(08-01-2014 12:33 PM)EvilVodka Wrote:  

(07-30-2014 10:35 PM)Maize Wrote:  

(07-30-2014 10:17 PM)hawghiggs Wrote:  The Bills in Toronto allows them to become Canada's team. That would be a huge win for the Bill's franchise and the NFL.

The Raiders aren't leaving California IMO...at the end of the day Mark Davis will get what he wants somewhere in the Bay Area...

ya.....and the Big 10 will never expand....they are good at 11

Louisville will never be in the ACC.....

There will never be a college football playoff.....

yada yada yada....

1. Always thought the B1G would expand.

2. Maryland open the door.

3. People talked about a playoff since the 90s...

(08-01-2014 12:34 PM)Dr. Isaly von Yinzer Wrote:  I don't know how a London based team could possibly work unless an entire European division is created around it?

With just a team in London that would require a RIDICULOUS amount of travel for that team - not to mention the other teams in its division. That just doesn't work. However, if you were to put an entire division in Europe, that would mean that 11 of their 16 games would be played on the other side of the Atlantic - which is obviously much more tenable. You can keep the teams in the US for a few consecutive weeks and/or wrap them around bye weeks. I really think that's the only way this whole deal works.

It could work travel wise if the NFL re-aligns into east and west conferences and 8 or 9 team divisions. Then create a 8 team division that includes London, New England, NY, NY, Philly, Wash, Buffalo, and Miami.

(07-30-2014 08:53 PM)DaSaintFan Wrote:  A) The NFL wants two teams in LA (one AFC and one NFC). The only AFC candidates (despite posturing by the Jaguars) are the Raiders and the Chargers. Spanos has said he can wait as long as it takes to get his stadium in San Diego. That leaves the Raiders

Rumours have gone so far as to say the NFL will build the stadium in LA if that's what it takes.

B) Houston may not be opposed to it, but you can be sure that Jerry Jones is opposed to it. (despite his claims to the contrary).

C) The Alamodome is a good location for preseason and exhibition matchups, or emergency situations (see Katrina/Saints). But for a full time schedule? Ehhh.. I'm not so sure.

Jerry would care much less than you think. His games will still be on TV in San Antonio while the Texans would be the ones bumped there when there is a schedule conflict.

The people served by San Antonio TV who have always been Cowboys fans are still going to see the Cowboys and it won't be a big hit for his ticket sales but it will weaken the Texans ability to compete for fans and corporate dollars much more than the Cowboys.

(07-31-2014 02:27 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(07-31-2014 02:24 PM)BullsFanInTX Wrote:  

(07-31-2014 01:08 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(07-30-2014 09:07 PM)hawghiggs Wrote:  The Raiders need to move to San Antonio. Just like the Bills need to be moved to Toronto.

San Antonio is not a big enough market. I know it has a huge city population but once you get outside the limits it is nothing but tumbleweeds for hundreds of miles in all directions, save for Austin some 60 miles away and to the extent that Austin cares about the NFL, it's already divided up into Cowboys and Texans fans.

I just don't think SA has the suburban population to carry a franchise, especially one as ineptly run as the Raiders.

I see you are not from South Texas so have no idea. Not only do you have a 2 million metro a stone's throw away (Austin), you also have the RGV (Rio Grande Valley for those of you not from TX), an explosive growth area in south TX with over 1.3 million residents and growing rapidly. You also have Corpus Christi and Laredo, which have several hundred thousand each. All of these areas would naturally gravitate towards SA. Austin would be split among all the Texas teams.

If San Antonio is such a banging area for pro sports, why does it only have the Spurs?

I don't think I'm alone in doubting whether there is enough suburban areas to pay for an NFL team. As for Austin, I think they are spoken for, NFL-wise. Good luck prying fans away from the Cowboys and Texans.

The Saints would be there now but for the NFL squeezing them to return to New Orleans.

(08-01-2014 09:35 AM)goofus Wrote:  

(08-01-2014 08:29 AM)He1nousOne Wrote:  It was just a move meant to leverage other discussions, which is why it went public immediately.

Personally I wish the Rams would go back to LA and then St. Louis could get an expansion team and join the NFC North. Having a St. Louis team in our NFC West division makes no sense.

Perhaps the Raiders would rather be the ones to get down to LA and so they are trying to jump the gun to pressure the NFL to bring the Raiders down there as the NFL has already said, I do believe, that they will be funding the efforts to get an L.A. team again.

I could see the NFL agreeing to moving the Raiders to LA, if Davis agrees to sell the team.

As for a St louis expansion team in the NFC north, does that mean we are going to 5-team divisions when expansion comes? Does that mean 18-game seasons?

I don't know but it wouldn't surprise me if it happened. NFL content is sold at a premium right now. The NFL wants back into the LA market in a very bad way. It is rumored that they collectively want in so badly that they will all help share the costs of that venture. I think the folks of LA will want their Rams back rather than being an expansion team market. I cant see them wanting the Raiders and all the issues that will bring within the State of California.

St. Louis is a great market though for the NFL. I cant see them wanting to drop that market. So that might mean two expansion teams, one per conference.

That begs the question, what is the next market in line? I don't think the NFL wants to harm the CFL so that knocks Toronto out of the picture.

LA will be the fountain money of when it happens. The talk of two LA comes down to making the stadium more economically feasible but also to keep TV happy. Right now the NFC package is a better deal, if an NFC team moves to LA it really squirrels it up in favor of the NFC package.

I'm sure the NFL would love to get the Raiders into LA but that won't happen unless the stadium deal doesn't include shedding equity to the developer.

I don't think a move to SA is likely but it makes the best sense. Shores up an already strong NFL market with a new team, 49ers are happy to be the only game in town again.

(08-02-2014 09:59 AM)arkstfan Wrote:  LA will be the fountain money of when it happens. The talk of two LA comes down to making the stadium more economically feasible but also to keep TV happy. Right now the NFC package is a better deal, if an NFC team moves to LA it really squirrels it up in favor of the NFC package.

I'm sure the NFL would love to get the Raiders into LA but that won't happen unless the stadium deal doesn't include shedding equity to the developer.

I don't think a move to SA is likely but it makes the best sense. Shores up an already strong NFL market with a new team, 49ers are happy to be the only game in town again.

The NFC being stronger right now is just a cyclical thing. For many years the AFC was stronger with this exact same set up. The way the NFL is set up is made for creating these kind of cycles.

I don't see why the NFC being stronger right now should matter in terms of choosing whether the LA team will reside in the NFC or AFC. That is a long term decision.

My opinion comes from being in Phoenix. Having LA with the cities of San Francisco, Seattle and Phoenix makes so much more sense than putting them in the AFC East which has the likes of Denver and Kansas City in it. Yes Oakland is in that division but you are talking about Oakland being the LA team so that really doesn't help that situation. You would have Los Angeles and San Diego be in the same division. That is actually TOO close in my opinion. Better off keeping those two cities separated.

The NFL realized how big of a mistake it was to not have a Cleveland Browns team. Getting rid of the Oakland Raider brand would be on that level. So much history.

That and having St. Louis with the likes of Phoenix, San Francisco and Seattle makes no sense at all for anyone.

Nothing exciting about an NFL team in San Antonio. Besides, deep pocket Jerry Jones will make sure that NEVER happens. The Raiders are posturing for a return to LA...

(08-02-2014 10:33 AM)LSUtah Wrote:  Nothing exciting about an NFL team in San Antonio. Besides, deep pocket Jerry Jones will make sure that NEVER happens. The Raiders are posturing for a return to LA...

You have a good eye LSUtah. I have noticed that.

The fact that news of them talking to San Antonio was "leaked" just goes to show it likely was just their way of bringing to public attention the fact that there is other talk going on right now about whom to bring to LA.

LA folks are very particular and I cant see them happily opening their arms to the brand from up north where as bringing back the Rams would be bringing back their history to them. That is the kind of move that suits the massive collective ego that resides in Los Angeles.

They don't want the team that actually wants to leave it's current location. They want THEIR team back. If Cleveland can get their team back then how much of a slight would it be that Los Angeles would have to be the Los Angeles Raiders or some new name team or even.....an expansion team? Oh hell no, no way those people find that acceptable.

Sorry Mr. Davis but your Raiders are stuck in Oakland thanks to all that history you have there.

St. Louis can stomach an expansion team in return for being put in a much more geographically correct conference for them.

(08-02-2014 09:59 AM)arkstfan Wrote:  I'm sure the NFL would love to get the Raiders into LA but that won't happen unless the stadium deal doesn't include shedding equity to the developer.

I think the NFL doesn't want the Raiders in LA, especially with Billy Madison, errr, Mark Davis running the team. The Raiders have an image, particularly an image of diehards who go to the games, that doesn't fit what the NFL suits want in order to sell those expensive luxury boxes and premium seats that will make a new LA stadium such a money machine. Maybe under new ownership the franchise could make a concerted effort to give its image the polish that the suits in Manhattan want. But not under current ownership.

I suspect that the NFL wants the Chargers to be the solution to the league's LA problem. The Chargers' hurdle is that the elder Spanos doesn't want to sell all or part of the team, and that would be necessary to have the $$$ it will take to move into LA.

The Rams are another possibility because they have a billionaire owner, who can definitely afford the move to LA and a new stadium, but IIRC he lives in Missouri and his first choice would be to blackmail Missouri taxpayers into building him a free stadium there.

(08-02-2014 11:20 AM)Wedge Wrote:  

(08-02-2014 09:59 AM)arkstfan Wrote:  I'm sure the NFL would love to get the Raiders into LA but that won't happen unless the stadium deal doesn't include shedding equity to the developer.

I think the NFL doesn't want the Raiders in LA, especially with Billy Madison, errr, Mark Davis running the team. The Raiders have an image, particularly an image of diehards who go to the games, that doesn't fit what the NFL suits want in order to sell those expensive luxury boxes and premium seats that will make a new LA stadium such a money machine. Maybe under new ownership the franchise could make a concerted effort to give its image the polish that the suits in Manhattan want. But not under current ownership.

The NFL wants the Raiders in Los Angeles, they just don't want Mark Davis being the owner. Raiders brand in Los Angeles would be similar in worth to the Cowboys. You put the "Black Hole" in one area, and suits in another. Celbs and big wigs had no problem attending games at Coliseum when the Raiders were there.

(08-02-2014 10:29 AM)He1nousOne Wrote:  

(08-02-2014 09:59 AM)arkstfan Wrote:  LA will be the fountain money of when it happens. The talk of two LA comes down to making the stadium more economically feasible but also to keep TV happy. Right now the NFC package is a better deal, if an NFC team moves to LA it really squirrels it up in favor of the NFC package.

I'm sure the NFL would love to get the Raiders into LA but that won't happen unless the stadium deal doesn't include shedding equity to the developer.

I don't think a move to SA is likely but it makes the best sense. Shores up an already strong NFL market with a new team, 49ers are happy to be the only game in town again.

The NFC being stronger right now is just a cyclical thing. For many years the AFC was stronger with this exact same set up. The way the NFL is set up is made for creating these kind of cycles.

I don't see why the NFC being stronger right now should matter in terms of choosing whether the LA team will reside in the NFC or AFC. That is a long term decision.

My opinion comes from being in Phoenix. Having LA with the cities of San Francisco, Seattle and Phoenix makes so much more sense than putting them in the AFC East which has the likes of Denver and Kansas City in it. Yes Oakland is in that division but you are talking about Oakland being the LA team so that really doesn't help that situation. You would have Los Angeles and San Diego be in the same division. That is actually TOO close in my opinion. Better off keeping those two cities separated.

The NFL realized how big of a mistake it was to not have a Cleveland Browns team. Getting rid of the Oakland Raider brand would be on that level. So much history.

That and having St. Louis with the likes of Phoenix, San Francisco and Seattle makes no sense at all for anyone.

I'm not talking field of play strength.

I'm talking markets.
1. NYC NFC Giants, AFC Jets (Giants arguably more popular w/o regard to quality of play)
2. LA
3. Chicago NFC
4. Philadelphia NFC
5. DFW NFC
6. SF/Oak/San Jose NFC 49'ers and AFC Raiders
7. Boston AFC
8. Washington NFC
9. Atlanta NFC
10. Houston AFC
11. Detroit NFC
12. Phoenxi NFC
13. Seattle NFC
14. Tampa NFC
15. Minneapolis NFC

(08-02-2014 10:29 AM)He1nousOne Wrote:  

(08-02-2014 09:59 AM)arkstfan Wrote:  LA will be the fountain money of when it happens. The talk of two LA comes down to making the stadium more economically feasible but also to keep TV happy. Right now the NFC package is a better deal, if an NFC team moves to LA it really squirrels it up in favor of the NFC package.

I'm sure the NFL would love to get the Raiders into LA but that won't happen unless the stadium deal doesn't include shedding equity to the developer.

I don't think a move to SA is likely but it makes the best sense. Shores up an already strong NFL market with a new team, 49ers are happy to be the only game in town again.

The NFC being stronger right now is just a cyclical thing. For many years the AFC was stronger with this exact same set up. The way the NFL is set up is made for creating these kind of cycles.

TV market size, not strength on the field.
1. New York
3. Chicago
4. Philadelphia
5. Dallas
6. San Francisco
8. Atlanta
9. Washington
11. Detroit
12. Phoenix
13. Tampa Bay
14. Seattle
15. Minneapolis
21. St. Louis
24. Charlotte
35. Milwaukee (Green Bay)
53. New Orleans
Average NFC Market: 14

1. New York
6. Oakland
7. Boston
10. Houston
16. Miami
17. Cleveland
18. Denver
23. Pittsburgh
25. Indianapolis
26. Baltimore
28. San Diego
29. Nashville
31. Kansas City
34. Cincinnati
47. Jacksonville
51. Buffalo
Average AFC Market: 23

(08-02-2014 11:55 AM)MissouriStateBears Wrote:  

(08-02-2014 10:29 AM)He1nousOne Wrote:  

(08-02-2014 09:59 AM)arkstfan Wrote:  LA will be the fountain money of when it happens. The talk of two LA comes down to making the stadium more economically feasible but also to keep TV happy. Right now the NFC package is a better deal, if an NFC team moves to LA it really squirrels it up in favor of the NFC package.

I'm sure the NFL would love to get the Raiders into LA but that won't happen unless the stadium deal doesn't include shedding equity to the developer.

I don't think a move to SA is likely but it makes the best sense. Shores up an already strong NFL market with a new team, 49ers are happy to be the only game in town again.

The NFC being stronger right now is just a cyclical thing. For many years the AFC was stronger with this exact same set up. The way the NFL is set up is made for creating these kind of cycles.

TV market size, not strength on the field.
1. New York
3. Chicago
4. Philadelphia
5. Dallas
6. San Francisco
8. Atlanta
9. Washington
11. Detroit
12. Phoenix
13. Tampa Bay
14. Seattle
15. Minneapolis
21. St. Louis
24. Charlotte
35. Milwaukee (Green Bay)
53. New Orleans
Average NFC Market: 14

1. New York
6. Oakland
7. Boston
10. Houston
16. Miami
17. Cleveland
18. Denver
23. Pittsburgh
25. Indianapolis
26. Baltimore
28. San Diego
29. Nashville
31. Kansas City
34. Cincinnati
47. Jacksonville
51. Buffalo
Average AFC Market: 23

Take the two "shared" markets off the list, and it looks even more imbalanced. The NFC's top 5 unshared markets are #3, 4, 5, 8, and 9. The AFC's top 5 unshared markets are #7, 10, 16, 17, and 18.

If equalizing those numbers was the top consideration, the right move would be to send the Bills or Jaguars to LA.

That probably won't happen. But look how much better you could make that market-size comparison just by moving the Chargers to LA.

If the Chargers left for Los Angeles, I would venture the Raiders would pounce on the San Diego market IMO.

Guys, these aren't the days of the AFL and NFL. The AFC and NFC are all part of the same League. It doesn't truly matter if one of the conferences has larger markets in aggregate than the other. What matters more are rivalries that bring out the fans and fill the stadiums.

(08-02-2014 12:31 PM)He1nousOne Wrote:  Guys, these aren't the days of the AFL and NFL. The AFC and NFC are all part of the same League. It doesn't truly matter if one of the conferences has larger markets in aggregate than the other. What matters more are rivalries that bring out the fans and fill the stadiums.

Yes it does when CBS is paying X amount for AFC games and FOX is paying X amount for NFC games.

(08-02-2014 12:07 PM)MissouriStateBears Wrote:  If the Chargers left for Los Angeles, I would venture the Raiders would pounce on the San Diego market IMO.

Doubt it. I think the Raiders and Chargers will both end up in LA. Kill three birds (Coliseum dump, Qualcomm dump, no team in LA) with one stone.

(08-02-2014 12:48 PM)MissouriStateBears Wrote:  

(08-02-2014 12:31 PM)He1nousOne Wrote:  Guys, these aren't the days of the AFL and NFL. The AFC and NFC are all part of the same League. It doesn't truly matter if one of the conferences has larger markets in aggregate than the other. What matters more are rivalries that bring out the fans and fill the stadiums.

Yes it does when CBS is paying X amount for AFC games and FOX is paying X amount for NFC games.

but now there is zero competition because each network has their own time slot as the NFL Network takes most of the content now. They used to have to compete at every time slot and those metrics of markets mattered.

Now they matter much less.

(08-02-2014 01:12 PM)He1nousOne Wrote:  

(08-02-2014 12:48 PM)MissouriStateBears Wrote:  

(08-02-2014 12:31 PM)He1nousOne Wrote:  Guys, these aren't the days of the AFL and NFL. The AFC and NFC are all part of the same League. It doesn't truly matter if one of the conferences has larger markets in aggregate than the other. What matters more are rivalries that bring out the fans and fill the stadiums.

Yes it does when CBS is paying X amount for AFC games and FOX is paying X amount for NFC games.

but now there is zero competition because each network has their own time slot as the NFL Network takes most of the content now. They used to have to compete at every time slot and those metrics of markets mattered.

Now they matter much less.

If you look at the Fox package there are four teams outside the top 15 markets.

21. St. Louis
24. Charlotte
35. Milwaukee (Green Bay)
53. New Orleans

Only two of them can moved without impacting national interest (and Green Bay isn't movable anyway because of the ownership structure which is why current NFL rules prohibit any of them going to that structure). New Orleans has it's own odd little national following.

If you look at the AFC.
16. Miami
17. Cleveland
18. Denver
23. Pittsburgh
25. Indianapolis
26. Baltimore
28. San Diego
29. Nashville
31. Kansas City
34. Cincinnati
47. Jacksonville
51. Buffalo

Denver, Pittsburgh can't move without impacting national interest and arguably true of Cleveland and Baltimore because of their past.

Far more to gain moving an AFC team than an NFC to LA. Fox gains by percentage much less in viewership and therefore less to pay for than what CBS can gain.