L.A. and Expansion

Discussion in 'The National Football League' started by Hervoyel, Nov 1, 2004.

  1. Hervoyel

    Hervoyel The Right Track

    Joined:
    Apr 30, 2004
    Messages:
    15,816
    Likes Received:
    2,579
    I was looking around ESPN.com and came across this article where about halfway down they talk again about the league's fixation with putting another team in L.A. (It's under "Around The League" about halfway down).

    ESPN Article

    The part at the end of the L.A. blurb mentions that the owners who would rather move one of the "have not" teams to L.A. might very well get over that whole messing up the symmetry of the 32 team league when they consider the fat pile of cash they'd all split if they added another expansion team.

    I'm just curious whether they might not consider adding a pair of teams to make it 34 eventually and then we might be looking at another realignment or something. If they did add a pair of teams where would they put the other one? Merely a hypothetical question though. IMO they'll move someone over there when the time comes and some city that probably doesn't deserve it will get their team ripped away.
     
  2. WWJD

    WWJD Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    May 6, 2004
    Messages:
    5,260
    Likes Received:
    139
    I would say L.A. will definitely be getting a team.

    As for another city to make it 34 I wouldn't want to guess. I'd say Las Vegas but it's my understanding the NFL wouldn't go there because of the gambling. It's a very fast growing city though. Maybe the fastest growing in the country.

    I'm trying to think of big college programs that have built in football fans...that might be attractive to a pro team. Michigan has the Lions and 100 thousand at the college game. Same for Tennessee; they seat over 100 thousand but the Titans I guess represent the whole state so Memphis wouldn't be a good spot.

    I'm stumped.
     
  3. JustBonee

    JustBonee Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Jun 20, 2004
    Messages:
    1,762
    Likes Received:
    7
    Location:
    Houston
    When/If L.A. gets their team, that will give California four NFL teams again. That seems like a lot. They have the media and they have the population, but they (general public) don't have the interest. I guess they can work on that later.
    The rumor of Las Vegas getting a team is getting louder. Population is growing rapidly around there, but that doesn't mean a football team would be supported by the people living there. Phoenix is a good example of that. Their new stadium will look like Jacksonville's on game day..

    I have wondered before why there are/will be 3-4 NFL teams in California, 3 in New York (technically two in NJ), even Florida has 3 teams, but Texas had to fight like crazy to get a 2nd team. Total fairness in that. :mad:
     
  4. Hervoyel

    Hervoyel The Right Track

    Joined:
    Apr 30, 2004
    Messages:
    15,816
    Likes Received:
    2,579
    Another Texas team maybe? San Antonio? I know that one of the reasons that Jacksonville got the Jaguars was the heavy devotion they showed to anything football related (Their USFL team was the attendance king during that league's short run) and another city that supported their USFL team really well was Birmingham Alabama though I have never heard of them being mentioned for an NFL team.

    Where is the NFL missing on the map? Obviously Alaska and Hawaii are out of the question (for multiple reasons; travel costs, populations) but in the "lower 48" where do they not have a presence? There's a big hole in the middle of the USA where Oklahoma, Kansas, Nebraska, Missouri, Iowa, and the Dakota's are with no pro football. I wonder if the massive college followings would be a plus or a minus for a pro football team.

    Also out west there's the Oregon, Idaho, Nevada, Utah, Montana, Wyoming area with no pro football to speak of but out of all of those states it seems like Las Vegas might be the only major city you could put a team in and professional sports avoid Las Vegas like it's made out of kryptonite.

    In the south you've got Alabama, Mississippi, Arkansas sitting all together with no pro ball but again what city there is going to add to the league?

    I think the only option might be another team in a more populated state that maybe already has an NFL team if they wanted to do 34 to keep the schedule balanced. California, Florida, and New York all have three teams so those are probably out of the question. To me that points to Texas as a possibility though both NFL teams are on the eastern and I believe more populated side of the state. San Antonio looks to me like the only other Texas option.
     
  5. Double Barrel

    Double Barrel Modified Simian

    Joined:
    Oct 11, 2004
    Messages:
    33,490
    Likes Received:
    3,159
    Location:
    Onward, Upward, and back into the Trees
    *ugh*

    Greed will bring the league down. :(

    There is already a lack of talent in the NFL, and adding 1-2 more teams will only continue to dilute the pool.

    Add to that the fact that L.A. could not even keep one of the TWO teams it had, never put up a viable stadium deal, and the citizens are not all that crazy about football...it just spells disaster in the long run.

    So the owners will consider messing up the perfect symmetry of 32 teams / 8 divisions for money. How sad. :(
     
  6. WWJD

    WWJD Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    May 6, 2004
    Messages:
    5,260
    Likes Received:
    139
    I've read and I don't know where and it's been awhile back that the feeling is that San Antonio would not support a team there. The AlamoDome is not adequate for a pro team so they would need to build a new stadium, the city fathers wouldn't be for it and so forth. We have a SA poster on here. Perhaps he has some facts on this and opinion on how SA would do with a team.

    I'd be all for it because I think San Antonio is a lovely, fun city but I've just never really taken it seriously.

    Maybe Chicago would get a 2nd team? They have 2 baseball teams after all.
     
  7. JustBonee

    JustBonee Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Jun 20, 2004
    Messages:
    1,762
    Likes Received:
    7
    Location:
    Houston
    Many cities South & West have populations growing with people from other places... mainly from the North.. and these people move to their "new" city and remain faithful and support their old team from back home.
    For a 34th ..GADS that's alot of teams! ...Chicago could be a good choice... old city without the big migrant movement. I think that's key to getting support.
     
  8. Speedy

    Speedy Yeller Dweller

    Joined:
    May 1, 2004
    Messages:
    3,496
    Likes Received:
    451
    Location:
    The Livable Forest
    They finally get it right with the realignment. It's perfect that all the bye weeks are done by week 10. And the NFL is more popular than ever WITHOUT Los Angeles.

    Don't try to fix what ain't broke.
     


  9. WWJD

    WWJD Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    May 6, 2004
    Messages:
    5,260
    Likes Received:
    139
    I agree with what you are saying Speedy but it seems the vote lies with the owners and apparently they are determined to put a team in LA. And I also agree with the poster that said it dilutes a already diluted product. That is so true.
     
  10. V Man

    V Man Pumpkinhead

    Joined:
    Apr 29, 2004
    Messages:
    2,591
    Likes Received:
    58
    Location:
    Alamo City
    A SA fans view=

    1.Even though SA has the population to warrent a team, the econimic make up doesn't. It couldn't support a large enough season ticket holder base (example, Spurs have won two championships recently, and you can still easily get a ticket, in fact for laker games 1 out of every 5 fans is in laker gear.)

    2.Stadium doesn't have the luxury boxes the NFL wants, and after the city was suckered into the Alamodome (one of the promises was it would lure an NFL franchise here), I doubt voters would pass anything to build a new or update the exsisting stadium.

    3. San Antonio is and will always be a big Cowgirl market (ex. this mornings local report on sports- talk about Tony Parker Deal, and Cowboys win, no mention of Texans). So a local team would probably have fewer fans than the cowgirls in its own city. Also Jerry wouldn't be very supportive of a team here. :twocents:
     
  11. ledzeppelin229

    ledzeppelin229 Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    May 1, 2004
    Messages:
    6,829
    Likes Received:
    314
    Location:
    Spring / San Marcos, TX
    Just throwing this out there for debate, I really dont think it will happen

    What would be the chances of an international team, like in Canada, or maybe Mexico City (even though soccer is King there)

    Anyway, now that the foolish part of my post is over with, I really don't want Chicago getting a 2nd team. I don't think it would work this late in history anyway, with almost everyone there supporting the Bears. The only reason they have 2 MLB teams is because when the teams were getting started it was more of a private endeavor and both teams found enough success to keep from folding.

    I think Las Vegas is definitely a possibility, and going by city population San Antonio should have some sort of shot but I don't know if they would want to challenge the Cowboys-Texans fanbase.

    I was looking at some stats just now, and LV population increased by 85% between 1990 and 2000. I don't think the gambling proximity would really deter the NFL from landing a team there.

    In the end though, I'd rather just keep it at 32. LA had its chance.

    One more thing I want to add: If they did at a 33rd and 34th team, that would put the conferences with 17 each and still cause some problems with the divisions.
     
  12. WWJD

    WWJD Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    May 6, 2004
    Messages:
    5,260
    Likes Received:
    139
    I am not sure but I think I read that the NFL is prohibited from going to Las Vegas because of the gambling aspect. I may be completely and totally wrong but it seems I've seen it discussed somewhere before.

    I don't know but how does UNLV do attendance wise? I use to think their populaton was transient but obviously that is wrong because it is growing by leaps and bounds.

    I'm sure somebody on here knows about the Vegas/NFL conflict. Maybe it's just the owners that don't want a team there.


    I knew the SA voice would speak up! Good points. I don't even think they're considering SA then.
     
  13. V Man

    V Man Pumpkinhead

    Joined:
    Apr 29, 2004
    Messages:
    2,591
    Likes Received:
    58
    Location:
    Alamo City
    My bet is on the Colts going to LA. Several reasons

    1. they had no problem moving one of the original teams before, it won't matter now.

    2. League hates the RCA dome

    3. League loves the Mannings, they have one in NY, now it is time to get the other in the biggest market.
     
  14. ledzeppelin229

    ledzeppelin229 Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    May 1, 2004
    Messages:
    6,829
    Likes Received:
    314
    Location:
    Spring / San Marcos, TX
    "Los Angeles Colts" actually has a pretty good sound to it.

    Maybe just because its a lot easier to say than "Indianapolis"
     
  15. edo783

    edo783 Site Contributor

    Joined:
    Apr 29, 2004
    Messages:
    7,716
    Likes Received:
    311
    Location:
    Houston, again.
    We could put another team in Greenbay! That would probably cut the wait for tickets to under 10 years!
     
  16. dan7

    dan7 Veteran

    Joined:
    Sep 3, 2004
    Messages:
    323
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    Oregon
    If I had any pull with the NFL, I'd be very reluctant to expand into Los Angeles. Fan support for the Raiders and Rams was never that great, so what makes the NFL think that an expansion team (or a transferred team) would fare any better. There are lots of things to do in Southern California during football season besides going to football games....

    The only change I would recommend would be to move the Colts to somewhere in Alabama (provided a stadium similar to Reliant Stadium could be built). :soapbox:
     
  17. swisher

    swisher Old School

    Joined:
    Apr 30, 2004
    Messages:
    1,615
    Likes Received:
    64
    Location:
    Atascocita
    Is Toronto too close to Buffalo? I don't know my Canadian geography like I should.
     
  18. texman8

    texman8 Veteran

    Joined:
    Apr 29, 2004
    Messages:
    447
    Likes Received:
    6
    Location:
    north houston
    Toronto is closer to Detroit.
     
  19. Double Barrel

    Double Barrel Modified Simian

    Joined:
    Oct 11, 2004
    Messages:
    33,490
    Likes Received:
    3,159
    Location:
    Onward, Upward, and back into the Trees
    Good point (first part) about creating markets and ensuring that kids grow up football fans. That reason alone is probably a valid one to put a team in that particular market (L.A.).

    However, we'll have to agree to disagree about the talent pool (and obviously you'll be disagreeing with the majority of ESPN football analysts, too).

    When teams are an injury or two away from going from contender to pretender because they lack depth, yes, we are very shallow in our talent pool as a league. There is not enough talent for most teams to have deep benches that can compete at the same level as their starters. This is fact, and is a keystone for the logic of "parity".

    I agree that the league has many great players, and week to week - "any given Sunday". But you can't argue with the fact that many teams suck when a key player goes down because they simply do not have the luxury of a deep bench with lots of talent. *cough*Vikings*cough*

    Adding more teams will only reinforce this trend. Don't argue with "my" logic, argue with Charlie Casserly's...he is the one that informed me on his weekly radio show! idonno:
     
  20. rittenhouserobz

    rittenhouserobz Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Apr 29, 2004
    Messages:
    1,100
    Likes Received:
    5
    Illinois only has one team. I am sure that Chicago has the population and love of the game to add a second team.
     

Share This Page