it's still fricken hot at that temperature.
All teams play at night during the week except for the occasional day game, so that's nothing unusual. Even the Cubs try playing as many night games as possible.
I know, I lived there. Fricken hot yes, stifling...meh not really. An average 90F in Orlando or Tampa was way worse than a 110 F in Las Vegas. The worst was a post-monsoon day in Phoenix since the humidity would linger for almost a full day at 50-70%. Not that I'm saying say in a hypothetical situation where a MLB went to Vegas that they wouldn't get a retractable dome. They sure did one in Phoenix and you have a lot more tourists who aren't used to the blast furnace that wouldn't go otherwise.
Creative scheduling can fix this issue as well. Play the first two games away, and the third one at night, and you're all the way to the first weekend of October, where the average high in Vegas is 86. It might be hot in Vegas, but it cools off pretty quickly from being so high up and so far north.
Besides, I don't think anyone else in the NFL would mind playing more Vegas games in winter.
Of course, the northern teams won't necessarily like that. Bills, Vikings, Packers, Bears and Browns have a huge advantage in December at home because they're used to the weather.
The Browns only have two advantages: bye week and offseason.
Quote from: cl94 on October 26, 2016, 09:38:34 PM
Of course, the northern teams won't necessarily like that. Bills, Vikings, Packers, Bears and Browns have a huge advantage in December at home because they're used to the weather.
You can take the Vikings off that list, they're back to playing indoors after only 2 interim seasons outside while they went from one dome to another.
- The proposed LV stadium will be a dome. Game time temps will be 72.
- Agree with all of the noted above dumb team nicknames when teams have moved. To that list you can add the Arizona Cardinals. Cardinals are among the most common and widely distributed North American birds. Found about everywhere. Except in the desert southwest. Of course, there are not a lot of tigers in Detroit or Cincinnati either.
Quote from: SP Cook on October 27, 2016, 09:29:17 AM
- The proposed LV stadium will be a dome. Game time temps will be 72.
- Agree with all of the noted above dumb team nicknames when teams have moved. To that list you can add the Arizona Cardinals. Cardinals are among the most common and widely distributed North American birds. Found about everywhere. Except in the desert southwest. Of course, there are not a lot of tigers in Detroit or Cincinnati either.
But don't forget that one of the biggest Ponderosa Pine Forest in the world is on the Mogollon Rim in Arizona. I thought about this too yesterday but there is actually a crap ton of Cardinals up on the Rim. Now if it was Phoenix Cardinals it wouldn't make any sense, but the way the teamed is named now with "Arizona" it actually is semi-accurate given the state isn't entirely desert. Besides...Coyotes and Diamond Backs are taken, it wouldn't leave a whole to go with....maybe the Gila Monsters or Havalina?
Now the odd thing about the Detroit Lions was that they were called the Portsmouth Spartans before they moved to Detroit. Given Michigan State was a thing back then it's actually kind of strange that the name didn't carry over to Detroit. Supposedly the "Lions" name was a play on the Detroit Tigers. The Pistons seemed like a natural fit custom named for the city but they actually had the name in Fort Wayne. The Red Wings were called the Cougars and Falcons before adopting the modern name which has more to do with the background of the new owner in the 1930s than anything automotive.
The whole Bengals color scheme and name comes from a play on the fact Paul Brown was the coach for the Cleveland Browns. The color scheme is very close to the Browns and they have an associate with "Dogs" with the old Dog Pound....hence the cat name.
I think cold weather games are more media hype than reality. It's hard to find stats on home wins in December on the web, but Superbowl winning teams come from all over the nation, and generally you have to win several games in December and January in order to make it to the Superbowl.
As for the Bills and Browns, they have a combined 0 Superbowl wins, so I don't know if those December games have an advantage for them. On the other hand, there's the Bears, Steelers, Patriots and Packers.
As far as scheduling games, they don't schedule based on historical weather conditions. About the only thing taken into consideration is if the stadium is in use for another event. And TV decides what games are played at night, not temperatures.
- There is a pretty good PBS documentary called something like "when football was a small town game" about the early NFL and teams like Portsmouth.
- Lots of the older NFL teams are somewhat of a "play" on the, at the time, lone established and far more popular, MLB teams. Redskins, which started in Boston, was a combination of the town's two MLB teams, red from the Red Sox and then an Indian motief from the Braves. Bears was a play on the Cubs. And Lions was a play on Tigers. The orignal name of the AFL Jets, the Titans, was a shot at the established NFL Giants, as a Titan is the only thing larger than a Giant in Greek mythology.
- Bengals. There are people who will swear that the orignal Bengals uniforms actually were the Browns uniforms from six years previous on the theory that, as an NFL head coach, he somehow had the Browns uniforms in the trunk of his car to take to the cleaners when he was fired. It is, of course, a myth. However, yes, Brown, deliberately picked the same shade of orange as the Browns, and the very plain original helments with only the block letter "BENGALS". The logo people also produced helmets that looked a lot like the current ones and ones that resembled Clemson's current ones.
- Brown was able to do this because it was an AFL expansion team, and they did not care what the Browns thought about it. Later when the merged NFL expanded to Tampa Bay, the original colors were to be a green and blue theme, but the NFL ruled that it was too close to the Dolphins and they went with the original orange and red colors, which were a deliberate play on the orange from Florida and the secondary color of Florida State red.
- Weather. IMHO, we are pushing the NFL too late into winter. The Super Bowl used to be mid-January. And, dome or not, there is no reason to play is in the north. Someday we WILL see a playoff game where the transportation infastructure will simply be shut down due to a storm. Not a fan of watching people dressed for winter watching the World Series either.
http://www.bizjournals.com/sanfrancisco/news/2016/10/27/sheldon-adelson-oakland-raiders-las-vegas.html
Update on the Stadium deal in Vegas.
And in some cases, the NFL team shared the name of the baseball team in that town. The Steelers were originally known as the Pirates, and share the Pirates' colors to this day. The Giants are named after the former baseball team, and the Redskins were first known as the Braves. There were also Brooklyn, Cincinnati, Cleveland, Detroit, and Hartford teams named after then (or past) baseball franchises. There were 2 New York Yankees football teams, but 1 was a relocated team from Boston and had no relation to the baseball franchise a la The St Louis Football Cardinals, who had no relation to the baseball Cardinals because they originated in Chicago.
Quote from: jp the roadgeek on October 28, 2016, 12:10:12 PM
And in some cases, the NFL team shared the name of the baseball team in that town. The Steelers were originally known as the Pirates, and share the Pirates' colors to this day. The Giants are named after the former baseball team, and the Redskins were first known as the Braves. There were also Brooklyn, Cincinnati, Cleveland, Detroit, and Hartford teams named after then (or past) baseball franchises. There were 2 New York Yankees football teams, but 1 was a relocated team from Boston and had no relation to the baseball franchise a la The St Louis Football Cardinals, who had no relation to the baseball Cardinals because they originated in Chicago.
The Bears are named as such because they played in the same stadium as the Cubs. The Redskins name comes from playing in Fenway Park with the Red Sox.
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on October 27, 2016, 09:53:09 AMThe Pistons seemed like a natural fit custom named for the city but they actually had the name in Fort Wayne.
Indiana was essentially second in US vehicle production from the dawn of the automobile until the 1930s, although a bit dormant, post-WWII.
It picked up again in 1986, when GM built a truck plant just outside Fort Wayne, and Subaru jumped in a few years later...ironically, that's when the Detroit Pistons began a great run in the NBA.
Quote from: formulanone on October 30, 2016, 09:56:44 AM
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on October 27, 2016, 09:53:09 AMThe Pistons seemed like a natural fit custom named for the city but they actually had the name in Fort Wayne.
Indiana was essentially second in US vehicle production from the dawn of the automobile until the 1930s, although a bit dormant, post-WWII.
It picked up again in 1986, when GM built a truck plant just outside Fort Wayne, and Subaru jumped in a few years later...ironically, that's when the Detroit Pistons began a great run in the NBA.
Well yeah, helped it was right in the hot bed of activity for the automotive sector. Studebaker would probably be the name example of an automaker from Indiana that most people would know. Indianapolis Motor Speedway was built at a time when automotive racing was more for car makers to test their cars rather than pure sport. The weird thing about Fort Wayne is that despite it being a city of a quarter million people most people have never heard of it. The only popular culture reference I even remember was Taylor telling one of the Apes he was from Fort Wayne in the original Planet of the Apes. :-D
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on October 19, 2016, 05:49:30 PM
About time they get an NFL team out there. L.A. doesn't deserve more than one team....we'll see if they can really hang onto the Rams down the line.
I agree completely. California didn't need 4 NFL teams good to see one go. The Raiders fans in the bay area will still have the 49ers to support so it's not like this is going to be another St Louis situation.
Quote from: dvferyance on December 15, 2016, 01:57:58 PM
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on October 19, 2016, 05:49:30 PM
About time they get an NFL team out there. L.A. doesn't deserve more than one team....we'll see if they can really hang onto the Rams down the line.
I agree completely. California didn't need 4 NFL teams good to see one go. The Raiders fans in the bay area will still have the 49ers to support so it's not like this is going to be another St Louis situation.
If they do. I wonder how much of Raider Nation defected to the Niners during 1982-94 and stayed with the Niners when the Raiders returned?
ixnay
Quote from: ixnay on December 21, 2016, 07:15:00 AM
Quote from: dvferyance on December 15, 2016, 01:57:58 PM
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on October 19, 2016, 05:49:30 PM
About time they get an NFL team out there. L.A. doesn't deserve more than one team....we'll see if they can really hang onto the Rams down the line.
I agree completely. California didn't need 4 NFL teams good to see one go. The Raiders fans in the bay area will still have the 49ers to support so it's not like this is going to be another St Louis situation.
If they do. I wonder how much of Raider Nation defected to the Niners during 1982-94 and stayed with the Niners when the Raiders returned?
ixnay
Pfft. I can't imagine it was that many.
Did like the "WE'RE BACK, LA SUCKED" bumper stickers that came out when they came back.
Quote from: Rothman on December 21, 2016, 09:26:03 AM
Quote from: ixnay on December 21, 2016, 07:15:00 AM
Quote from: dvferyance on December 15, 2016, 01:57:58 PM
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on October 19, 2016, 05:49:30 PM
About time they get an NFL team out there. L.A. doesn't deserve more than one team....we'll see if they can really hang onto the Rams down the line.
I agree completely. California didn't need 4 NFL teams good to see one go. The Raiders fans in the bay area will still have the 49ers to support so it's not like this is going to be another St Louis situation.
If they do. I wonder how much of Raider Nation defected to the Niners during 1982-94 and stayed with the Niners when the Raiders returned?
ixnay
Pfft. I can't imagine it was that many.
Did like the "WE'RE BACK, LA SUCKED" bumper stickers that came out when they came back.
I don't see too many people jumping ship between the 49ers and the Raiders. Those are typically VERY different types of fan bases who really don't intermix all that well. I'd say for the casual Californian the Raiders in general are still the go-to team that people follow...even with them moving to Vegas. Most Californians associate Las Vegas as a place they go recreate, so I guess it isn't a big deal? Besides who would really want to go to Oakland over Las Vegas?...who wants to go to Oakland in general? :-D
Today the Raiders officially filed for relocation to Las Vegas
http://www.nfl.com/news/story/0ap3000000776434/article/oakland-raiders-file-las-vegas-relocation-paperwork
Quote from: Buck87 on January 19, 2017, 03:22:19 PM
Today the Raiders officially filed for relocation to Las Vegas
http://www.nfl.com/news/story/0ap3000000776434/article/oakland-raiders-file-las-vegas-relocation-paperwork
At least what the Raiders are trying to do makes logical sense....unlike the...Chargers being the second class citizen in Los Angeles...with bad logo designs. :rolleyes:
Raiders have been trying to get a new stadium in Oakland for 15 years to replace the dump posing as a multi-purpose stadium. This is entirely on the city of Oakland. I would have pulled the plug after the sewage issues over a decade ago.
One thing to note is that if the move gets approved, they actually won't move to Las Vegas until the stadium opens in 2020.
Would be interesting to see how 3 lame duck seasons in Oakland would go. Though my understanding is that Raider nation is a huge fanbase that is by far the most prevalent across the state of California...so I would imagine there would be plenty of fans coming in from all over to offset whatever boycotts might occur from those scorned in the immediate Oakland/East Bay area.
Quote from: Buck87 on January 19, 2017, 10:18:44 PM
One thing to note is that if the move gets approved, they actually won't move to Las Vegas until the stadium opens in 2020.
Would be interesting to see how 3 lame duck seasons in Oakland would go. Though my understanding is that Raider nation is a huge fanbase that is by far the most prevalent across the state of California...so I would imagine there would be plenty of fans coming in from all over to offset whatever boycotts might occur from those scorned in the immediate Oakland/East Bay area.
Most Raiders fans I know are perfectly fine and pretty thrilled about the prospect of seeing the Raideds play on their Vegas vacations. Las Vegas in general pulls huge amounts of Californians just in general. I don't think the Raiders are going to miss a beat when the move likely finally happens.
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on January 19, 2017, 10:23:53 PM
Quote from: Buck87 on January 19, 2017, 10:18:44 PM
One thing to note is that if the move gets approved, they actually won't move to Las Vegas until the stadium opens in 2020.
Would be interesting to see how 3 lame duck seasons in Oakland would go. Though my understanding is that Raider nation is a huge fanbase that is by far the most prevalent across the state of California...so I would imagine there would be plenty of fans coming in from all over to offset whatever boycotts might occur from those scorned in the immediate Oakland/East Bay area.
Most Raiders fans I know are perfectly fine and pretty thrilled about the prospect of seeing the Raideds play on their Vegas vacations. Las Vegas in general pulls huge amounts of Californians just in general. I don't think the Raiders are going to miss a beat when the move likely finally happens.
Rumor also has it that the Raiders will play the interim seasons in San Diego, where the rival Chargers just left.
I think it's good to see Las Vegas get pro sports teams at last! No other town deserves it more.
So who gets a NBA team first/back: Seattle or Las Vegas?
Quote from: ET21 on January 20, 2017, 07:56:06 PM
So who gets a NBA team first/back: Seattle or Las Vegas?
Vegas never had a team. I would like to see KC get one and be called the Kings forcing Sacramento to change their name like New Orleans had to do with the Hornets to the Pelicans. The Sacramento Kings name sounds just as dumb if not dumber than New Orleans Hornets.
Quote from: dvferyance on January 23, 2017, 01:33:27 PM
The Sacramento Kings name sounds just as dumb if not dumber than New Orleans Hornets.
Out of curiosity, why does Sacramento Kings sound dumb? It's not like Kings has something specific to do with Kansas City (such as the New Orleans -> Utah Jazz, or the Minneapolis -> Los Angeles Lakers). The only reason they were called the Kings in Kansas City was to avoid confusion with the MLB Royals.
Quote from: ET21 on January 20, 2017, 07:56:06 PM
So who gets a NBA team first/back: Seattle or Las Vegas?
At this rate, Seattle is stalled. City politics is blocking the new arena (courtesy of the Port) and the old arena is being revived for another study in April. Our city loves its studies, so expect a few more years before shovel hits dirt.
How's this for a twist: Las Vegas is in danger of losing the Raiders after this development...
http://www.usatoday.com/story/sports/nfl/raiders/2017/01/30/sheldon-adelson-las-vegas-raiders-oakland-stadium-project/97267980/
...and San Diego (where the Chargers left for L.A.!) is now an alternate destination for the team.
http://www.sandiegouniontribune.com/sports/columnists/kevin-acee/sd-sp-acee-0201-story.html
Quote from: DTComposer on January 23, 2017, 03:17:55 PM
Quote from: dvferyance on January 23, 2017, 01:33:27 PM
The Sacramento Kings name sounds just as dumb if not dumber than New Orleans Hornets.
Out of curiosity, why does Sacramento Kings sound dumb? It's not like Kings has something specific to do with Kansas City (such as the New Orleans -> Utah Jazz, or the Minneapolis -> Los Angeles Lakers). The only reason they were called the Kings in Kansas City was to avoid confusion with the MLB Royals.
I think it does as did the New Orleans Hornets who later thank goodness changed their name. You can disagree with me of course but I just think the 2 don't go well. Never understood why they moved anyways it was in my opinion the most illogical move in the history of sports. It left a huge whole in the middle of the county without an NBA team while it just ended up going to right next door to another one aka Golden State.
Quote from: Henry on February 01, 2017, 10:00:50 AM
How's this for a twist: Las Vegas is in danger of losing the Raiders after this development...
http://www.usatoday.com/story/sports/nfl/raiders/2017/01/30/sheldon-adelson-las-vegas-raiders-oakland-stadium-project/97267980/
...and San Diego (where the Chargers left for L.A.!) is now an alternate destination for the team.
http://www.sandiegouniontribune.com/sports/columnists/kevin-acee/sd-sp-acee-0201-story.html
What 3 teams in LA? If that happens I am done watching the NFL.
Quote from: dvferyance on February 01, 2017, 02:43:54 PM
Quote from: Henry on February 01, 2017, 10:00:50 AM
How's this for a twist: Las Vegas is in danger of losing the Raiders after this development...
http://www.usatoday.com/story/sports/nfl/raiders/2017/01/30/sheldon-adelson-las-vegas-raiders-oakland-stadium-project/97267980/
...and San Diego (where the Chargers left for L.A.!) is now an alternate destination for the team.
http://www.sandiegouniontribune.com/sports/columnists/kevin-acee/sd-sp-acee-0201-story.html
What 3 teams in LA? If that happens I am done watching the NFL.
I didn't realize San Diego and LA were the same place
Quote from: tribar on February 01, 2017, 04:03:53 PM
Quote from: dvferyance on February 01, 2017, 02:43:54 PM
Quote from: Henry on February 01, 2017, 10:00:50 AM
How's this for a twist: Las Vegas is in danger of losing the Raiders after this development...
http://www.usatoday.com/story/sports/nfl/raiders/2017/01/30/sheldon-adelson-las-vegas-raiders-oakland-stadium-project/97267980/
...and San Diego (where the Chargers left for L.A.!) is now an alternate destination for the team.
http://www.sandiegouniontribune.com/sports/columnists/kevin-acee/sd-sp-acee-0201-story.html
What 3 teams in LA? If that happens I am done watching the NFL.
I didn't realize San Diego and LA were the same place
You must not have heard that the Chargers have moved to LA.
Quote from: dvferyance on February 01, 2017, 05:24:42 PM
Quote from: tribar on February 01, 2017, 04:03:53 PM
Quote from: dvferyance on February 01, 2017, 02:43:54 PM
Quote from: Henry on February 01, 2017, 10:00:50 AM
How's this for a twist: Las Vegas is in danger of losing the Raiders after this development...
http://www.usatoday.com/story/sports/nfl/raiders/2017/01/30/sheldon-adelson-las-vegas-raiders-oakland-stadium-project/97267980/
...and San Diego (where the Chargers left for L.A.!) is now an alternate destination for the team.
http://www.sandiegouniontribune.com/sports/columnists/kevin-acee/sd-sp-acee-0201-story.html
What 3 teams in LA? If that happens I am done watching the NFL.
I didn't realize San Diego and LA were the same place
You must not have heard that the Chargers have moved to LA.
Right, so there would be two teams in L.A. (Rams and Chargers) and one in San Diego (Raiders).
Quote from: dvferyance on February 01, 2017, 05:24:42 PM
Quote from: tribar on February 01, 2017, 04:03:53 PM
Quote from: dvferyance on February 01, 2017, 02:43:54 PM
Quote from: Henry on February 01, 2017, 10:00:50 AM
How's this for a twist: Las Vegas is in danger of losing the Raiders after this development...
http://www.usatoday.com/story/sports/nfl/raiders/2017/01/30/sheldon-adelson-las-vegas-raiders-oakland-stadium-project/97267980/
...and San Diego (where the Chargers left for L.A.!) is now an alternate destination for the team.
http://www.sandiegouniontribune.com/sports/columnists/kevin-acee/sd-sp-acee-0201-story.html
What 3 teams in LA? If that happens I am done watching the NFL.
I didn't realize San Diego and LA were the same place
You must not have heard that the Chargers have moved to LA.
I heard. Just curious on where you're getting 3 teams from.
Quote from: tribar on February 01, 2017, 06:29:16 PM
Quote from: dvferyance on February 01, 2017, 05:24:42 PM
Quote from: tribar on February 01, 2017, 04:03:53 PM
Quote from: dvferyance on February 01, 2017, 02:43:54 PM
Quote from: Henry on February 01, 2017, 10:00:50 AM
How's this for a twist: Las Vegas is in danger of losing the Raiders after this development...
http://www.usatoday.com/story/sports/nfl/raiders/2017/01/30/sheldon-adelson-las-vegas-raiders-oakland-stadium-project/97267980/
...and San Diego (where the Chargers left for L.A.!) is now an alternate destination for the team.
http://www.sandiegouniontribune.com/sports/columnists/kevin-acee/sd-sp-acee-0201-story.html
What 3 teams in LA? If that happens I am done watching the NFL.
I didn't realize San Diego and LA were the same place
You must not have heard that the Chargers have moved to LA.
I heard. Just curious on where you're getting 3 teams from.
Rams, Chargers and Raiders. Why would the Raiders move to San Diego if they wouldn't build a new stadium for the Chargers?
http://www.nbcsandiego.com/news/local/San-Diego-Raiders-Fact-or-Fiction-412490483.html
Apparently that's being debated too Raiders to San Diego.
Quote from: Henry on February 01, 2017, 10:00:50 AM
How's this for a twist: Las Vegas is in danger of losing the Raiders after this development...
http://www.usatoday.com/story/sports/nfl/raiders/2017/01/30/sheldon-adelson-las-vegas-raiders-oakland-stadium-project/97267980/
Good for the Raiders. Now they won't be associated with a slime mold in the shape of a person.
Being reported there's a good chance the NFL owners will vote to approve the Raiders move to Las Vegas at today's owners meeting
^^ It was approved on a 31-1 vote.
Stadium will be directly across I-15 from Mandalay Bay (BTW the real Mandalay, in Burma, is an inland city hundreds of miles from the ocean), one exit north of the I-15/I-215 JCT and about 2000 yards (as the crow flies) from the airport.
Will not be finished until 2020 if everything goes according to plan. UNLV and the rugby events (LV holds a rugby tournament every February, to draw tourists from countries where it is popular such as Australia and New Zealand) will also use it, as will the Las Vegas Bowl. Certainly, eventually, like other large stadiums a Super Bowl, NCAA tournaments, and other such will show up there.
At 40K with bleacher seats and outdoors in the heat, Sam Boyd Stadium is described as "not currently suitable" for the NFL, although the Review-Journal says that some exhibition games might be played there. That means 3 years of lame duck status in Oakland, and it means asking the A's to wait until at least 2023 or 24 for a stadium solution, as the only realistic option for baseball is to tear down the colisuem and rebuild on the same lot. With no funding in sight and that long a wait, Montreal becons.
I heard on ESPN that the agency handling the stadium tripled the rent on the Raiders when they figured the NFL team had no option but to stick around to get stuck. The son of Al Davis showed 'em what he thought of that!
Rick
Quote from: SP Cook on March 27, 2017, 03:51:38 PM
At 40K with bleacher seats and outdoors in the heat, Sam Boyd Stadium is described as "not currently suitable" for the NFL, although the Review-Journal says that some exhibition games might be played there. That means 3 years of lame duck status in Oakland, and it means asking the A's to wait until at least 2023 or 24 for a stadium solution, as the only realistic option for baseball is to tear down the colisuem and rebuild on the same lot. With no funding in sight and that long a wait, Montreal becons.
I already support the idea of tearing down the Coliseum and building a new one on that site, but for one thing, you can start earlier in that time frame if you support moving the team to AT&T Park for a couple seasons in a shared clubhouse situation. In this time frame:
Draw up plans in this three-year time frame, get all necessary approvals
Raiders and Athletics are out by 2020, demolition begins immediately (implosion probably best)
New As stadium starts construction once cleanup is done. 2022 would be reasonable if it's on the same pace as SunTrust Park.
There is no reason to move the As to another city. Oakland can make enough money as a tourist attraction and has the ability to sustain the team. I support Montreal getting a team, but Oakland is not the answer.
I still find the idea of Las Vegas being home to professional sports teams weird. There aren't supposed to be family friendly recreational activities in Las Vegas.
http://www.cbsnews.com/news/raiders-move-from-oakland-to-las-vegas-approved/
Update for the Raiders to Vegas.
Quote from: bing101 on March 27, 2017, 09:45:35 PM
http://www.cbsnews.com/news/raiders-move-from-oakland-to-las-vegas-approved/
Update for the Raiders to Vegas.
After the NFL owners' vote today, Oakland fans were, at least in interviews with KCBS (AM 740) radio, quite pissed off at the whole thing -- with both Mark Davis (owner) and Oakland city officials bearing the brunt of the anger. One fellow, who apparently was one of the more vocal end-zone boosters (the ones who regularly dressed up in silver & black "warpaint") stated that if the Raiders elected to play out the next two years at the Oakland Coliseum (as per their present contractual obligation), he and his buddies would not be attending any home games and would be requesting refunds of their season tickets. He
did suggest that he'd be more than willing to attend road games if possible, though; his rationale was "Mark Davis screwed us; we'll just screw him too!". One local sportswriters' thought was that the Raiders may, alternately, elect to play their home games in another city (San Antonio was mentioned) or try to work out a 2-year deal at Levi's Stadium (49ers home) until the Vegas facility is opened.
Quote from: sparker on March 28, 2017, 04:32:00 AM
Quote from: bing101 on March 27, 2017, 09:45:35 PM
http://www.cbsnews.com/news/raiders-move-from-oakland-to-las-vegas-approved/
Update for the Raiders to Vegas.
After the NFL owners' vote today, Oakland fans were, at least in interviews with KCBS (AM 740) radio, quite pissed off at the whole thing -- with both Mark Davis (owner) and Oakland city officials bearing the brunt of the anger. One fellow, who apparently was one of the more vocal end-zone boosters (the ones who regularly dressed up in silver & black "warpaint") stated that if the Raiders elected to play out the next two years at the Oakland Coliseum (as per their present contractual obligation), he and his buddies would not be attending any home games and would be requesting refunds of their season tickets. He did suggest that he'd be more than willing to attend road games if possible, though; his rationale was "Mark Davis screwed us; we'll just screw him too!". One local sportswriters' thought was that the Raiders may, alternately, elect to play their home games in another city (San Antonio was mentioned) or try to work out a 2-year deal at Levi's Stadium (49ers home) until the Vegas facility is opened.
I think every team hears some sort of story like this from their fans, for various reasons. Without a doubt, he (and his buddies) will be there for every game this year.
Quote from: Duke87 on March 27, 2017, 08:22:41 PM
I still find the idea of Las Vegas being home to professional sports teams weird. There aren't supposed to be family friendly recreational activities in Las Vegas.
Well, there are the NHL's Golden Knights, who will start play next season.
As for the Montreal thing, I don't think that they'll ever get a team again because of how the Expos abandoned it. I'd rather the A's move to AT&T Park temporarily while a new stadium is built, and let's not forget that by then, the Warriors will be gone from Oakland too.
I don't know how "family friendly" a Raiders game can be considered, but more generally, it is a myth that LV is ONLY "sin city". Yes, it has every form of vice you can imagine. But it also has plenty of very tame entertainment options, including things aimed at demographics well outside the LV stereotype. Everybody's money folds the same way.
Quote from: Henry on March 28, 2017, 09:27:36 AM
Quote from: Duke87 on March 27, 2017, 08:22:41 PM
I still find the idea of Las Vegas being home to professional sports teams weird. There aren't supposed to be family friendly recreational activities in Las Vegas.
Well, there are the NHL's Golden Knights, who will start play next season.
As for the Montreal thing, I don't think that they'll ever get a team again because of how the Expos abandoned it. I'd rather the A's move to AT&T Park temporarily while a new stadium is built, and let's not forget that by then, the Warriors will be gone from Oakland too.
Let's not forget that MLB was complicit in how the Expos abandoned Montreal. The short version: Expos owner Jeffrey Loria demanded that the City of Montreal build him a new stadium. The city played along for a bit but then decided they wouldn't pay, and Loria instead decided he wanted to buy the Florida Marlins. John Henry owned the Marlins at the time, but wanted to buy the Boston Red Sox. Lo and behold Henry buys the Red Sox, Loria buys the Marlins, and the other 29 MLB owners buy the Expos, only to let them rot away before sending them to Washington.
Quote from: Henry on March 28, 2017, 09:27:36 AM
Quote from: Duke87 on March 27, 2017, 08:22:41 PM
I still find the idea of Las Vegas being home to professional sports teams weird. There aren't supposed to be family friendly recreational activities in Las Vegas.
Well, there are the NHL's Golden Knights, who will start play next season.
As for the Montreal thing, I don't think that they'll ever get a team again because of how the Expos abandoned it. I'd rather the A's move to AT&T Park temporarily while a new stadium is built, and let's not forget that by then, the Warriors will be gone from Oakland too.
Why can't Canada just get it's own baseball league? Why do they always have to rely on the US to get something from us?
Quote from: jeffandnicole on March 28, 2017, 06:05:35 AM
Quote from: sparker on March 28, 2017, 04:32:00 AM
Quote from: bing101 on March 27, 2017, 09:45:35 PM
http://www.cbsnews.com/news/raiders-move-from-oakland-to-las-vegas-approved/
Update for the Raiders to Vegas.
After the NFL owners' vote today, Oakland fans were, at least in interviews with KCBS (AM 740) radio, quite pissed off at the whole thing -- with both Mark Davis (owner) and Oakland city officials bearing the brunt of the anger. One fellow, who apparently was one of the more vocal end-zone boosters (the ones who regularly dressed up in silver & black "warpaint") stated that if the Raiders elected to play out the next two years at the Oakland Coliseum (as per their present contractual obligation), he and his buddies would not be attending any home games and would be requesting refunds of their season tickets. He did suggest that he'd be more than willing to attend road games if possible, though; his rationale was "Mark Davis screwed us; we'll just screw him too!". One local sportswriters' thought was that the Raiders may, alternately, elect to play their home games in another city (San Antonio was mentioned) or try to work out a 2-year deal at Levi's Stadium (49ers home) until the Vegas facility is opened.
I think every team hears some sort of story like this from their fans, for various reasons. Without a doubt, he (and his buddies) will be there for every game this year.
I don't know about that. Davis went on the air and specifically stated that while it wasn't what would be ideal for the team, he'd honor any requests for refunds of season tickets. That $$ (several hundred per home game) would go far toward a trip to L.A. to play the Chargers plus the possibility of Denver and KC games. Or they could just stay away and use the money to watch the games in their favorite bar. I attended Raider home games during the strike season of '82 (the owner, a season-ticket holder, was a customer of mine and gave me the tickets because he was pissed at both the team and Al Davis because of the strike) -- and hardcore Raider fans -- at least the ones that I've met -- can be a bit, shall we say,
less than rational about team-related matters. I wouldn't be at all surprised if at least a quarter of the season tickets are cashed in; whether those folks actually show up at away games is indeed questionable. The loyalty factor here is with both the team and the city of Oakland; back in '84 when the team left for L.A. for a while, the Raiders corporate office (then right off 880 -- then simply CA 17 -- across the freeway from the Coliseum) was severely graffiti'd soon afterward. It's a real love/hate relationship between Raider fans and the team management. We'll just have to see what transpires for the next couple of transition years.
^ Wait to see how upset they are when they ship Oakland's baseball team off to Mexico too...
Quote from: sparker on March 28, 2017, 04:08:09 PM
Quote from: jeffandnicole on March 28, 2017, 06:05:35 AM
Quote from: sparker on March 28, 2017, 04:32:00 AM
Quote from: bing101 on March 27, 2017, 09:45:35 PM
http://www.cbsnews.com/news/raiders-move-from-oakland-to-las-vegas-approved/
Update for the Raiders to Vegas.
After the NFL owners' vote today, Oakland fans were, at least in interviews with KCBS (AM 740) radio, quite pissed off at the whole thing -- with both Mark Davis (owner) and Oakland city officials bearing the brunt of the anger. One fellow, who apparently was one of the more vocal end-zone boosters (the ones who regularly dressed up in silver & black "warpaint") stated that if the Raiders elected to play out the next two years at the Oakland Coliseum (as per their present contractual obligation), he and his buddies would not be attending any home games and would be requesting refunds of their season tickets. He did suggest that he'd be more than willing to attend road games if possible, though; his rationale was "Mark Davis screwed us; we'll just screw him too!". One local sportswriters' thought was that the Raiders may, alternately, elect to play their home games in another city (San Antonio was mentioned) or try to work out a 2-year deal at Levi's Stadium (49ers home) until the Vegas facility is opened.
I think every team hears some sort of story like this from their fans, for various reasons. Without a doubt, he (and his buddies) will be there for every game this year.
I don't know about that. Davis went on the air and specifically stated that while it wasn't what would be ideal for the team, he'd honor any requests for refunds of season tickets. That $$ (several hundred per home game) would go far toward a trip to L.A. to play the Chargers plus the possibility of Denver and KC games. Or they could just stay away and use the money to watch the games in their favorite bar. I attended Raider home games during the strike season of '82 (the owner, a season-ticket holder, was a customer of mine and gave me the tickets because he was pissed at both the team and Al Davis because of the strike) -- and hardcore Raider fans -- at least the ones that I've met -- can be a bit, shall we say, less than rational about team-related matters. I wouldn't be at all surprised if at least a quarter of the season tickets are cashed in; whether those folks actually show up at away games is indeed questionable. The loyalty factor here is with both the team and the city of Oakland; back in '84 when the team left for L.A. for a while, the Raiders corporate office (then right off 880 -- then simply CA 17 -- across the freeway from the Coliseum) was severely graffiti'd soon afterward. It's a real love/hate relationship between Raider fans and the team management. We'll just have to see what transpires for the next couple of transition years.
I grew up as a Raiders fan when they were in the AFL and The Mad Bomber was tossing 'em like crazy. Remember the Heidi Bowl? That changed the face of how pro football was broadcast to this very time. When Oakland moved to LA I called them the LA Traitors and moved my allegiance to the Niners and Hawks. Since then I have mellowed on that stance and now recognize that Raider Nation really does cover the nation. The Cowboys aren't America's Team as much as the Raiders are!
So let them move to Viva Las Vegas. California is not as cool as it used to be anyways. Heck, neither is Vegas if you also remember the era portrayed in "Casino" but at least it is still the Silver and Black in play no matter where they play.
YMMV and so will each fan's reactions over this move.
What I predict happens: The fans turn out for home and away games as usual. The brand is bigger than the city. As for playing the Chargers in LA, that is going to be interesting since the former San Diegans are stuck with *gasp* a rinky dink soccer stadium seating around 30K. I bet most of the attendees will be Raiders fans since out of all areas in the USA, they are the most popular in the Southland.
Rick
Quote from: nexus73 on March 28, 2017, 07:22:20 PM
What I predict happens: The fans turn out for home and away games as usual. The brand is bigger than the city. As for playing the Chargers in LA, that is going to be interesting since the former San Diegans are stuck with *gasp* a rinky dink soccer stadium seating around 30K. I bet most of the attendees will be Raiders fans since out of all areas in the USA, they are the most popular in the Southland.
Rick
I've been to that soccer stadium in Carson (GF's nephew was playing college soccer in a tournament several years ago); it indeed is dinky compared with other potential football venues. However, I'd be willing to bet that there's plenty of Oakland fans willing to drive the 430 or so miles down there to watch the Charger/Raider games (that much of a real rivalry). At least with only 30K capacity, the noise level won't begin to approach Arrowhead!
And I still think a lot of locals
will sit out the season up here and hit the bars in Jack London to watch the home games -- for the simple reason that whatever one's drinking it's bound to be cheaper than in the stadium!!! :D
The Raiders can't play three lame-duck seasons in Oakland.
After announcing their move to Nashville, the Houston Oilers planned on playing two lame-duck seasons in the Astrodome. For the final three home games of the first season, 1996, the announced attendance was 20K, 20K and 15K. They bailed on Houston a year early and played 1997 in the Liberty Bowl in Memphis. Attendance there was awful as well, because Memphis doesn't care about a team in transition from Houston to Nashville. The Nashville stadium still wasn't ready for the 1998 season so the team played that season in Vanderbilt's stadium. Finally, in 1999, they moved into the new Nashville stadium. It was a rough three years and I can't see the Raiders or the NFL being willing to duplicate that experience.
Once Mark Davis formally commits to Las Vegas, best option is probably to make whatever minor upgrades are needed to make Sam Boyd Stadium minimally passable as a temporary home and start playing there immediately.
Quote from: gonealookin on March 28, 2017, 10:32:31 PM
The Raiders can't play three lame-duck seasons in Oakland.
After announcing their move to Nashville, the Houston Oilers planned on playing two lame-duck seasons in the Astrodome. For the final three home games of the first season, 1996, the announced attendance was 20K, 20K and 15K. They bailed on Houston a year early and played 1997 in the Liberty Bowl in Memphis. Attendance there was awful as well, because Memphis doesn't care about a team in transition from Houston to Nashville. The Nashville stadium still wasn't ready for the 1998 season so the team played that season in Vanderbilt's stadium. Finally, in 1999, they moved into the new Nashville stadium. It was a rough three years and I can't see the Raiders or the NFL being willing to duplicate that experience.
Once Mark Davis formally commits to Las Vegas, best option is probably to make whatever minor upgrades are needed to make Sam Boyd Stadium minimally passable as a temporary home and start playing there immediately.
Since Del Rio's whipped the Raiders into shape -- and it'll probably take Shanahan a season or two to do likewise with the Niners, I wouldn't at all be surprised -- if the schedule can be manipulated to accommodate both teams -- that the Raiders end up playing down here at Levi's for the next 2-3 seasons. If Carr stays healthy, it'd be nice to have a relatively mature team playing here -- setting something of a "benchmark" for the Niners to emulate!
Apparently, the Raiders have an option on the coliseum for 17 and 18, but the city/county loses about $1M/year on the deal, mostly because it costs $450K to convert the place from baseball to football, which they have to do multiple times per year due to the overlapping schedules. Maybe a bluff but the colisum authority says GTFO after the 18 season.
I think there is too much animosity between the 49ers and the Raiders managements for them to share, even for a year. There is Sam Boyd Stadium in LV, which is small and outdoors (UNLV can play Pacific Time night games to beat the heat, while the NFL cannot due to TV deals) and Cal and Stanford. They are even more likely to wedge a football field in the Giants' ballpark (which can be done, although badly) than play with the 49ers.
Quote from: SP Cook on March 29, 2017, 09:11:44 AM
Apparently, the Raiders have an option on the coliseum for 17 and 18, but the city/county loses about $1M/year on the deal, mostly because it costs $450K to convert the place from baseball to football, which they have to do multiple times per year due to the overlapping schedules. Maybe a bluff but the colisum authority says GTFO after the 18 season.
I think there is too much animosity between the 49ers and the Raiders managements for them to share, even for a year. There is Sam Boyd Stadium in LV, which is small and outdoors (UNLV can play Pacific Time night games to beat the heat, while the NFL cannot due to TV deals) and Cal and Stanford. They are even more likely to wedge a football field in the Giants' ballpark (which can be done, although badly) than play with the 49ers.
When the Oakland-Alameda County Coliseum was getting remodeled many years ago, the Raiders played at Cal's Memorial Stadium. At least it is a real football field unlike the baseball stadia in the Bay Area and has large capacity.
Rick
Quote from: gonealookin on March 28, 2017, 10:32:31 PM
The Raiders can't play three lame-duck seasons in Oakland.
After announcing their move to Nashville, the Houston Oilers planned on playing two lame-duck seasons in the Astrodome. For the final three home games of the first season, 1996, the announced attendance was 20K, 20K and 15K. They bailed on Houston a year early and played 1997 in the Liberty Bowl in Memphis. Attendance there was awful as well, because Memphis doesn't care about a team in transition from Houston to Nashville. The Nashville stadium still wasn't ready for the 1998 season so the team played that season in Vanderbilt's stadium. Finally, in 1999, they moved into the new Nashville stadium. It was a rough three years and I can't see the Raiders or the NFL being willing to duplicate that experience.
Once Mark Davis formally commits to Las Vegas, best option is probably to make whatever minor upgrades are needed to make Sam Boyd Stadium minimally passable as a temporary home and start playing there immediately.
That is what I was thinking too. It's just not a good option. If Sam Boyd Stadium worked for the XFL a year why couldn't it work for the Raiders a couple seasons as well? Nobody in Oakland will go watch the Raiders next season becasue they know the team is leaving and they will be mad at the owner for moving them.
Quote from: dvferyance on March 29, 2017, 01:51:55 PM
If Sam Boyd Stadium worked for the XFL a year why couldn't it work for the Raiders a couple seasons as well?
The XFL's season was February to the first week of April. They played mostly Saturday nights at 5 PT (they played one game on Sunday afternoon). Average high in February and March is in the 60s.
The NFL's season is, of course, September-January, with exhibition games in August. The average high in August is 102, although they can play at exhibiton games at night if they want. However, the regular season TV deal requires all games start at either 1 or 4:20 ET (10AM, which is extremely rare, PT or 1:20 PT) unless selected for one of the three night games which are 8:20ET/5:20 PT, with sunset in LV not being until 7:45 in early September and 6:15 in late October.
Sam Boyd Stadium is mostly aluminium bleachers. It is just too darn hot. At best the Raiders would have to play the first six or seven weeks on the road, maybe one "night" (5:20 local) game. That fouls up everybody else's schedule too.
Well, they can always come down here & play in CEFCU (Spartan) Stadium (SJSU venue), only about 17K capacity but, hey, at least it's only an hour and a half (considering usual traffic) from Oakland. Probably have to give a healthy accommodation to season-ticket holders (it's a wooden-bleacher site) -- but there's probably at least 8.5K die-hards who will still come to games, so the place would do no worse than half-filled -- particularly if they give locals breaks on ticket prices (yeah, right!). If they did, I'd certainly try to attend at least a game or two (it's only 3-4 minutes from my office). Just a thought, Mark!?
Quote from: SP Cook on March 29, 2017, 02:40:11 PM
Sam Boyd Stadium is mostly aluminium bleachers. It is just too darn hot. At best the Raiders would have to play the first six or seven weeks on the road, maybe one "night" (5:20 local) game.
We can agree that a Sunday afternoon game in Sam Boyd Stadium before the middle of October is intolerable. I still don't think that presents a problem that can't be worked around.
In addition to Thursday/Sunday/Monday night games as you mention, each team gets one bye week. The Raiders would get theirs fairly early in the season. Also, the NFL plays several games each season outside the US, mostly in London but this past season there was one in Mexico City which was a Raiders home game, relocated from Oakland. Since the Raiders share the Coliseum with the A's, the NFL's scheduling has already been using the bye week and the international game to minimize the direct baseball/football conflicts, so there would not be much change to the Raiders schedules. One home night game, one international "home" game and a bye week gets you through the middle of October, and then the Raiders would play 6 Sunday afternoon home games at Sam Boyd over the final 10 weeks or so of the regular season.
How did the scheduling work when the Cardinals played at Sun Devil Stadium? It seems like they'd have similar issues. I just don't remember how the league handled it.
^^ They usually started the season on a road-heavy schedule. Example for 1989 season: http://www.pro-football-reference.com/teams/crd/1989.htm
Quote from: dvferyance on March 28, 2017, 01:44:09 PM
Quote from: Henry on March 28, 2017, 09:27:36 AM
Quote from: Duke87 on March 27, 2017, 08:22:41 PM
I still find the idea of Las Vegas being home to professional sports teams weird. There aren't supposed to be family friendly recreational activities in Las Vegas.
Well, there are the NHL's Golden Knights, who will start play next season.
As for the Montreal thing, I don't think that they'll ever get a team again because of how the Expos abandoned it. I'd rather the A's move to AT&T Park temporarily while a new stadium is built, and let's not forget that by then, the Warriors will be gone from Oakland too.
Why can't Canada just get it's own baseball league? Why do they always have to rely on the US to get something from us?
Pro sports have always been "fully integrated" across Canada and the US at least since the late 19th century, it's ironic because in some ways it seems as possibly doing cross border business was an easier task way back when compared to now. Even with modern agreements that came into place like the Auto Pact, the Canada-US FTA, and later NAFTA.
That being said, the NHL actually started out totally in Canada, Boston Bruins became the first US based team in the league in 1924, and in 1926 the majority of teams were based in the US, with hockey accepted more as a global league as time went on, Canadians no longer make up the majority of the NHL now.
The BAA (Basketball Association of America) which became the NBA, had a team in Toronto in the first season played in 1946-47, this team later folded and pro basketball didn't return here for nearly 50 years other than the occasional Buffalo Braves game played in the 1970s.
Having said all this, returning to Montreal for MLB is a very foolish move. I should mention, that even before the infamous 1994 strike, that season where many thought Montreal could do it, they still only attracted a little north of 20,000 fans per game. Consider Toronto's lackluster 1994 season, sure the stadium was still fairly new and they came off a World Series victory, but they have over 50,000 fans per game while they were bad that season. Expos attendance really took a nosedive in 1999 when their average became less than 10,000 per game.
I don't want to get into politics, but while Montreal may have worked in 1969, a lot of things politically occurred in Canada, particularly in Quebec. Back in '69, Montreal was the "flagship" city of Canada, Toronto as a result of what happened in Quebec became the flagship city of Canada. I believe these changes are a major reason for the failure of baseball in Montreal.
Some blame Olympic Stadium, however, you need to keep in mind that a new stadium isn't always the magical solution for interest. Case in point, the Toronto Argonauts, the move of the Argos into BMO Field was supposed to be the revitalization of the team, well that didn't happen whatsoever and they are still a second rate backbencher in the Toronto sports scene.
The Raiders may get booted out of the Oakland Coliseum (http://www.eastbaytimes.com/2017/03/29/coliseum-loses-money-on-raiders-doesnt-want-team-here-in-2019/) after the 2018 season, leaving them homeless for 2019 (at least). (Edit: Oops, SP Cook already mentioned that; here's a specific link.)
Expanding a little on what I said above about early-season scheduling at Sam Boyd: In the first 6 weeks of the season, play 3 road games, one toasty night (5:30 p.m. local) home game, one international "home" game, and have the bye week. That means the first game they would consider playing at 1 p.m. local time would be in Week 7. In 2016, Sunday of Week 7 was October 23. That might even be a week later than it needs to be; the international game may not even be necessary.
August preseason games would be hot, but they aren't part of the national TV contract so they can be started after 7 p.m. local time. The Cardinals survived all those years in Sun Devil Stadium. None of the solutions is optimal, but if Sam Boyd can pass minimum NFL standards it seems like they should be building community support there rather than playing as a transient in San Antonio, the Fargodome, Anchorage or wherever.
A homeless team would be a great way for the NFL to visit several other prospective cities. Let them play 8 "home" games in large cities that have big stadiums much like bowl games.
Quote from: texaskdog on March 29, 2017, 07:47:29 PM
A homeless team would be a great way for the NFL to visit several other prospective cities. Let them play 8 "home" games in large cities that have big stadiums much like bowl games.
The NFLPA would be pissed. They already don't like the International Series.
Honestly, there's plenty of places the Raiders could play in the Bay Area if needed (Levi's, Stanford, and Cal all have enough seats for a typical NFL audience). They could also play in LA or San Diego for a couple of years.
The Raiders cannot play at Cal's Memorial Stadium in Berkeley. Well, they could, but after the Raiders played one regular season game and several preseason games there in the 1970s, the City of Berkeley decided they didn't want those games and imposed a prohibitive tax to discourage them. (http://www.codepublishing.com/CA/Berkeley/html/Berkeley09/Berkeley0904/Berkeley0904.html)
Quote9.04.175 Professional sports event.
B. Every person commencing, transacting or carrying on any professional sports event in the City shall pay a daily license tax of ten percent of gross receipts measured as of the time or times such event or events as to which this tax is applicable may commence, be transacted or be carried on in the City. (Ord. 5017-NS § I (part), 1977)
The idea of the Raiders playing at some Bay Area venue other than the Oakland Coliseum misses the point anyway. There will be plenty of acrimony toward Mark Davis and the NFL in Oakland this coming season and that will just increase the longer the Raiders hang around as a lame duck. Once you commit to leaving, whether you're talking about a football team or a marriage, then you gotta get out of there ASAP.
For anybody interested in the Expos, I strongly recomend "Up, Up and Away" by Jonah Keri, which examines the colapase of the team's business side very well. There is plenty of blame to go around.
- The PQ government's hostility to not only the English speaking community, but to job creators generally (it was socialist in all but name) caused many companies and many people to pack up and move to Toronto.
- The team was promised a stadium by 1971, playing it first 2 years in a wooden temporary deal, then the city got involved in the Olympics boondoggle, meaning what became the "Big Owe" was not open until 1977.
- The Big Owe was the world's greatest act of architectural malpractice. Designed by a French architect who did not like sports and had never seen a baseball game to "look like nature" it simply was not functional as a sports stadium.
- And it was never finished. The impractical design and labor strikes meant is was used for the 76 Olympics and then put back into constuction. Place was an open consturction site well into the 80s, not counting the roof which never did work and was not on the place until the late 80s. The semi-covered design (like Texas Stadium, which also was supposed to have a roof) meant the place had a dank musty atmosphere most of the time.
- When the Blue Jays started in 77, the Expos were kicked off TV and radio in the immediate Toronto area, and forced to share the rest of the country with not only the Blue Jays, but various parts with border teams (Marriners, Twins, Tigers, Red Sox) .
- As noted up thread, the last ownership wanted the team to fail, as a part of its Maimi-Boston plot. It purposefully lost and eliminated its English language broadcasts in order to drive away fans. Esentually the plot of the movie Major League, only real.
- The team took in C$ but spent US$. As with the various failed NHL teams, that only works when the $$ are near to par, and as the Loonie went as low as sixty-nine cents at one point.
In any event, Montreal has stabilized its economy, is willing to build a ballpark, and remains, by far, the largest area (if it were in the USA, it would be the #4 TV DMA) w/o baseball. Oakland, Tampa, or an expansion team will end up there eventually.
Quote from: SP Cook on March 30, 2017, 09:36:12 AM
For anybody interested in the Expos, I strongly recomend "Up, Up and Away" by Jonah Keri, which examines the colapase of the team's business side very well. There is plenty of blame to go around.
- The PQ government's hostility to not only the English speaking community, but to job creators generally (it was socialist in all but name) caused many companies and many people to pack up and move to Toronto.
- The team was promised a stadium by 1971, playing it first 2 years in a wooden temporary deal, then the city got involved in the Olympics boondoggle, meaning what became the "Big Owe" was not open until 1977.
- The Big Owe was the world's greatest act of architectural malpractice. Designed by a French architect who did not like sports and had never seen a baseball game to "look like nature" it simply was not functional as a sports stadium.
- And it was never finished. The impractical design and labor strikes meant is was used for the 76 Olympics and then put back into constuction. Place was an open consturction site well into the 80s, not counting the roof which never did work and was not on the place until the late 80s. The semi-covered design (like Texas Stadium, which also was supposed to have a roof) meant the place had a dank musty atmosphere most of the time.
- When the Blue Jays started in 77, the Expos were kicked off TV and radio in the immediate Toronto area, and forced to share the rest of the country with not only the Blue Jays, but various parts with border teams (Marriners, Twins, Tigers, Red Sox) .
- As noted up thread, the last ownership wanted the team to fail, as a part of its Maimi-Boston plot. It purposefully lost and eliminated its English language broadcasts in order to drive away fans. Esentually the plot of the movie Major League, only real.
- The team took in C$ but spent US$. As with the various failed NHL teams, that only works when the $$ are near to par, and as the Loonie went as low as sixty-nine cents at one point.
In any event, Montreal has stabilized its economy, is willing to build a ballpark, and remains, by far, the largest area (if it were in the USA, it would be the #4 TV DMA) w/o baseball. Oakland, Tampa, or an expansion team will end up there eventually.
If baseball wanted to expand I think Indianapolis and Portland would be far better choices then Montreal. Before the Expos left crowds were dismal. There was very little support for the team in Montreal.
Quote from: dvferyance on March 30, 2017, 12:15:59 PM
Quote from: SP Cook on March 30, 2017, 09:36:12 AM
In any event, Montreal has stabilized its economy, is willing to build a ballpark, and remains, by far, the largest area (if it were in the USA, it would be the #4 TV DMA) w/o baseball. Oakland, Tampa, or an expansion team will end up there eventually.
If baseball wanted to expand I think Indianapolis and Portland would be far better choices then Montreal. Before the Expos left crowds were dismal. There was very little support for the team in Montreal.
That's the biggest key. Baseball isn't exactly a 'Build it and they will come' game. (They said it in Field of Dreams? Wha???)
In most cases, the new stadium building phases of the last decade or two have introduced smaller ballparks, not larger. Many capacity-filled ballparks are due to these smaller sized stadiums, or because the team is a winner.
I really don't see the fanbase in Montreal coming out for what is otherwise an American Sport. And due to its distance from most American cities, it's not quite as easy for fans from the visiting team to try to visit.
I did get to see 2 games in Montreal - the Phillies final series in that ballpark. Because it was late in the season, and Philly is only an 8 hour drive away, the attendance was larger than normal as numerous fans drove up to see the ballpark.
I believe the retractable rooftop worked part of one season. It never worked again, and was permanently shut.
The Reds, and probably the Cubs and White Sox, would demand a heavy indemnity to allow expansion to Indy. If you believe what Portland's politicians say with all this "smart growth" ho-ha, the town will reach a certain size and then not grow any more. I don't believe that, but it is what they say.
Quote from: SP Cook on March 30, 2017, 02:44:44 PM
The Reds, and probably the Cubs and White Sox, would demand a heavy indemnity to allow expansion to Indy. If you believe what Portland's politicians say with all this "smart growth" ho-ha, the town will reach a certain size and then not grow any more. I don't believe that, but it is what they say.
What did the Bengals and Bears say when the Colts moved to Indianapolis?
Quote from: SP Cook on March 30, 2017, 02:44:44 PM
The Reds, and probably the Cubs and White Sox, would demand a heavy indemnity to allow expansion to Indy. If you believe what Portland's politicians say with all this "smart growth" ho-ha, the town will reach a certain size and then not grow any more. I don't believe that, but it is what they say.
The Red Sox would want a big payoff to allow Portland in, if there are even enough people in Maine to support a team anyway. :hmm:
(Yes, I know you meant the fake Portland on the other side of the country.)
Quote from: SP Cook on March 30, 2017, 02:44:44 PM
If you believe what Portland's politicians say with all this "smart growth" ho-ha, the town will reach a certain size and then not grow any more. I don't believe that, but it is what they say.
That is, in a nutshell, what PDX Metro's all about -- enforcing limited/slow growth in the greater area. One thing they didn't count on -- their enforcement ends at the state line in the middle of the Columbia. Vancouver metro has essentially served as a "safety valve" for the metro policies; if developers run into issues in Oregon, they simply have to traipse across the river and site their projects in Washington. That's not to say that WA is ready, willing, and able to accept massive sprawl in that region; it's just much easier to get small-to-medium-scale housing and/or commercial enterprises going up there than in the Oregon portion of greater Portland. With that "safety valve" available, developers can simply grouse about Oregon rules -- and subsequently build
something in Washington -- rather than engage in perpetual court challenges and other associated litigation aimed at circumventing existing policy.
Quote from: dvferyance on March 30, 2017, 09:13:20 PM
Quote from: SP Cook on March 30, 2017, 02:44:44 PM
The Reds, and probably the Cubs and White Sox, would demand a heavy indemnity to allow expansion to Indy. If you believe what Portland's politicians say with all this "smart growth" ho-ha, the town will reach a certain size and then not grow any more. I don't believe that, but it is what they say.
What did the Bengals and Bears say when the Colts moved to Indianapolis?
Indianapolis is quite satisfied with their minor league baseball team, the Indians. Victory Field, despite opening in 1996, is still one of the best minor league baseball parks in the world. There is no need for a major league team here. Portland however could work.
Quote from: 1995hoo on March 30, 2017, 09:36:54 PM
Quote from: SP Cook on March 30, 2017, 02:44:44 PM
The Reds, and probably the Cubs and White Sox, would demand a heavy indemnity to allow expansion to Indy. If you believe what Portland's politicians say with all this "smart growth" ho-ha, the town will reach a certain size and then not grow any more. I don't believe that, but it is what they say.
The Red Sox would want a big payoff to allow Portland in, if there are even enough people in Maine to support a team anyway. :hmm:
(Yes, I know you meant the fake Portland on the other side of the country.)
I presume that it he meant Portland, OR, not Portland ME.
Quote from: tribar on March 30, 2017, 09:51:40 PM
Quote from: 1995hoo on March 30, 2017, 09:36:54 PM
Quote from: SP Cook on March 30, 2017, 02:44:44 PM
The Reds, and probably the Cubs and White Sox, would demand a heavy indemnity to allow expansion to Indy. If you believe what Portland's politicians say with all this "smart growth" ho-ha, the town will reach a certain size and then not grow any more. I don't believe that, but it is what they say.
The Red Sox would want a big payoff to allow Portland in, if there are even enough people in Maine to support a team anyway. :hmm:
(Yes, I know you meant the fake Portland on the other side of the country.)
I presume that it he meant Portland, OR, not Portland ME.
You didn't read my entire post!
Move over Raiders, here come the Rangers! I just saw an article online that had this to say and it looks like pro sports is expected to boost casino sports bigly!
Rick
NEW YORK, NY / ACCESSWIRE / March 30, 2017 / The Rangers are moving to Las Vegas, and casino stocks are reacting astronomically well. Both Las Vegas Sands and Wynn Resorts' stock prices registered gains by the end of business yesterday. Trade volumes are expected to rise significantly, with almost every other industry player deeming the move one of the best things to happen to Las Vegas in recent times. Casino stocks could remain up as mid-year approaches. Gaming wins in the Las Vegas strip downed last month with revenues increasing by slightly less than 9%. Here's a closer look at the day's happenings in the casino industrial sector.
RDI Initiates Coverage:
Las Vegas Sands Corp. https://ub.rdinvesting.com/news/?ticker=LVS
Wynn Resorts, Limited https://ub.rdinvesting.com/news/?ticker=WYNN
The casino and resort operating company closed the day on a high, with the stock gaining 0.56% to close the day at $57.25. The upsurge is a reflection of the recent Raiders move to Nevada. The gambling mecca is set to reap heavily from the move, with its stock price comfortably going up by the day.
When the Raiders move to the desert, casino attendance will imminently go up, meaning more business for casinos. The direct effect on the stock price is already taking shape, with Wall Street analysts deeming the move "the most anticipated in recent times". Boyd Gaming Corp and Capri Casinos Inc.'s shares are also setting new heights by the day.
Access RDI's Las Vegas Sands Research Report at: https://ub.rdinvesting.com/news/?ticker=LVS
Wynn Resorts' shares closed the day on a positive, to trade at $115.49, a 0.27% increase from the previous day's value. There is no denying the Raiders' move to Las Vegas will have a desirable effect for the casino industry. The plans to build a 65,000 capacity stadium are at the implementation stage, with the Raiders having already met the $750 million budget. Speaking to Wall Street Journal, Chief Executive Steve Wynn called the move "a game changer".
The upsurge in stock prices in the industry is expected to continue, with industry experts speculating a positive reaction by investors; both current and potential.
Access RDI's Wynn Resorts Research Report at: https://ub.rdinvesting.com/news/?ticker=WYNN
Our Actionable Research on Las Vegas Sands Corp. (NYSE: LVS) and Wynn Resorts, Limited (NASDAQ: WYNN) can be downloaded free of charge at Research Driven Investing.
Research Driven Investing
We are committed to providing relevant and actionable information for the self-directed investor. Our research is reputed for being a leader in trusted, in-depth analysis vital for informed strategic trading decisions. The nimble investor can leverage our analysis and collective expertise to execute a disciplined approach to stock selection.
RDInvesting has not been compensated; directly or indirectly; for producing or publishing this document.
Disclaimer: This article is written by an independent contributor of RDInvesting.com and reviewed by Nadia Noorani, CFA® charter holder. RDInvesting.com is neither a registered broker dealer nor a registered investment advisor. For more information please read our full disclaimer at www.rdinvesting.com/disclaimer.
Quote from: tribar on March 30, 2017, 09:51:40 PM
Quote from: 1995hoo on March 30, 2017, 09:36:54 PM
Quote from: SP Cook on March 30, 2017, 02:44:44 PM
The Reds, and probably the Cubs and White Sox, would demand a heavy indemnity to allow expansion to Indy. If you believe what Portland's politicians say with all this "smart growth" ho-ha, the town will reach a certain size and then not grow any more. I don't believe that, but it is what they say.
The Red Sox would want a big payoff to allow Portland in, if there are even enough people in Maine to support a team anyway. :hmm:
(Yes, I know you meant the fake Portland on the other side of the country.)
I presume that it he meant Portland, OR, not Portland ME.
Yes I meant Portland OR. I didn't think I would have to make that clear because Portland ME is way to small for Major League Baseball.
Quote from: dvferyance on March 31, 2017, 10:21:32 AM
Quote from: tribar on March 30, 2017, 09:51:40 PM
Quote from: 1995hoo on March 30, 2017, 09:36:54 PM
Quote from: SP Cook on March 30, 2017, 02:44:44 PM
The Reds, and probably the Cubs and White Sox, would demand a heavy indemnity to allow expansion to Indy. If you believe what Portland's politicians say with all this "smart growth" ho-ha, the town will reach a certain size and then not grow any more. I don't believe that, but it is what they say.
The Red Sox would want a big payoff to allow Portland in, if there are even enough people in Maine to support a team anyway. :hmm:
(Yes, I know you meant the fake Portland on the other side of the country.)
I presume that it he meant Portland, OR, not Portland ME.
Yes I meant Portland OR. I didn't think I would have to make that clear because Portland ME is way to small for Major League Baseball.
You didn't read my entire post either!
Quote from: dvferyance on March 31, 2017, 10:21:32 AM
Quote from: tribar on March 30, 2017, 09:51:40 PM
Quote from: 1995hoo on March 30, 2017, 09:36:54 PM
Quote from: SP Cook on March 30, 2017, 02:44:44 PM
The Reds, and probably the Cubs and White Sox, would demand a heavy indemnity to allow expansion to Indy. If you believe what Portland's politicians say with all this "smart growth" ho-ha, the town will reach a certain size and then not grow any more. I don't believe that, but it is what they say.
The Red Sox would want a big payoff to allow Portland in, if there are even enough people in Maine to support a team anyway. :hmm:
(Yes, I know you meant the fake Portland on the other side of the country.)
I presume that it he meant Portland, OR, not Portland ME.
Yes I meant Portland OR. I didn't think I would have to make that clear because Portland ME is way to small for Major League Baseball.
Here's an exercise in futility: trying to wring public money for a stadium from the city of Portland and/or PDX Metro. The Blazers are tolerated because they play indoors in a not-too-gaudy arena; the type of football and/or baseball venue acceptable to team brass and financial backers would stand out to a degree likely bordering on obnoxious to local public figures. Then there's the matter about where to put a sizeable stadium
plus associated parking facilities (which might in itself be a dealbreaker considering the predilections of PDX officials) -- probably have to be out in Hillsboro or somewhere west along 26. Another thought -- pull a New York trick and place the stadium in the neighboring state (Battle Ground says hello!). In any case, there would be extensive pissing and moaning coming from various PDX activists -- possibly enough to derail any MLB/NFL efforts.