[Caltovegas]

Can you imagine the potential traffic? MGM parking deck is going to be nuts. I'm all for the Raiders coming along with other Big time events not to mention a Super Bowl.

[newopty]

This is an excerpt from this mornings Monday Morning Quarterback from Peter King of MMQB (owned by Sports Illustrated):

Ten Things I Think I Think

1. I think this was the most interesting text of the week I got: “The Raiders and Vegas could happen.” There was more than that, but the drumbeat is starting that Mark Davis knows he’s not going to get a good stadium deal in northern California, knows he’ll get a better one in Vegas, and knows he has some friends (well, acquaintances might be a better word) in high places such as Jerry Jones who are intrigued by the financial windfall that Vegas might be. Just watch. Not saying it’s going to happen, but I am saying it’s not a pipe dream.

Here is the complete article:
Tom Coughlin, Dwight Freeney want NFL again; Jarryd Hayne retires | The MMQB with Peter King

[Willy702]

Originally Posted by newopty

According to Forbes Sheldon Adelson's net worth is about 29 billion dollars. There is a hypocrisy of conservatives (especially conservative billionaires) that they don't believe in welfare or government involvement but have no problem asking the government for money. However, I doubt Adelson will let the Raiders move to Las Vegas fail because of lack of funding for a stadium.

It has nothing to do with his wealth because he doesn't care about the dome. He cares about the convention center. If there was some plan that said we figured out a way to build both he would walk right away from the dome plan with a bunch of excuses. And of course his newspaper would put them all on the front page.

[Evan702]

Originally Posted by beachhead

Yes, but that was last year, and a key part of the article you linked:



While it's a good guess that since the current FCC seems to oppose this policy, they might permanently eliminate it, as of now, it's just a policy for last year.

NFL continues suspension of TV blackout policy for 2016

And even if a blackout isn't a worry, you still have the fact that the raiders have a longer history of playing really bad football than great football. While the thought is appealing, we can't just stay in the 70's. And they were a long time ago..

If you follow football then you must realize that just about every pundit out there recognizes that the Raiders are on the upswing. There are a number of them predicting that they could win the AFC West this season now that Manning has retired. What does that mean once the season actually starts? Absolutely nothing, but pointing to recent performance on the field seems like a poor justification either for or against allowing a team to relocate to a particular city. In American sports pretty much every team has had and will have rough patches. The (original) Browns entire NFL existence was pretty much a failure until they moved to Baltimore and won a couple of Super Bowls. Past performance is never a guarantee of future results.

[LasVegasPlayer]

Originally Posted by Evan702

If you follow football then you must realize that just about every pundit out there recognizes that the Raiders are on the upswing. There are a number of them predicting that they could win the AFC West this season now that Manning has retired. What does that mean once the season actually starts? Absolutely nothing, but pointing to recent performance on the field seems like a poor justification either for or against allowing a team to relocate to a particular city. In American sports pretty much every team has had and will have rough patches. The (original) Browns entire NFL existence was pretty much a failure until they moved to Baltimore and won a couple of Super Bowls. Past performance is never a guarantee of future results.

Maybe, but we're talking about a Raiders organization that hasn't put together a winning season since 2002. Let's compare that to the old Browns team that moved to Baltimore.

The Browns went to the playoffs in seven of their last 14 seasons in Cleveland before moving to Baltimore. The Browns went 11-5 and won a playoff game in 1994, the year before the move was decided. It was one of six winning seasons the Browns had in the last 14 years before moving to Baltimore including a playoff streak of four years in a row, three of which included an AFC Championship game appearance where they lost to John Elway each time.

This isn't cherry picking either. The Browns had a winning record in year 15 and 16, too, including a playoff appearance. The year before that was 8-8.

The Browns only had one full season during that 14-year stretch where they won four or fewer games. The Raiders have won four or fewer games seven times in the past 14 seasons.

I'd hardly call that list of Browns accomplishments a failure over a 14 year span, especially since the Raiders are 0 in all positive categories during a comparable period.

[Grumpypotpie]

Originally Posted by beachhead

Actually, it'll be one game EVERY week. The raiders won't sell out after the first season excitement wears off. Then, you'll have 8 of 17 weeks of the season "blacked out" (punny how that works out!) and then 8 of 17 weeks when the losers are on the road, the only game that will be available, including the 16th string "announcers" to call it, will be the one with the team so bad it's not worth watching the games.

I guess for the football widow/widowers, having the team of shame, and worship of thugs all over locally would be a "good" thing, but for those who really appreciate watching the "best" of competition available, having them as a local team is pretty much a guarantee that there won't be many relaxing sunday afternoons spent watching the game. At least until they are finally not owned by any members of the Davis clown parade. Heck, ol' Al couldn't even teach his son how to get a haircut, how can he run a successful professional ball team?

The type of fan you describe probably has Sunday Ticket anyway.

[Grumpypotpie]

Originally Posted by beachhead

I've got a fair understanding of what's going on, but until they say "we've decided to abandon that concept", there is a chance they might try to bring it back, especially once the current administration changes hands, and definitely if a more business friendly executive branch ever returns. And even if they say they've trashed it, they can still change their rules again. There is no precedent that would positively rule out them implementing it in the future.

And even if the blackout issue wasn't a dark cloud hanging over this, there's always the fact that the raiders are are probably a mediocre junior college level team, and will remain that way until there is new ownership (with deep pockets). They are a perfect fit for oakland, and definitely now how I view Las Vegas.

I know my vote, should public indebtedness be put on the ballot, has, and always will be a resounding "no". And this is even more of a worthless endeavor than school bonds, since the real beneficiaries are multi-millionaires who are the last people in the world that need a handout. But i'm sure if there is a real chance, they'll ram it down our throats, cause hey, it's the NFL.

I see lots of people saying how crappy the Raiders are. You probably didn't watch many of their games last year because you assumed they would be boring. They are a team on the rise. I think they could make the playoffs as soon as this year. It would be the perfect time to get this team.

[zumaboy]

That's one of the few drawbacks to living anywhere out west - too many damn Broncos fans.

[Grumpypotpie]

Originally Posted by zumaboy

That's one of the few drawbacks to living anywhere out west - too many damn Broncos fans.

Guilty. One of the biggest reasons I hope the Raiders move to Vegas is because when I move out there my favorite team will play there every season.

[Evan702]

Originally Posted by LasVegasPlayer

Maybe, but we're talking about a Raiders organization that hasn't put together a winning season since 2002. Let's compare that to the old Browns team that moved to Baltimore.

The Browns went to the playoffs in seven of their last 14 seasons in Cleveland before moving to Baltimore. The Browns went 11-5 and won a playoff game in 1994, the year before the move was decided. It was one of six winning seasons the Browns had in the last 14 years before moving to Baltimore including a playoff streak of four years in a row, three of which included an AFC Championship game appearance where they lost to John Elway each time.

This isn't cherry picking either. The Browns had a winning record in year 15 and 16, too, including a playoff appearance. The year before that was 8-8.

The Browns only had one full season during that 14-year stretch where they won four or fewer games. The Raiders have won four or fewer games seven times in the past 14 seasons.

I'd hardly call that list of Browns accomplishments a failure over a 14 year span, especially since the Raiders are 0 in all positive categories during a comparable period.

And the Rams haven't been to the playoffs since 2004, yet they just successfully relocated and they're almost certainly farther away from a return to the postseason than are the Raiders. Again, recent on-field performance is a poor rationale either for or against a relocation. Moreover, unlike Oakland, St. Louis was very willing to work with the team on a new stadium.

As for the Browns, they have never won a Super Bowl, hell they've never even been to a Super Bowl. As you point out, they were a franchise that just couldn't get over the hump. That, to me, says that their entire NFL existence has been a failure. And when you choose an arbitrary number like 14 that does seem a bit like cherry picking. You expand that out just a few seasons and you have three straight division titles for Oakland, two AFC championship game appearances and a Super Bowl appearance.

Put another way, between the modern NFL history of each of these two franchises, which one do you think that Browns fans would rather have?