Jump to content

Which NFL franchise ends up in LA?


WorkingAllTheTime
 Share

  

9 members have voted

  1. 1. Which NFL franchise ends up in LA?

    • St. Louis Rams
      5
    • San Diego Chargers
      1
    • Oakland Raiders
      2
    • San Diego Chargers and Oakland Raiders (shared stadium plan)
      0
    • St. Louis Rams, San Diego Chargers, and the Oakland Raiders in a death match for a fan base
      0
    • Another franchise
      0
    • No franchise
      1


Recommended Posts

I am thinking San Diego and Oakland are bluffing (mostly because the idea of a shared stadium among AFC West rivals is about as well thought out as Japan hooking up with a white supremacist nut job in World War II). I am convinced, though, that Uncle Rico... I mean Stan Kroenke, has already moved the Rams in his head and heart.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I am thinking San Diego and Oakland are bluffing (mostly because the idea of a shared stadium among AFC West rivals is about as well thought out as Japan hooking up with a white supremacist nut job in World War II). I am convinced, though, that Uncle Rico... I mean Stan Kroenke, has already moved the Rams in his head and heart.

 

I hear San Antonio is a potential landing spot for Jags/Rams/Chargers/Raiders

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I am thinking San Diego and Oakland are bluffing (mostly because the idea of a shared stadium among AFC West rivals is about as well thought out as Japan hooking up with a white supremacist nut job in World War II). I am convinced, though, that Uncle Rico... I mean Stan Kroenke, has already moved the Rams in his head and heart.

 

I hear San Antonio is a potential landing spot for Jags/Rams/Chargers/Raiders

 

3 teams in Texas? :wacko:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I am thinking San Diego and Oakland are bluffing (mostly because the idea of a shared stadium among AFC West rivals is about as well thought out as Japan hooking up with a white supremacist nut job in World War II). I am convinced, though, that Uncle Rico... I mean Stan Kroenke, has already moved the Rams in his head and heart.

 

I hear San Antonio is a potential landing spot for Jags/Rams/Chargers/Raiders

 

Never gonna happen. San Antonio is the girl who gets asked to prom early just in case the girl the guy really wants to take says no.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I am thinking San Diego and Oakland are bluffing (mostly because the idea of a shared stadium among AFC West rivals is about as well thought out as Japan hooking up with a white supremacist nut job in World War II). I am convinced, though, that Uncle Rico... I mean Stan Kroenke, has already moved the Rams in his head and heart.

 

I hear San Antonio is a potential landing spot for Jags/Rams/Chargers/Raiders

 

3 teams in Texas? :wacko:

 

This state is football crazy, but the problem would be it would take a generation.... or a quick Super Bowl win from the SA team.... to shift the bulk of the fan base in South Texas away from the Cowboys.

 

But, reality is, it won't happen. First, Jerry Jones will throw a fit to try to keep SA as his stronghold (he plays SA well, too.... every couple of years he holds camp here.... and then goes right back to Oxnard.... making SA Jerry's sancha who foolishly thinks Jerry will leave his lady for SA). Second, while SA could technically try to draw a fan base from beyond Bexar and surrounding counties (meaning Austin, Corpus Christi, Laredo, the Valley, etc.), but the corporate resources are not as strong here. That means fewer folks to buy luxury boxes. which are also part of the bread and butter of the stadium revenue model. Third, I don't think SA has the stomach to build another empty NFL stadium. The Alamodome was built.... 20 years ago... to lure a team here. The team never came, so the Alamodome became a temporary (and very bad) venue for the Spurs, and now hosts a few things here and there, but pretty much just sits empty most of the year. Fortunately, unlike the Houston Astrodome, the Alamodome is paid for. Still, the Alamodome is dated and an NFL team would want a commitment to a new stadium. I don't see SA voters going for that. I know I won't.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Voting with my heart...no franchise.

 

The NFL doesn't have a heart. Where their heart should be (you know the place where they would want to do the right thing in all situaitons) rests a box full of cash.

Oh I know. Actually LA may be more valuable as a possible landing spot so that franchises can extort money from their existing cities.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Voting with my heart...no franchise.

 

The NFL doesn't have a heart. Where their heart should be (you know the place where they would want to do the right thing in all situaitons) rests a box full of cash.

Oh I know. Actually LA may be more valuable as a possible landing spot so that franchises can extort money from their existing cities.

 

The last 20+ years of NFL history sort of prove your point!

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I feel the Rams have a real legacy tie to Los Angeles.

All three of the teams have played at least one season as an LA team, the Chargers began play in 1960 as the LA Chargers.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I feel the Rams have a real legacy tie to Los Angeles.

 

That they do. As a native of St. Louis, though, I feel the sting for my hometown. Bidwell took the Cardinals to Arizona because he wanted a new stadium that St. Louis was slow to provide. But Bidwell's team ended up playing in a college stadium for nearly 20 years before Phoenix actually built him a stadium? That just doesn't seem fair (I know, I know, since when is business fair). Now St. Louis is going to lose another team because of stadium woes. But I can also blame St. Louis on the stupidity of their lease agreement... the whole "top tier" language of being in the top 8 of 31 venues.... it's completely subjective and basically created a situation where the Rams could walk just because they could. Dumb, dumb, dumb. The Rams are gone, gone, gone after this year. And we all know Goodell can't do a thing about it. Hell, he has let Kroenke skate on cross-ownership for years. Why wouldn't Kroenke think he can do whatever he wants?

Edited by WorkingAllTheTime
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I feel the Rams have a real legacy tie to Los Angeles.

 

That they do. As a native of St. Louis, though, I feel the sting for my hometown. Bidwell took the Cardinals to Arizona because he wanted a new stadium that St. Louis was slow to provide. But Bidwell's team ended up playing in a college stadium for nearly 20 years before Phoenix actually built him a stadium? That just doesn't seem fair (I know, I know, since when is business fair). Now St. Louis is going to lose another team because of stadium woes. But I can also blame St. Louis on the stupidity of their lease agreement... the whole "top tier" language of being in the top 8 of 31 venues.... it's completely subjective and basically created a situation where the Rams could walk just because they could. Dumb, dumb, dumb. The Rams are gone, gone, gone after this year. And we all know Goodell can't do a thing about it. Hell, he has let Kroenke skate on cross-ownership for years. Why wouldn't Kroenke think he can do whatever he wants?

Well, St Louis DID take the Cardinals from Chicago. Having said that, the franchise wasn't that viable as a second Chicago franchise so it was for the good of the organization and league.

 

The one bright spot in losing the Cardinals for St Louis is that Bidwell is a horrible owner...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

In my not so humble opinion, here's the real issue with LA...

 

The city, because of it's size, could support 2 NFL clubs, one AFC, one NFC.

 

But the league is reluctant to move teams to LA for two reasons. One, LABT is spot on when he suggests the open LA market gives the league the opportunity to leverage more, new, high dollar, high revenue, but low tax for the franchises stadiums. Two, they don't really want to lose any of the markets they currently have in play. The four cities that constantly get bantered around in movement talk (Oakland, San Diego, St. Louis, and Jacksonville) are all still key media markets for the league.

 

The actual "solution" would be to expand the league into LA. But that comes with a price. Two more teams means 34 in the league and throws the scheduling model into chaos. It also greatly dilutes the talent level in the league and would disrupt a system that actually has more parity than probably most fans realize. To keep the scheduling and conference balance, the league would have to expand by 4 and go to 36 teams. This would mean two 18 team conferences with three 6 team divisions. That would be a harder schedule to manage as they want rotation and, even more challenging, would require the league to get the players to agree to an 18 game regular season (10 within division, 2 intra conference based upon previous year records where 1 plays 1, 2 plays 2, etc., and 6 against the inter conference rotation).

 

What's more, expanding by four would only further dilute the talent pool. Likewise, picking those other two cities outside LA would be a mess. Your best two options are probably Toronto and either San Antonio, Salt Lake City, Columbus, Oklahoma City, or Memphis. Those American cities, though, are not prime locations for a number of reasons in each market.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I feel the Rams have a real legacy tie to Los Angeles.

 

That they do. As a native of St. Louis, though, I feel the sting for my hometown. Bidwell took the Cardinals to Arizona because he wanted a new stadium that St. Louis was slow to provide. But Bidwell's team ended up playing in a college stadium for nearly 20 years before Phoenix actually built him a stadium? That just doesn't seem fair (I know, I know, since when is business fair). Now St. Louis is going to lose another team because of stadium woes. But I can also blame St. Louis on the stupidity of their lease agreement... the whole "top tier" language of being in the top 8 of 31 venues.... it's completely subjective and basically created a situation where the Rams could walk just because they could. Dumb, dumb, dumb. The Rams are gone, gone, gone after this year. And we all know Goodell can't do a thing about it. Hell, he has let Kroenke skate on cross-ownership for years. Why wouldn't Kroenke think he can do whatever he wants?

Well, St Louis DID take the Cardinals from Chicago. Having said that, the franchise wasn't that viable as a second Chicago franchise so it was for the good of the organization and league.

 

The one bright spot in losing the Cardinals for St Louis is that Bidwell is a horrible owner...

 

That and St. Louis is a Super Bowl city without Bidwell.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

In my not so humble opinion, here's the real issue with LA...

 

The city, because of it's size, could support 2 NFL clubs, one AFC, one NFC.

 

But the league is reluctant to move teams to LA for two reasons. One, LABT is spot on when he suggests the open LA market gives the league the opportunity to leverage more, new, high dollar, high revenue, but low tax for the franchises stadiums. Two, they don't really want to lose any of the markets they currently have in play. The four cities that constantly get bantered around in movement talk (Oakland, San Diego, St. Louis, and Jacksonville) are all still key media markets for the league.

 

The actual "solution" would be to expand the league into LA. But that comes with a price. Two more teams means 34 in the league and throws the scheduling model into chaos. It also greatly dilutes the talent level in the league and would disrupt a system that actually has more parity than probably most fans realize. To keep the scheduling and conference balance, the league would have to expand by 4 and go to 36 teams. This would mean two 18 team conferences with three 6 team divisions. That would be a harder schedule to manage as they want rotation and, even more challenging, would require the league to get the players to agree to an 18 game regular season (10 within division, 2 intra conference based upon previous year records where 1 plays 1, 2 plays 2, etc., and 6 against the inter conference rotation).

 

What's more, expanding by four would only further dilute the talent pool. Likewise, picking those other two cities outside LA would be a mess. Your best two options are probably Toronto and either San Antonio, Salt Lake City, Columbus, Oklahoma City, or Memphis. Those American cities, though, are not prime locations for a number of reasons in each market.

Please NO expansion! 32 teams is perfect...and if you're going to be serious about player safety, you can't expand the schedule.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

In my not so humble opinion, here's the real issue with LA...

 

The city, because of it's size, could support 2 NFL clubs, one AFC, one NFC.

 

But the league is reluctant to move teams to LA for two reasons. One, LABT is spot on when he suggests the open LA market gives the league the opportunity to leverage more, new, high dollar, high revenue, but low tax for the franchises stadiums. Two, they don't really want to lose any of the markets they currently have in play. The four cities that constantly get bantered around in movement talk (Oakland, San Diego, St. Louis, and Jacksonville) are all still key media markets for the league.

 

The actual "solution" would be to expand the league into LA. But that comes with a price. Two more teams means 34 in the league and throws the scheduling model into chaos. It also greatly dilutes the talent level in the league and would disrupt a system that actually has more parity than probably most fans realize. To keep the scheduling and conference balance, the league would have to expand by 4 and go to 36 teams. This would mean two 18 team conferences with three 6 team divisions. That would be a harder schedule to manage as they want rotation and, even more challenging, would require the league to get the players to agree to an 18 game regular season (10 within division, 2 intra conference based upon previous year records where 1 plays 1, 2 plays 2, etc., and 6 against the inter conference rotation).

 

What's more, expanding by four would only further dilute the talent pool. Likewise, picking those other two cities outside LA would be a mess. Your best two options are probably Toronto and either San Antonio, Salt Lake City, Columbus, Oklahoma City, or Memphis. Those American cities, though, are not prime locations for a number of reasons in each market.

Please NO expansion! 32 teams is perfect...and if you're going to be serious about player safety, you can't expand the schedule.

 

Thus, I said "solution" with the quotations. And I completely agree on player safety. Truth be told, I think that if you are going to move any team to LA, Jax makes the most sense because the team support really isn't there.... and their uniforms and helmets are horrible.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

In my not so humble opinion, here's the real issue with LA...

 

The city, because of it's size, could support 2 NFL clubs, one AFC, one NFC.

 

But the league is reluctant to move teams to LA for two reasons. One, LABT is spot on when he suggests the open LA market gives the league the opportunity to leverage more, new, high dollar, high revenue, but low tax for the franchises stadiums. Two, they don't really want to lose any of the markets they currently have in play. The four cities that constantly get bantered around in movement talk (Oakland, San Diego, St. Louis, and Jacksonville) are all still key media markets for the league.

 

The actual "solution" would be to expand the league into LA. But that comes with a price. Two more teams means 34 in the league and throws the scheduling model into chaos. It also greatly dilutes the talent level in the league and would disrupt a system that actually has more parity than probably most fans realize. To keep the scheduling and conference balance, the league would have to expand by 4 and go to 36 teams. This would mean two 18 team conferences with three 6 team divisions. That would be a harder schedule to manage as they want rotation and, even more challenging, would require the league to get the players to agree to an 18 game regular season (10 within division, 2 intra conference based upon previous year records where 1 plays 1, 2 plays 2, etc., and 6 against the inter conference rotation).

 

What's more, expanding by four would only further dilute the talent pool. Likewise, picking those other two cities outside LA would be a mess. Your best two options are probably Toronto and either San Antonio, Salt Lake City, Columbus, Oklahoma City, or Memphis. Those American cities, though, are not prime locations for a number of reasons in each market.

Please NO expansion! 32 teams is perfect...and if you're going to be serious about player safety, you can't expand the schedule.

 

Thus, I said "solution" with the quotations. And I completely agree on player safety. Truth be told, I think that if you are going to move any team to LA, Jax makes the most sense because the team support really isn't there.... and their uniforms and helmets are horrible.

My rank order of how much I would mind seeing teams move to LA...

 

1) Jax, for the reasons you mentioned.

2) SD, because they're a SoCal team anyway

3) StL because there's at least some history there.

googolplex) The Raiders, who belong in Oaktown

Link to comment
Share on other sites

In my not so humble opinion, here's the real issue with LA...

 

The city, because of it's size, could support 2 NFL clubs, one AFC, one NFC.

 

But the league is reluctant to move teams to LA for two reasons. One, LABT is spot on when he suggests the open LA market gives the league the opportunity to leverage more, new, high dollar, high revenue, but low tax for the franchises stadiums. Two, they don't really want to lose any of the markets they currently have in play. The four cities that constantly get bantered around in movement talk (Oakland, San Diego, St. Louis, and Jacksonville) are all still key media markets for the league.

 

The actual "solution" would be to expand the league into LA. But that comes with a price. Two more teams means 34 in the league and throws the scheduling model into chaos. It also greatly dilutes the talent level in the league and would disrupt a system that actually has more parity than probably most fans realize. To keep the scheduling and conference balance, the league would have to expand by 4 and go to 36 teams. This would mean two 18 team conferences with three 6 team divisions. That would be a harder schedule to manage as they want rotation and, even more challenging, would require the league to get the players to agree to an 18 game regular season (10 within division, 2 intra conference based upon previous year records where 1 plays 1, 2 plays 2, etc., and 6 against the inter conference rotation).

 

What's more, expanding by four would only further dilute the talent pool. Likewise, picking those other two cities outside LA would be a mess. Your best two options are probably Toronto and either San Antonio, Salt Lake City, Columbus, Oklahoma City, or Memphis. Those American cities, though, are not prime locations for a number of reasons in each market.

Please NO expansion! 32 teams is perfect...and if you're going to be serious about player safety, you can't expand the schedule.

 

Thus, I said "solution" with the quotations. And I completely agree on player safety. Truth be told, I think that if you are going to move any team to LA, Jax makes the most sense because the team support really isn't there.... and their uniforms and helmets are horrible.

My rank order of how much I would mind seeing teams move to LA...

 

1) Jax, for the reasons you mentioned.

2) SD, because they're a SoCal team anyway

3) StL because there's at least some history there.

googolplex) The Raiders, who belong in Oaktown

 

Chief fan. I "hate" the Raiders. But, goodness, yes, they belong in Oakland. That's a perfect marriage. Raiderfan and Oakland.... a city where the school superintendent was once assassinated.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

In my not so humble opinion, here's the real issue with LA...

 

The city, because of it's size, could support 2 NFL clubs, one AFC, one NFC.

 

But the league is reluctant to move teams to LA for two reasons. One, LABT is spot on when he suggests the open LA market gives the league the opportunity to leverage more, new, high dollar, high revenue, but low tax for the franchises stadiums. Two, they don't really want to lose any of the markets they currently have in play. The four cities that constantly get bantered around in movement talk (Oakland, San Diego, St. Louis, and Jacksonville) are all still key media markets for the league.

 

The actual "solution" would be to expand the league into LA. But that comes with a price. Two more teams means 34 in the league and throws the scheduling model into chaos. It also greatly dilutes the talent level in the league and would disrupt a system that actually has more parity than probably most fans realize. To keep the scheduling and conference balance, the league would have to expand by 4 and go to 36 teams. This would mean two 18 team conferences with three 6 team divisions. That would be a harder schedule to manage as they want rotation and, even more challenging, would require the league to get the players to agree to an 18 game regular season (10 within division, 2 intra conference based upon previous year records where 1 plays 1, 2 plays 2, etc., and 6 against the inter conference rotation).

 

What's more, expanding by four would only further dilute the talent pool. Likewise, picking those other two cities outside LA would be a mess. Your best two options are probably Toronto and either San Antonio, Salt Lake City, Columbus, Oklahoma City, or Memphis. Those American cities, though, are not prime locations for a number of reasons in each market.

Please NO expansion! 32 teams is perfect...and if you're going to be serious about player safety, you can't expand the schedule.

 

Thus, I said "solution" with the quotations. And I completely agree on player safety. Truth be told, I think that if you are going to move any team to LA, Jax makes the most sense because the team support really isn't there.... and their uniforms and helmets are horrible.

My rank order of how much I would mind seeing teams move to LA...

 

1) Jax, for the reasons you mentioned.

2) SD, because they're a SoCal team anyway

3) StL because there's at least some history there.

googolplex) The Raiders, who belong in Oaktown

 

Chief fan. I "hate" the Raiders. But, goodness, yes, they belong in Oakland. That's a perfect marriage. Raiderfan and Oakland.... a city where the school superintendent was once assassinated.

They have schools in Oakland? :huh:

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
 Share

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...