As I figured, NOBODY is interested in moving their team. This should offically kill all LA rumors.
QuoteGoodell: NFL would probably expand to 34 if L.A. gets new team
Associated Press
Published: Feb. 2, 2012 at 11:55 p.m. Updated: Feb. 3, 2012 at 12:08 a.m.
Liked: 0 | Comments: 34
Email Print
Read Discuss
INDIANAPOLIS -- Commissioner Roger Goodell says if the NFL puts a team in Los Angeles, it is probable the league would expand to 34 franchises.
Appearing Thursday night on "Costas Live" on NBC Sports Network, Goodell said the league "doesn't want to move any of our teams." He said if a suitable stadium is built in the Los Angeles area, "we probably don't want to go to 33" teams by adding just one new club. Instead, the league would consider adding two. An odd number of teams would pose scheduling problems.
There has been speculation that an L.A. stadium could house two NFL franchises, although Goodell did not address that.
Goodell says there are several issues that must be solved in L.A., particularly which of two current stadium proposals is best. He didn't suggest any timetable for the league returning to Southern California.
Copyright 2012 by The Associated Press
The NFL welcomes the 'Los Angeles Tar Pits' and the 'San Antonio Saguaros' as the 33rd and 34th franchises....
Quote from: I-10east on February 03, 2012, 01:22:49 AM
The NFL welcomes the 'Los Angeles Tar Pits' and the 'San Antonio Saguaros' as the 33rd and 34th franchises....
Now Now I-10 be nice. ;D
Quote from: I-10east on February 03, 2012, 01:22:49 AM
The NFL welcomes the 'Los Angeles Tar Pits' and the 'San Antonio Saguaros' as the 33rd and 34th franchises....
So we'll have 16 AFC teams, 16 NFC teams and 2 MFC teams. Ole!
I have heard people saying London would be the other team. I just dont know how that would work logistically. How many trips would they have to make across the Atlantic, sounds rough.
Quote from: duvaldude08 on February 03, 2012, 01:42:26 AM
Quote from: I-10east on February 03, 2012, 01:22:49 AM
The NFL welcomes the 'Los Angeles Tar Pits' and the 'San Antonio Saguaros' as the 33rd and 34th franchises....
Now Now I-10 be nice. ;D
Yeah, that's not very considerate to tar pits at all, linking them to Los Angeles like that.
Goodell is a smart guy. He knows he does not want to lose a market like Jacksonville, St Louis or Minnesota. The NFL is the only league that could support expansion. L.A. is a given but I have never been keen on London. FSUJAX makes the point about logistics and it would be a nightmare for the players on their team.
Oklahoma City has to be considered a serious candidate. Jerry Jones would fight like hell to keep a team out of San Antonio. And the Alamodone is too outdated for a team anyway.
I really don't think that having two teams in LA is the way to go. I know the market has enough people to theoretically support two teams but in reality, I don't think both teams would get support. Its not like there hasn't been teams in LA before.
As for London, I'm with fsujax, I don't think it is good to require teams to do that amount of travel. Plus, they already had NFL Europe and it didn't last for various reasons.
I'm just glad that they're talking about expanding rather than moving teams. That bodes well for the future of the Jags.
I agree with yall that London shouldn't get a NFL team. There is some talk about LA getting both of the expansion teams; I hope that doesn't happen, that would be way too much newness for one city; Regardless of how big LA is, let them prove that they can hang on to one team, and give another market a shot.
Quote from: fsujax on February 03, 2012, 08:09:32 AM
I have heard people saying London would be the other team. I just dont know how that would work logistically. How many trips would they have to make across the Atlantic, sounds rough.
The time differences alone would present a major problem.
Our traditional 1:00 Sunday game would take place at 6:00 PM in London, the 4:30 game would take place at 9:30, and it would be practically impossible for a prime time game to ever be played in London because kickoff wouldn't be until 2:00 AM their time.
For Team 34, I actually really like Portland.
They've been huge supporters of their NBA and MLS teams, and I think the NFL would be a good fit there.
Vancouver would be a decent option as well.
Overall though, I just really hopes this ends -- once and for all -- the LA black cloud that has hung over the franchise for the last few years.
Cline, you beat me by seconds on that 'two teams in LA' thing, I totally agree that shouldn't happen.
Quote from: cline on February 03, 2012, 09:10:21 AM
I'm just glad that they're talking about expanding rather than moving teams. That bodes well for the future of the Jags.
I'm not gonna lie and say, 'I never bought into the Jags moving to LA' thing because it was scary in 09' when Weaver complained about the ticket sales (One of the few things that I really disagreed with Weaver about esp with a 5-11 team in a bad economy) and Goodell addressed Jax's blackouts etc, but lately (2010 on, with sellouts and all) I didn't buy into that Jags to LA crap. That news definitely bodes well for my blood pressure, with all of that incessant never ending 'move-a-phobia' as Shad Khan put it.
Expansion's not just demographics, it's about who has a stadium and the capacity to build one. Portland and Oklahoma City would need to build stadia in order to have a chance of attracting a team. I'm not sure OKC could support a second pro franchise, though they get secondary market support for the Thunder from Tulsa, and I say that as a fan of Oklahoma and Oklahomans. I don't think the Sooners' stadium is NFL-caliber. The Cowboys have an established hold on Oklahoman fans as well; OKC is only three hours from Dallas. Portland is something of a secondary market for the Seahawks and while I'm sure the city could support another pro franchise, I doubt that an NFL stadium is something Portland would want to spend on.
I really don't think a San Antonio team would fly. The vast majority of Texas is deeply in love with the Cowboys, San Antonio is not that rich of a market and already has a pro team, and I don't think Austin would necessarily support a San Antonio pro franchise when it may have its own aspirations for one. And the Alamodome, while not much older than EverBank and many other NFL stadia, is probably below NFL standards in terms of amenities. I know that in the 1993 expansion race, San Antonio was one of the cities that didn't make the final cut because the NFL didn't believe it could sell out the Alamodome consistently. I think to make it work you might have to build a whole new stadium somewhere halfway between San Antonio and Austin, like San Marcos, and give Austin some sense of the team being its team too.
What about Salt Lake City?
Quote from: Doctor_K on February 03, 2012, 09:34:25 AM
What about Salt Lake City?
Good economic demographics but no NFL-grade stadium, and from my one visit there it seems to be loaded with people who are already loyal to either the 49ers or the Broncos.
I'd say Birmingham could work if Legion Field didn't have the remaining structural rigidity of a Tinkertoy set.
From a local media standpoint, it seems like ticket sales and blackout speculation has been the major story about the Jags for the last three seasons. I really hope Goodell's statement swings the media focus back onto what actually happens on the field. I also think that if citizens believe the team is staying put, attendance and support should increase as well.
Really missing Jags football already.
Gonna be a long 6 months.
Make no mistakes about it, ANY NFL expansion team would need a new stadium. I can't think of one city that's ready to go with a suitable stadium that's already in place. I agree with yall that San Anton definitely has it's work cut out for them esp with Jerry, and the strong Cowboy region and all. I wonder what's the timeline (roughly) for the two teams to come into existense?
L.A. Nomads (because they will move after that unencouragable market gives up in 10 years)
I guess call me the stick in the mud on this one. I don't want the NFL to expand to any more teams.
If it ain't broken, keep fixing it until it is? Right now the set-up is about as perfect as you can get: 2 Divisions, 4 Conferences each Division, 4 teams each conference.
Personally, LA doesn't deserve another team and they shouldn't even be in the discussion until AFTER the stadium is built. The majority of the other NFL cities had the infrastructure in place before attempting to acquire a team and LA shouldn't be any different. I mean, the however many millions of TVs that the market already has, are you saying that because they don't have their own team, they don't watch the NFL?
I'm OK with the 1 game a year in London. I'm fine with a game or 2 in Toronto to help keep the Bills in Buffalo. I would be fine with a game in Mexico City, Munich, Rome, Bejing, Pakistan, Cairo, Perth, Singapore - I don't care if each team has 1 home game in another country every other year to expand the brand, but I don't want to expand the number of teams.
^^^I can't disagree with yall, I never said that I like the idea of expanding two teams, I guess the reason I didn't react to it was the relief from Jags 'move-a-phobia' talk. I would like to know what timeframe is Goodell talking about; For all we know it could happen 2020.
While I was posting something on BCC, this thought popped in my head - If we're discussing adding two more teams, the logistics as is don't make much sense. If we added two team and expanded to 18 regular season games, then that allows each team an extra game to play the added teams.
Hmmmmmm.
I agree with the fact that LA doesn't really deserve another shot at an NFL team. However, the NFL views it as a cash cow that is just waiting to be milked. There is way too many people in that market to ignore it in the NFL's eyes.
Quote from: I-10east on February 03, 2012, 09:25:39 AM
Cline, you beat me by seconds on that 'two teams in LA' thing, I totally agree that shouldn't happen.
Quote from: cline on February 03, 2012, 09:10:21 AM
I'm just glad that they're talking about expanding rather than moving teams. That bodes well for the future of the Jags.
I'm not gonna lie and say, 'I never bought into the Jags moving to LA' thing because it was scary in 09' when Weaver complained about the ticket sales (One of the few things that I really disagreed with Weaver about esp with a 5-11 team in a bad economy) and Goodell addressed Jax's blackouts etc, but lately (2010 on, with sellouts and all) I didn't buy into that Jags to LA crap. That news definitely bodes well for my blood pressure, with all of that incessant never ending 'move-a-phobia' as Shad Khan put it.
Well when Goodell talk to us about blackouts that the didnt bother me, but he went to Oakland and gave them the same speech. And last season he gave Tampa the same talk. But at the end of the day, I dont think he's really pushing for a team in LA. He has already shot down both of their proposals. But I will say this, Goodell is kool with Jacksonville. Hell he actually gave WW advice and pointers to help get a team in Jacksonville during the expansion race.
Im not sure if anyone noticed, but the NFL has a " new stadium fund" now. ( part of the new CBA) They are loaning the 49er's 200 million to help build their stadium. I think this is a great idea. Because honestly, as bad as the economy is, getting a publicly funded stadium has a fat chance of passing with most cities. And being that the NFL is the one requiring these stadiums, they SHOULD help with some of the cost.
I'm not really up to date on NFL stadium requirements.
Is Everbank good for another decade or so?
I'm cool with the NFL expanding, as due to their monopoly over professional football, it's literally the only way cities that want a team could get one short of stealing someone else's. It's pretty silly to think that this league and this sport couldn't support more teams.
As for where they go, LA is clearly the obvious choice for one; the second one will depend on whoever wants to build a stadium. This will be an interesting expansion round, as for the first time ever, other than LA, there will be no more "old NFL cities" - every other city that has ever had an NFL team since 1950 has one today.
I doubt they'd ever put two entirely new franchises in LA - they'd basically be cannibalizing each other for fan loyalties. And the London thing has always seemed like a stretch. I expect we'll hear rumors about the usual suspects - San Antonio, Vegas, Toronto - but it would really come down to who put together the money for a stadium.
Quote from: Tacachale on February 03, 2012, 12:06:55 PM
I expect we'll hear rumors about the usual suspects - San Antonio, Vegas, Toronto - but it would really come down to who put together the money for a stadium.
That's for sure. The Alamodome is closest of the 3 to a real NFL stadium, but it still doesn't quite work. Toronto only seats 50,000 and I think Sam Boyd in Vegas is even less.
Quote from: KenFSU on February 03, 2012, 11:53:49 AM
I'm not really up to date on NFL stadium requirements.
Is Everbank good for another decade or so?
I think with occasional upgrades to things like the sound system, we could wring well over another 10 years out of it. Vic Ketchman suggested a few times that it ought to survive until the end of our lease term.
Of course, it's not always necessary to build a new stadium either; you can go the substantial-upgrade route like Soldier Field and Arrowhead did.
Quote from: KenFSU on February 03, 2012, 11:53:49 AM
I'm not really up to date on NFL stadium requirements.
Is Everbank good for another decade or so?
There's literally no way to know. Sports stadium "needs" and "requirements" are decided by voodoo magic made possible by corporate sports monopolies that receive vast public subsidies to operate as they do.
Some stadiums last a really long time; others start getting called "obsolete" after only about 30 years or so. This is often determined by when contracts come to an end (rather than when a stadium is actually obsolete) as well as whether there are other cities willing to shell out money of their own to attract one of the artificially limited number of sports teams.
FWIW EverBank Field is probably a ways away from acquiring the "aging stadium" black mark. Expect this to become big news as we approach the end of the Jaguars' contract.
Now Goddell says that he has no plans to expand any teams in the foreseeable future. Well, the mandatory 'Big Bad Bully' that is Los Angeles was tamed for one day, now it's back to steal 1/4 of the teams in the NFL with stadium issues, and attendance problems. The Jags aren't going anywhere, so I'm not worried about it. That gliding vulture (LA) is looking to swoop down and prey on some carrion. The Big Bad Bully (unfortunately) is back! Sometimes I get a lil' chuckle outta LA being this overhanging cloud that looms over the weak, and my Jags are NOT weak, NOWAYLA!!!
^To me, that is what sucks most about the monopoly. It plays the cities off each other by artificially restricting the number of teams. If they chose not to expand, there's literally no way a city can get a team besides stealing someone else's. There aren't even any real (stable) minor leagues beyond arena football, which is really an entirely different sport. It's not a matter of who "can" support a team, it's a matter of who the monopoly allows.
Quote from: I-10east on February 03, 2012, 01:22:49 AM
The NFL welcomes the 'Los Angeles Tar Pits' and the 'San Antonio Saguaros' as the 33rd and 34th franchises....
Nope, Saguaro's are not native to the Chihuahuan Desert of west Texas. The saguaro cactus (Carnegiea gigantea) is one of the defining plants of the Sonoran Desert, IE: The State's of Sonora, and Arizona. Saguaros are found exclusively in the Sonoran Desert, think Phoenix. LOL
While I know that San Antonio has long dreamed of a team, Texas already has 2 well supported teams. If the NFL really desires to sell out stadiums I'd suggest someplace like Oklahoma City, Salt Lake City, etc.. When your the only game in the territory you get a lot more attention.
OCKLAWAHA
^^^Haha, I knew that someone was gonna go there concerning the saguaros. You're right Ock, although to the average American, all over the Southwestern US is filled with tall Saguaros LOL. I saw one HUGE saguaro at Phoenix's airport just outside of the glass. Although you can play that 'non-indigenous' game with just about every team; Look no further than the Jacksonville Jaguars; The worst gotta be the Utah Jazz, which of course was the New Orleans Jazz.
Quote from: Wacca Pilatka on February 03, 2012, 12:24:37 PM
Quote from: KenFSU on February 03, 2012, 11:53:49 AM
I'm not really up to date on NFL stadium requirements.
Is Everbank good for another decade or so?
I think with occasional upgrades to things like the sound system, we could wring well over another 10 years out of it. Vic Ketchman suggested a few times that it ought to survive until the end of our lease term.
Of course, it's not always necessary to build a new stadium either; you can go the substantial-upgrade route like Soldier Field and Arrowhead did.
I think as long as we continue to keep the stadium up to date, we will be fine. Its already been renovated twice since its exsistance, and Khan also has his plans in mind. Luckily, the new CBA has the "new stadium fund", so all would not be lost if we had to address the stadium issue in the next 20 years.
Quote from: I-10east on February 04, 2012, 09:44:38 AM
^^^Haha, I knew that someone was gonna go there concerning the saguaros. You're right Ock, although to the average American, all over the Southwestern US is filled with tall Saguaros LOL. I saw one HUGE saguaro at Phoenix's airport just outside of the glass. Although you can play that 'non-indigenous' game with just about every team; Look no further than the Jacksonville Jaguars; The worst gotta be the Utah Jazz, which of course was the New Orleans Jazz.
Your right I-10east, but did you know Jacksonville DOES have a unique Jaguar connection? Way back in the dawn of the 20Th century, movie makers in Jacksonville were filming a jungle movie and needed a Jaguar. More movies = more animals. BINGO! We were on our way to having a municipal zoo. What turned out to be our little pair of Jaguars are largely considered today the grand parents of virtually EVERY Jaguar in zoo's throughout the nation. Jacksonville really was/is Jaguar Central.
Quote from: Ocklawaha on February 04, 2012, 10:55:10 AM
Your right I-10east, but did you know Jacksonville DOES have a unique Jaguar connection? Way back in the dawn of the 20Th century, movie makers in Jacksonville were filming a jungle movie and needed a Jaguar. More movies = more animals. BINGO! We were on our way to having a municipal zoo. What turned out to be our little pair of Jaguars are largely considered today the grand parents of virtually EVERY Jaguar in zoo's throughout the nation. Jacksonville really was/is Jaguar Central.
There was one male black jaguar in particular who was the father to many black jaguars in zoos around the country but I can't remember his name (I think it started with a Z). The black and tawny jaguars at the zoo really are impressive to see, and it's only fitting that the Weaver Foundation paid for such a remarkable habitat for them.
LA will obviously get one team.
San Antonio could support a team, the Roadrunners of UTSA just finished up their first year of football (they'll move up to D-I next year) but their first home game there were 56,000 people, and they averaged 35,000+ plus all year. This was a 4-6 team. Will San Antonio get a team? I dont think so because the Cowboys have a huge footprint in the city, and do training camp at the Alamodome also.
Las Vegas still doesnt have any pro sports teams because every commissioner ever has been worried with the legal gambling aspect there.
Salt Lake City, Portland, Omaha, Norfolk/Hampton Roads Area, any other guesses?
I like the idea of new teams going to either Texas or Florida, in addition to L.A. Look at the population shifts taking a large part of the decision.
well if pop. shift is the key, then Salt Lake City would make more sense than another team in Florida
Quote from: mtraininjax on February 05, 2012, 08:35:35 PM
I like the idea of new teams going to either Texas or Florida, in addition to L.A. Look at the population shifts taking a large part of the decision.
Las Vegas, San Antonio, Salt Lake City, Portland, Omaha, Norfolk/Hampton Roads Area, Memphis, Birmingham. But knowing the history of the league, they'll probably put a team in Los Angeles, and another Santa Ana! Looking at the possibles....
Las Vegas - WISE GUYS
San Antonio - They'd better watch Austin
Salt Lake City - A team with divine gifts?
Portland - You better plan on a dome, or they have to develop uniforms with pop-up umbrellas.
Omaha - The Butchers? Would they plan in "The Slaughterhouse?" Dream on... not a chance.
Oklahoma City - ANYTHING YOU WANT TO CALL THEM BUT ANOTHER BUNCH OF DAMN SOONERS! (GO OSU!)
Norfolk - You really wouldn't like the name the Navy has for it....
Memphis - They're trying to settle a score with Nashville
Birmingham - This one could easily be a sleeper, better watch the back door as Bama LOVES football.
I agree with mtrainjax, if the league has any sense of logic, my money is on Booger Hollow Arkansas, unless Chigger Hollow gets their first.
Quote from: tufsu1 on February 05, 2012, 10:24:14 PM
well if pop. shift is the key, then Salt Lake City would make more sense than another team in Florida
Yeah Florida can not support another team. We are struggling to support the three we have already.
Quote from: Nightman_Cometh on February 04, 2012, 03:25:59 PM
LA will obviously get one team.
San Antonio could support a team, the Roadrunners of UTSA just finished up their first year of football (they'll move up to D-I next year) but their first home game there were 56,000 people, and they averaged 35,000+ plus all year. This was a 4-6 team. Will San Antonio get a team? I dont think so because the Cowboys have a huge footprint in the city, and do training camp at the Alamodome also.
Las Vegas still doesnt have any pro sports teams because every commissioner ever has been worried with the legal gambling aspect there.
Salt Lake City, Portland, Omaha, Norfolk/Hampton Roads Area, any other guesses?
I like the profile name.
I live in Hampton Roads, and while we have the population to support a pro team I just don't see it happening. Having a huge body of water cutting the area in two is one major obstacle - if there's a substantial event on the other side of the water, the traffic jams are endless. The other is that the cities here are highly competitive with each other and I just can't see them ever agreeing on where to construct an arena or stadium.
Sacramento, Louisville?
Quote from: thelakelander on February 06, 2012, 09:06:43 AM
Sacramento, Louisville?
I was thinking about those too, Sacramento would be a ideal location for a team but if the Oakland Nomads stay put that would mean having 3 teams very close together, Oakland, San Francisco, Sacramento. So I doubt Sacramento would get the nod.
Louisville is a whole different idea, assuming their metro, just a tad smaller then ours, could support the team. There is something gladiatorial about "my city - vs - your city" in the NFL. So putting a team in a State without a team... Utah, Kentucky, Oregon, gives ownership to everyone in the state.
Quote from: Ocklawaha on February 05, 2012, 10:36:23 PM
Las Vegas - WISE GUYS
or how bout the Las Vegas Pit Bosses. Maybe that's too shysty sounding. :)
LV sounds like an obvious choice with it's growth and all, but all of that red tape with the state concerning the gambling seems to hold them back from getting a pro team.
London
Louisville has the capacity to support a pro team, I'm sure, but I don't think it's ever pursued the NFL seriously the way it has the NBA. Louisville really got shafted with respect to the Colonels of the ABA, who should have been admitted to the NBA in 1976; and probably would have been a better site than New Orleans for the Hornets' relocation. KFC had expressed willingness to sponsor a new NBA arena there under the name "The Bucket." A stadium is another story, and I think much of Kentucky supports the Bengals already.
Sacramento went after the NFL before, but was cut in the opening credits of the 1993 expansion race. Proximity to Oakland and San Francisco seems to kill its prospects, and the city hasn't been willing to pony up for an arena upgrade to keep the Kings from moving to Anaheim. I'm not sure if it would be willing to pay for an NFL stadium.
^^^If the SAC Kings move to Anaheim, a coupla years later, the city's name probably wouldn't be marketable enough, so it would change the name to the LA (basketball) Kings not to be confused with the LA (hockey) Kings. :) IMO if the Kings leave Sacramento, it would make more sense to move them to Seattle, than for LA to have three NBA teams in that area. Alotta people don't know that Sac Town is the nation's 20th TV market, although, the only reason why it's so big because it's proximity to San Fran on Oakland. That goes to show, TV markets in comparsion with the a city's size are often misleading. If it wasn't for SF and OAK, SAC would be around the JAX(47th) TV market range.
Were this to happen, it would be a very interesting expansion period, because for the first time the NFL's supply of franchises might actually approach the demand for them. Other than LA, there are no more "old NFL cities" who have lost a team and want one back - it's unlikely there would be many more cities willing to shell out stupid amounts of money on stadiums. It might be a bit of a stabilizer. It really would be a contest of who among several decent-but-not-overwhelmingly-obvious markets would be willing to construct a stadium.
For my money, the one that makes the most sense is San Antonio. Big, fast growing city, strong football culture. Vegas would be a good market, but it's hard to see the NFL trying that experiment first. Sacramento could also be good, but I highly doubt anyone in California will be convinced to put any public money into a new stadium, especially when the state would have 4 NFL teams at that point. Toronto would be a major gain for the NFL, but it would likely be at the expense of wiping out the CFL. There'd be local resistance, to say the least. I don't see the league going into any more small markets like SLC, Oklahoma City, or Louisville - especially if there's already another major league sport in town - though stranger things have happened.
Birmingham-hick naw, Memphis-possibly, Portland-could happen.