U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > U.S. Forums > General U.S.
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 01-27-2010, 06:52 AM
 
21,182 posts, read 30,343,833 times
Reputation: 19590

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by DeaconJ View Post
I'm not sure what is meant by "deserves"...if it means how many teams can a state "support", with CA's population I would think it could successfully have five teams.

LA evidently can't support one team, so what is left? The Bay Area already has two teams, and San Diego has one. So that leaves Sacramento as the only other possible alternative.

One has to think the NFL would go with San Antonio or Salt Lake City if they don't try to force feed another failed endeavor in LA. Oklahoma City could be an outside shot with the right ownership group and given the success of the NBA franchise. Also one has to wonder about Raleigh. The area is rich in sports attendance and disposable income. The demographic is there and one can't make the argument that it would dilute the Panthers market. It's two different cultures.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 01-27-2010, 07:18 AM
JJG
 
Location: Fort Worth
13,247 posts, read 19,171,479 times
Reputation: 7005
Quote:
Originally Posted by Drover View Post
They couldn't sustain the two they had. Hell, they couldn't sustain one.
They had THREE.... don't forget, the Chargers were there back in '60.


And no one is saying that L.A. can't have a team. We're saying it seems like they just don't want one. I know people from L.A. who say they don't even need an NFL team. It just seems like they don't care, and what's the point of placing a team in a city that doesn't seem to want one?
From a money stand point, it does seem wrong not to have a team in the second largest market, but from a football fan's stand, it's wrong to give a team to a city that had more chances than any other town in America, and let them all go. It just doesn't seem fair.....


And San Antonio should get a team waaaaaaay before Utah can even think of getting one.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-27-2010, 11:24 AM
 
Location: Avondale, Chicago
14,411 posts, read 26,229,960 times
Reputation: 9443
What were all these "chances?" The Rams had been in the LA market for almost 50 years, which is longer than most NFL cities have had franchises. They were there before they even had major league baseball. I wouldn't even count the Raiders. They're kind of like a band of wandering mercenaries anyway. The stadium problem is in part because land in Southern California has become ridiculously expensive. If a modest sized house is commanding $500,000 in large part because of the dirt it sits on, then what do you suppose a football stadium with parking is going to run? It's not a coincidence either that the Chargers, Raiders and 49ers are all still playing in older stadiums built before the real estate market went out of whack.

Unless maybe it was the Saints, which probably isn't happening, I don't see San Antonio working out. First of all, same problem as LA - they don't have a stadium. The Alamodome is not an NFL-worthy venue, although it was serviceable as a stop-gap measure in '05 for the Saints. Building one hoping for a team to move there has already been done and met with failure. It's because it's going to be a difficult market, despite all you've heard about Texas being all about football. Look how much the Houston Texans have struggled just to wrest Houston from Cowboys loyalty. It'll be even worse in SA with a smaller market. At least the Texans can play to Houstonians who hate all things Dallas.

Salt Lake City is a stretch. Filling an NFL or MLB stadium is not the same as filling a basketball arena. The Packers do it, but they have a tradition a Utah team wouldn't have and Green Bay also has a larger city not too terribly far south. But on the other hand, they only have to fill that stadium eight times a year.

If not LA, then Toronto. Seriously. I could even see them supporting both an NFL franchise and the Argonauts at the same time. Probably the only city in Canada that could pull it off.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-27-2010, 11:28 AM
 
Location: Chicago
38,690 posts, read 89,169,700 times
Reputation: 29451
Quote:
Originally Posted by kyle19125 View Post
LA evidently can't support one team, so what is left? The Bay Area already has two teams, and San Diego has one. So that leaves Sacramento as the only other possible alternative.

One has to think the NFL would go with San Antonio or Salt Lake City if they don't try to force feed another failed endeavor in LA. Oklahoma City could be an outside shot with the right ownership group and given the success of the NBA franchise. Also one has to wonder about Raleigh. The area is rich in sports attendance and disposable income. The demographic is there and one can't make the argument that it would dilute the Panthers market. It's two different cultures.
Sports fandom crosses cultural boundaries, and a team in Raleigh absolutely would dilute the Panthers market -- or more likely, the Panthers would dilute their market because the Panthers would be the team more likely to survive. Realistically, the Panthers' market isn't just Charlotte but basically all of North Carolina, and those portions of South Carolina that weren't already entrenched Falcons territory. They wouldn't make it on Charlotte alone, just as there's no way in hell the Packers would make it on the Green Bay market alone, so they have successfully marketed themselves as the representative team for all of Wisconsin. Similarly, the Panthers have conspicuously sought to capture the market well beyond Charlotte by calling themselves the Carolina Panthers instead of the Charlotte Panthers. There's just no way NC could support two teams.

Last edited by Drover; 01-27-2010 at 12:16 PM.. Reason: clarification
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-27-2010, 11:34 AM
 
Location: Avondale, Chicago
14,411 posts, read 26,229,960 times
Reputation: 9443
When I lived near Raleigh I really didn't see a whole lot of Panthers supporters, believe it or not. If anything, I saw more Terrible Towels. Sure, you'd see somebody with a Panthers shirt or bumper sticker or something, just like you'd see an apparent supporter of the Falcons, Redskins, Patriots and even a Cheesehead or two. I even remember a couple people inquiring on the Raleigh forum about where they could watch the Bengals.

No stadium and a large percentage of recently arrived transients in the market with loyalties elsewhere would throw a wrench in a Raleigh team before the Panthers, IMHO.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-27-2010, 05:36 PM
JJG
 
Location: Fort Worth
13,247 posts, read 19,171,479 times
Reputation: 7005
Quote:
Originally Posted by jfre81 View Post
What were all these "chances?" The Rams had been in the LA market for almost 50 years, which is longer than most NFL cities have had franchises. They were there before they even had major league baseball. I wouldn't even count the Raiders. They're kind of like a band of wandering mercenaries anyway. The stadium problem is in part because land in Southern California has become ridiculously expensive. If a modest sized house is commanding $500,000 in large part because of the dirt it sits on, then what do you suppose a football stadium with parking is going to run? It's not a coincidence either that the Chargers, Raiders and 49ers are all still playing in older stadiums built before the real estate market went out of whack.

Unless maybe it was the Saints, which probably isn't happening, I don't see San Antonio working out. First of all, same problem as LA - they don't have a stadium. The Alamodome is not an NFL-worthy venue, although it was serviceable as a stop-gap measure in '05 for the Saints. Building one hoping for a team to move there has already been done and met with failure. It's because it's going to be a difficult market, despite all you've heard about Texas being all about football. Look how much the Houston Texans have struggled just to wrest Houston from Cowboys loyalty. It'll be even worse in SA with a smaller market. At least the Texans can play to Houstonians who hate all things Dallas.

Salt Lake City is a stretch. Filling an NFL or MLB stadium is not the same as filling a basketball arena. The Packers do it, but they have a tradition a Utah team wouldn't have and Green Bay also has a larger city not too terribly far south. But on the other hand, they only have to fill that stadium eight times a year.

If not LA, then Toronto. Seriously. I could even see them supporting both an NFL franchise and the Argonauts at the same time. Probably the only city in Canada that could pull it off.
I say "chances" as in chances to KEEP these teams.

And all I ever hear is that L.A. doesn't need a team.... And it comes from the mouths of Angelinos themselves.

San Antonio has another reason why they're not seen as an NFL city..... the market size. But I still say that if there's enough support and money to renovate, then San Antonio could get a team before L.A. does. Maybe, maybe not, but something just tells me that San Antonio could get a shot at a team before L.A.

As for Toronto..... the Bills have been rumored to go there for a while, but I doubt it would happen.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-27-2010, 06:31 PM
 
Location: Washington D.C. By way of Texas
18,627 posts, read 27,042,193 times
Reputation: 9576
The NFL is a business more than anything. It would be stupid not to want the second largest market in the nation in their business. They will always be courted until they have a team. So the fact that they had 3 teams already does not matter. The NFL will always want a presence in a market like that.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-27-2010, 08:36 PM
 
3,970 posts, read 11,825,661 times
Reputation: 1576
Quote:
Originally Posted by Spade View Post
The NFL is a business more than anything. It would be stupid not to want the second largest market in the nation in their business. They will always be courted until they have a team. So the fact that they had 3 teams already does not matter. The NFL will always want a presence in a market like that.
Yes, that is totally correct. The past is insignificant in this issue. The NFL has grown, and L.A. is ripe for a new team. If they can close the new stadium in Commerce, then it will be just a matter of time before a team moves there.

Salt Lake City? Nope. Not when Sunday is game day.

Oklahoma City? No, again. Just doesn't have the population, and besides it competes too closely with the boys in Norman.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-27-2010, 10:13 PM
 
Location: Avondale, Chicago
14,411 posts, read 26,229,960 times
Reputation: 9443
The same rationale for not putting a team in LA could've been used for why teams shouldn't have been brought back to Houston or Cleveland or anywhere else that became vacant during the "franchise free agency" era of the late 80s/early 90s.

Angelinos have probably moved on to following other teams, whether it's the 49ers or Chargers or a non-California team, but a new franchise would catch on. It'd be easier and more sensible than trying to put a team in San Antonio where there is pretty solid loyalty toward a particular team that just got a new stadium built up I-35 in Arlington and isn't going anywhere.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-29-2010, 11:17 PM
 
2,560 posts, read 5,268,949 times
Reputation: 764
There are tons of Cowboys fans in San Antonio because there is no team here. Once a team is put in place here, San Antonio Cowboys fans will switch their loyalty. The Cowboys will be the number two team in South texas. This was a topic of conversation with a room full of Cowboys fans here in San Antonio at a Cowboy game party i was at. A majority said they would switch in a heartbeat. San Antonio would have no problem supporting a team. The market size is cut in half cause Austin's market is just minutes away. Combined you would have the 17th largest market. BTW way I'm no Cowboy fan! Don't dislike them or anything.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:

Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > U.S. Forums > General U.S.
Follow City-Data.com founder on our Forum or

All times are GMT -6.

2005-2019, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35 - Top