Keep Texans Talk Google Ad Free!
Venmo Tip Jar | Paypal Tip Jar
Thanks for your support! 🍺😎👍

L.A. and Expansion

Hervoyel

Hervoyel

BUENO!
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.
 
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.
 
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:
 
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.
 
*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. :(
 
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.
 
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.
 
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.
 
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.
 
WWJD said:
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.
Click to expand...
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:
 
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.
 
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.
 
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.
 
"Los Angeles Colts" actually has a pretty good sound to it.

Maybe just because its a lot easier to say than "Indianapolis"
 
We could put another team in Greenbay! That would probably cut the wait for tickets to under 10 years!
 
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:
 
Vinny said:
They won't expand. They will move an existing team to a massive market that is growing up without the NFL. Frankly, in my opinion it would be very foolish of the NFL to not try to do everything it takes to put and keep a team in this market, even if they have to force it in and watch it grow painfully. The less interest the league has with the people growing up in this region the less stable this league becomes over the years. The NFL needs LA more than LA needs the NFL. A football team in a metropolitan area that large is vital to the interests of the NFL over the long haul imo. In marketing terms I'd consider it a loss-leader.

Lack of talent? I'm not watching the same league you are then. This is a wildly talented league and every team has enough talent to beat the beat the best teams in the league on any given week. Just look at us, we are a three year expansion team and we are loaded.
Click to expand...

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:
 
SassyTexan said:
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:
Click to expand...

Illinois only has one team. I am sure that Chicago has the population and love of the game to add a second team.
 
From 2000.. location of all the teams before the Texans:

sportsfb2.jpg
 
The Saints and Cardinals are in line for new stadiums. I think the building has already begun on the Cardinals stadium so they won't be going. The Saints I am not sure of.

I hate the way these teams move. It's very unfair to their fan base.
 
Double Barrel said:
... 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*:
Click to expand...
IMO the problem isn't the talent pool, but the roster restrictions. If the collective bargaining agreement allowed larger rosters, then teams would better be able to absorb injuries. The problem is the owners would rather pay the practice squad players less than the league minimum.
 
If I were the NFL, I would:

a) award 2 new NFL expansion franchises to LA (1 in AFC, 1 in NFC);
b) charge somewhere between McNair's price and 1 billion (each existing franchise gets a write-up on the value of their franchise - the new value of an NFL franchise is...);
c) use the franchise fees of the 2 new franchises to build a stadium in LA owned by the existing owners, (the owners don't need the cash, just the write-up) to be used on alternate weekends by the two franchises (2 sets of PSLs etc.);
d) each team in each conference would play 16 games, 1 against each team in their conference, alternating home and away each year (the Texans would play in L.A. and N.Y., etc. every other year - every AFC player would play in Reliant Stadium every other year);
e) I would hold the 2nd Thanksgiving game in L.A. each year, alternating the host team between the 2 L.A. teams 9 (a plum to sell the franchises)

No need to offer a Superbowl, because the Municipality isn't in the play.
 
I just heard a little news blurb on 610 that said that the commish Paul Taglibue (sp?) said that with the Colts getting a new stadium deal done that the Saints are now the most likely team to move to LA.

I'm hoping he's just blabbering. I like the Saints right where they are.
 
SassyTexan said:
From 2000.. location of all the teams before the Texans:

sportsfb2.jpg
Click to expand...

Montana and the Dakota's look empty and dotless. Give them a team.
 
If a team does move to Montana, I have the perfect team name in mind.

The Joe Montanas :dance:
 
Remember Al Davis still claims Los Angelas as Raider territory and wants to move the Raiders back there. His lease with Oakland ends in 2010 and he hates the city of Oakland (politics). And the mayor of Oakland is not a sports guy, and has no intention of going out of his way to keep the Raiders.
 
TheTim5125 said:
What about portland.. idk just a thought.
Click to expand...

Not enough people (the Portland metro area only has a population of around 2 million) and not enough companies to rent luxury suites.
 
dan7 said:
Not enough people (the Portland metro area only has a population of around 2 million) and not enough companies to rent luxury suites.
Click to expand...

The "not enough companies" I could see as a problem. The actual population of the Portland metro area I don't think would be. I mean, if Jacksonville can get an NFL franchise with their 735,000 or so people (that a guesstimate based on what Wikipedia says) then I'd think just about any reasonably sized city could get one if they also had the will to build a stadium and enough companies to sell luxury suites to.
 
MarleyFan said:
Remember Al Davis still claims Los Angelas as Raider territory and wants to move the Raiders back there. His lease with Oakland ends in 2010 and he hates the city of Oakland (politics). And the mayor of Oakland is not a sports guy, and has no intention of going out of his way to keep the Raiders.
Click to expand...


Do you think Davis will be around in 2010? He's like what, 134? He kinda reminds me of Mr. Burns. The Raiders in LA again? "Excellent!"
 
swisher said:
Do you think Davis will be around in 2010? He's like what, 134? He kinda reminds me of Mr. Burns. The Raiders in LA again? "Excellent!"
Click to expand...

That's funny. My dad always said he thought Al Davis looked like an old stag film director or one of those guys who stands outside of the topless bar trying to get people to come in and see the show. He gives off this sleazball vibe.

I think he'd also make a pretty good used car salesman.
 
haha...al davis is one of those guys who probably should have died back in his 20's due to his reckless life style but will end up seeing the age of a 120 or something silly like that...as for the raiders moving back to L.A. i can see it happening but the commish wants a team in L.A. like yesterday...he hates not having a L.A. franchise and he'll make sure he has his franchise there by 2006 mark my words
 
Read in Chronicle that Jags had 10,000+ seats still available for Texans' game this Sunday. Also, most of their games have gone black for local telecast. They have to bring in cruise ships for their Super Bowl.
 
keyfro said:
the commish wants a team in L.A. like yesterday...he hates not having a L.A. franchise and he'll make sure he has his franchise there by 2006 mark my words
Click to expand...

On this I think you've hit the nail on the head. Tags "big deal" when he's done will be "Brought the NFL back to Los Angeles". Pete Rozelle is guy who made the NFL what it is today. A lot of that had to do with Rozelle being brilliant and a lot of that had to do with him being in the right place at the right time. Paul Tagliabue has been a pretty good commissioner but he's always been (and always will be) the guy who followed Rozelle. I can't really say if he's thought far enough ahead to consider his legacy but if he has then he must see that he's basically the guy who presided over the free agent franchise era. As that's moved to an (at least temporary) end he seems to have been working hard to put things right again. Getting that team for L.A. is probably what he sees as things being relatively back to normal.
 
gwallaia said:
Montana and the Dakota's look empty and dotless. Give them a team.
Click to expand...

Most areas in Montana and the Dakotas don't have a population to fill a classroom let alone an NFL stadium. Have met quite a few people from those areas and one of the questions that always comes up is population, which is something they just really don't have.
 
After having lived in Alabama for a couple years before moving back to TX, I could see a very good argument being made for Birmingham to score a franchise. I can assure that the fan base would be there and I belive that the intrest in college ball (ie. Bama and Auburn) would probably be a benefit much like our intrest in the college game feeds into our support of the pro teams in TX.

I think that the Raiders could bounce back to LA and all would be well. Fact is most folks in LA still think the Raiders are their team anyway. I am not a fan of moving history steeped franchises either so I would vote down the Vikings and Saint's moving. As for the Colts...I'm somewhat indifferent. I think geographically they are in a good spot and they have obvious fan support. As long as their stadium deal goes thru (hopefully they get rid of the turf and go with grass) they will probably stay put.
 
Txn_in_VA said:
Most areas in Montana and the Dakotas don't have a population to fill a classroom let alone an NFL stadium. Have met quite a few people from those areas and one of the questions that always comes up is population, which is something they just really don't have.
Click to expand...

I think I read somewhere, that the Texas Medical Center employs a greater number of people than the entire population of Montana.
 
IMO..If any team should move, San Fran should move to L.A., the owner York is in it for $$ not glory, I dont think the Saints will move, La. Football is way to big to lose thier franchise and it would be a bigger mistake than moving Oakland there.
Los Angeles and NFL do not go together, its been proven
 
I think the talent pool for the NFL is large. I think the issue with lack of depth has to do with the salary cap. Teams cannot afford to spend cap money on backups for every position. The cap just doesn't allow for that. So what happens is that the older marginal players get squeezed out (are forced to retire) and are replaced with more affordable draftees and unrestrictred free agents.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top