View Full Version : Expansion situation

06-15-2004, 09:25 AM
If they decide to make another expansion team that means that the new team will get to pick a player from all 32 teams right? If so who do you think they will acquire from us?

06-15-2004, 09:31 AM
Well, depends on who we decide not to resign or persue. Also I depends on what they need. I think the most likely player would be CB Coleman.

06-15-2004, 09:35 AM
Doesnt our team get to select certain people for them to choose from, cause I dont think they can just get anyone they want, or they'd get Vick from Atlanta, Harrison from Colts, Ray from Baltimore etc.

06-15-2004, 09:40 AM
Like I said. If the team decides not to persue their player, they can be signed by the expansion team. Unless Atlanta decides not to resign Vick idonno: then the new team could sign him.

06-15-2004, 09:56 AM
You got a good point there V they have been saying that the colts should move because they have the lowest priced tickets in the nfl but still fail to fill up the RCA dome. Mainly because it is in Indiannapolis. I wonder if they do decide to move someone and if they do i wonder who?

06-15-2004, 09:59 AM
In the expansion draft each team had to leave a certain number of players that were currently under contract unprotected. You could not just not resign someone and say that is our unprotected player--if he ain't signed he isn't yours to barter with. If one of the players was selected, then they were allowed to remove one of the other players from the unprotected list. That was purportedly a big part of the Bosselli selection--if we agreed to take him then they would not pull back Walker or Payne. In the end probably irrelevant as V says.

06-15-2004, 10:29 AM
If they move the Colts to LA, they ought to move the Chiefs to the AFC South and the Colts to the AFC West. They won't do that though for the same reason the Cowboys are still in the NFC East. You don't mess with long-time rivalries.

06-15-2004, 10:59 AM
Good Point, but couldn't that maybe bring bad national exposure if they beat our teams? I would rather see the Dolphins come to the AFC South, but I doubt that would happen. :popcorn:

06-15-2004, 01:05 PM
Good Point, but couldn't that maybe bring bad national exposure if they beat our teams? I would rather see the Dolphins come to the AFC South, but I doubt that would happen. :popcorn:

Makes too much sense but you're right. Still an LA Colts team would be a good thing for the division overall. Keep in mind that the Texans and Jags are moving up in the world. It would be great national exposure to be seen thumping the stuffing out of the LA Colts nationwide and that's exactly what's going to be happening starting around 2004-2005.

06-15-2004, 02:04 PM
Good point about the Dolphins. Geographically they could move the Dolphins to the AFC South, Chiefs to the AFC North, Ravens to the AFC East, and the LA Colts to the AFC West. They won't do it due to rivalries though.

Vinny also has a good point about the LA television market and how that could impact a division with relatively low ratings. Jacksonville, Indi, and Nashville are definitely 3 of the smallest markets in the country. That is why these three cities were some of the last to get a franchise.

El Tejano
06-15-2004, 04:09 PM
I would like to see the Ravens in our division, I think that could be one real nasty rival and of course I always will hate the steelers.

06-15-2004, 06:49 PM
I agree with the Vin's comment that the expansion is unlikely...not sure that the Colts are going to head to LA, one would think the city would do everything possible to keep a year in/year out contender at home.

I think that if the move is made (from whomever to wherever) that the divisions will not fluctuate. The league doesn't want to do any serious re-alignments after they just ironed out the divisions 2 yrs ago. Plus...I think that the NFL will want to maintain the semi-historic rivalries that are currently established.

06-16-2004, 08:28 AM
Pfft... send the Raiders back, just to piss off Al. :hehe:

06-16-2004, 09:15 PM
Don't overlook Ariz. and Minn. as posibillities to be moved. I think the cards are takling about a new field, or is it already in the works? Does anyone know? But the fan support is not there as far as attendence. No division move needed. Minn. has nothing going on in any new field being built that I have heard. Ownership is not local so a move or sale and move would not be out of the question. Division (nfcc) could pick up the Rams, Minn/LA going to nfcw.

06-16-2004, 09:36 PM
Yeah the new field for Arizona is already a done deal. A lot of people attribute the rebuilding of the Cardinals is due in large part to making the city feel that they earned their new stadium. Supposed to have a tray system much like reliant does, except its supposed to be one huge tray that slides out under the stadium to get light.

06-16-2004, 09:46 PM
I agree with the no expansion idea.

Also, just because it makes Geographical sense does not mean it can happen. My Understanding is that Denver, Kansas City, and Oakland have an agreement with the NFL to stay in the same Division. Not really sure why SD was left out, but no ever cares if SD is good or not. Just that the Raiders and Chiefs Suck.

06-16-2004, 09:59 PM
IMO..The Colts will never move to LA, Indy's too big of a sports city, I could see Minn, Seattle, or Carolina moving idonno:

06-16-2004, 10:26 PM
Seattle is in thier second or third year of a new stadium - not moving

Carolina has a solid season ticket base at 60,000 + not moving

Minn could move if they do not get a new stadium deal passed

06-16-2004, 10:58 PM
what about the Saints? They dont seem to be getting the money they are owed from the State. And the Superdome is seriously out-dated. just a thought...