PDA

View Full Version : A little update on the LA stadium...


Kulluminatii
12-24-2009, 05:24 AM
As of right now, there are 7 teams being targeted.

They are (in no particular order):

Oakland Raiders
St. Louis Rams
Jacksonville Jaguars
San Diego Chargers
Minnesota Vikings
Buffalo Bills
San Francisco 49ers

Some things to note:


Ed Roski (main financial backer of LA Stadium) wants to own the team. This probably means the Raiders won't be moving to LA Stadium (doesn't necessarily mean they won't move to LA). As you all know, Davis isn't ever going to let go of "his" team :brickwall:. I believe Roski has the best chance to buy the Rams, followed by the Jags.



From the video on this page (link: http://www.myfoxla.com/dpp/sports/nfl-football-future-in-los-angeles-20091201 ) the man in the video says there is a 50/50 chance a team will be playing in LA next season (probably in the Coliseum until LA Stadium is finished), and a "100%" chance of one playing there by 2011. He seems pretty confident, I would imagine they are pretty close to striking a deal with a team then.


Ideally, they want 2 teams in LA. This was a rumor floating around for a while, but I guess it is true. Judging from the video, it seems as if they would like to get both teams in LA at the same time. Not really sure what to make of it.



I personally think depending on how the Jags fare in the postseason that they are the most likely to move. If they do well (or by some miracle make it to the SuperBowl) then they will probably stay a bit longer. If not the Jags, I can see the Rams coming back to LA.

The teams I don't see moving to LA are the 49ers, Vikings, and Bills. 49ers are Northern California's team, and I doubt they will be successful in SoCal. I feel that the Vikings and Bills have a strong fanbase already in place, and I doubt the owner of either team would want to sell their team.



What do you guys think? Which team(s) out of those 7 will most likely be moving to LA? The least likely?

MannyFresh
12-24-2009, 05:53 AM
I still can't get over Cali possibly having 4 teams again and they want LA team "2"?

Kulluminatii
12-24-2009, 05:59 AM
Well, California is pretty big. If all of the Cali teams stay and two new ones are brought in...that will be 5 teams. I don't see how 5 teams in Cali would work. Guess it will be an interesting offseason :kitten:.

TimeKiller
12-24-2009, 07:52 AM
That's the dumbest thing I've ever heard. 2 more teams? In LA? Where team after team has failed to stick?

I'd totally rather create more teams. One in LA, one in San Antonio, one in Canada somewheres, and one in North Dakota.

What? WHy the hell not in North Dakota?

4Texans
12-24-2009, 08:52 AM
I'm a little old school, so I would like to see the Rams back in LA.

TEXANS84
12-24-2009, 09:09 AM
They need no more than one team back in LA.

They have trouble selling out some Chargers games in San Diego and they are one of the best teams in the AFC right now.

infantrycak
12-24-2009, 09:26 AM
No matter how big LA is they have a history of failing to support teams. I don't see in chance of them getting two teams. The Jags are the team best poised to go. Even when they make play-off runs they aren't supported.

Stemp
12-24-2009, 10:24 AM
They only want a team in LA for the TV market, where all the money is made.

GuerillaBlack
12-24-2009, 10:33 AM
Well, California is pretty big. If all of the Cali teams stay and two new ones are brought in...that will be 5 teams. I don't see how 5 teams in Cali would work. Guess it will be an interesting offseason :kitten:.

Why wouldn't it? Florida has just 18 million people and has three teams. The LA region alone has 18 million people.... It could work, but best not to overload now. LA has already lost two teams before. I think the Jags will make a new home in LA. MJD will become the new Kobe/Manny (just the football version).

WWJD
12-24-2009, 11:15 AM
I don't see how it can be any team BUT the Jags moving. Their attendance is embarrassing to the NFL.

Kulluminatii
12-24-2009, 03:05 PM
That's the dumbest thing I've ever heard. 2 more teams? In LA? Where team after team has failed to stick?

I'd totally rather create more teams. One in LA, one in San Antonio, one in Canada somewheres, and one in North Dakota.

What? WHy the hell not in North Dakota?

The NFL has stated multiple times they don't want to have any more expansion teams. They would like to stick with the 32 teams they have now.

Also, Rams and Raiders didn't move only because of low attendance. Davis moved because he failed to get a new stadium....and because he's Al Davis :fingergun:. Rams I believe also moved for a similar reason, plus then-owner Frontiere was from St. Louis; so I guess the decision to move and alienate a ton of fans in LA was simple.

I have a strong feeling in 2010 we will see the Los Angeles Jaguars (or whatever they decide to call the team). IF the Jags do move, I wonder if they will stay in the AFC South.

Goldensilence
12-24-2009, 03:45 PM
The NFL has stated multiple times they don't want to have any more expansion teams. They would like to stick with the 32 teams they have now.

Also, Rams and Raiders didn't move only because of low attendance. Davis moved because he failed to get a new stadium....and because he's Al Davis :fingergun:. Rams I believe also moved for a similar reason, plus then-owner Frontiere was from St. Louis; so I guess the decision to move and alienate a ton of fans in LA was simple.

I have a strong feeling in 2010 we will see the Los Angeles Jaguars (or whatever they decide to call the team). IF the Jags do move, I wonder if they will stay in the AFC South.

Most sense would be to move St. Louis back to LA and soon after Jags to St. Louis. If there wasn't such history with the AFC west, the most sense would be move the LA team to the NFC west to replace the Rams and then have either KC or Denver move to the AFC South.

Possibly new LA ownership is highballing for two but, really looking for only one team. I don't see how the ycould convince the NFL with their history they could keep support for two teams. Personally I'm still leery they can even support one for a prolonged period.

Ryan
12-24-2009, 03:56 PM
If The Jags move to LA, i think it'd call for a realignment, which could do nothing but benefit the Texans. I don't think it'd happen due to classic rivalries but here's how the AFC should look.

AFC South:
Texans
Titans
Chiefs
Dolphins?

AFC North:
Bengals
Browns
Colts
Steelers

AFC East:
Ravens
Pats
Jets
Bills

AFC West:
Broncos
Raiders
Chargers
Jags


This is me just brainstorming here, and i really doubt a realignment would happen, but man that'd be awesome for us.

Hervoyel
12-24-2009, 04:36 PM
I think the only team that should be moving to LA is the Rams. They belong in LA and they're in an ideal situation to actually find themselves moving to LA. The Jaguars would then move (at a slightly later time) to St. Louis to fill the void left by the Rams. Jacksonville will (unfortunately for the fans there) fade back into the obscurity that is its destiny.

This works out perfectly because St. Louis was a favorite to get the expansion team that became the Jaguars. They could even change their name to the "St Louis Stallions" like they intended when they tried to get the expansion team that became the Jags if they want to avoid stepping on (dubious) Jacksonville's style.

http://i215.photobucket.com/albums/cc272/Hervoyel/NFL_Stallions.gif

And two teams? No chance in hell.

SheTexan
12-24-2009, 04:43 PM
I don't care as long as they leave the Niners alone! IMHO, LA doesn't deserve a team at all. They have had numerous chances and blown them all. Screw the TV market, it won't be any different.

And just because this is an opinion board, and I'm in a foul mood, I hope San Antonio NEVER gets an NFL team. It would be a bigger failure than Jacksonville.

imatexan
12-24-2009, 05:25 PM
No matter how big LA is they have a history of failing to support teams. I don't see in chance of them getting two teams. The Jags are the team best poised to go. Even when they make play-off runs they aren't supported.

*History of failing to support NFL teams not other sports.

Fred
12-24-2009, 06:02 PM
The Jags can barely fill half the stadium when they are fighting for a playoff spot. Time for them to move somewhere. It would add a lot more interest to the AFC South if we had the LA Jags (or Tiger Woods could buy them and change the name to the "Cheatahs"). Or a realignment (why is Indianapolis in the "South"? They are about the same distance to Cleveland, Cincinnati, and Chicago as Katy is to Baytown.)

I think 32 teams is perfect. Expansion will screw up the beauty of each conference having 4 divisions with 4 teams. Unless you add 8 teams, you will have uneven division sizes. And then people will start agigating for turning the playoffs into basketball or hockey (you have a team? not the Clippers? welcome to the playoffs!) However, there are already teams in Green Bay, Irving - oops - Arlington, Nashville, Jacksonville, Foxboro and 2 in East Rutherford so maybe North Dakota makes sense...

Thorn
12-24-2009, 06:34 PM
North Dakota? Damn, they better have an indoor stadium. :eek:

barrett
12-24-2009, 06:54 PM
Realignment is very unlikely.

Totally unrelated, I'd like to see us doing a home and home with the Saints. I think that could become a good rivalry. Cowboys too. I'd like the NFL to create more rivalries. And eliminate the record based games. Instead of playing the damn Dolphins every year we would play another rivalry game with one of those teams.

Speedy
12-24-2009, 07:08 PM
Why would the Jags have to move out of the AFC South if they went to LA? Last time I checked, LA was in the southern half of the U.S.

Kulluminatii
12-24-2009, 08:00 PM
...But then that's like saying the Chargers should be in the AFC South since they are in the southern half of the US. I would imagine some changes would happen to place whatever team is in LA in either the AFC or NFC West.

Speedy
12-24-2009, 08:15 PM
Then Jacksonville should be in the east by that logic. I don't see what the big deal is. Both cities are on each end of I-10. They can stay in the south and it won't be a big freaking deal.

LA and J-ville both are a whole hell of a lot more south than Indy and Tennessee are.

infantrycak
12-25-2009, 08:35 AM
*History of failing to support NFL teams not other sports.

I thought that was implicit in a discussion of NFL teams.

Hervoyel
12-25-2009, 09:19 AM
...But then that's like saying the Chargers should be in the AFC South since they are in the southern half of the US. I would imagine some changes would happen to place whatever team is in LA in either the AFC or NFC West.

I disagree. Now granted the AFC and NFC South divisions seem to be created with the Southeast United States in mind but either L.A. or San Diego could arguably fit in either a South or West division. They're both just like Miami who could be in either the AFC South or AFC East. It's not like there isn't some overlap in a few of the divisions already.

Indianapolis is a lot less "South" than L.A. but nobody bitches about them being in the AFC South. The divisions are logical for the most part but they're also the result of some political compromise among the teams. If they weren't we'd have Miami in the AFC South, Indianapolis would be in the AFC North, and Baltimore would be in the AFC East.

L.A., if it got the Jaguars would stay in the AFC South I bet. I doubt the league would see any kind of compelling reason to change that. That's just another reason why the Rams make more sense.

Fred
12-25-2009, 10:25 AM
Obviously SD and LA are "South" but I think a bigger consideration is West vs. not West because of the time zones. If LA is not in the "West" division then they are travelling 2 or 3 time zones for their in-division games. Although for years Atlanta and New Orleans were in the NFC West so it is not unheard of to force a lot of cross time zone travel.