U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Sports > Pro Football
 [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)
View Poll Results: What American city would be best suited to take on a new NFL team?
Birmingham 0 0%
Memphis 1 1.75%
Salt Lake City 4 7.02%
Portland 7 12.28%
Louisville 2 3.51%
Oklahoma City 4 7.02%
Tulsa 1 1.75%
Las Vegas 0 0%
Los Angeles 28 49.12%
Raleigh 2 3.51%
Orlando 0 0%
Milwaukee 1 1.75%
Columbus 1 1.75%
Des Moines 1 1.75%
Other, please specify 5 8.77%
Voters: 57. You may not vote on this poll

Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 12-24-2013, 09:01 AM
 
32,532 posts, read 30,709,008 times
Reputation: 32350

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by SOON2BNSURPRISE View Post
then again the Angels of Los Angeles are technically in Aneheim which is in Orange County.
The name is Los Angeles Angels of Anaheim and they play smack dab in the middle of Anaheim and have since 1966. They play in the stadium, fondly known by locals as the Big A, they once shared with the Rams.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 12-24-2013, 09:10 AM
 
Location: southwestern PA
20,419 posts, read 37,723,386 times
Reputation: 39059
Quote:
Originally Posted by ColdAilment View Post
Green Bay - Chicago

Detroit - Cleveland

Houston - Dallas

San Francisco - Oakland

D.C. - Baltimore

I don't think being too close is an issue, most of those cities are a lot closer than Memphis is to Nashville.

Cleveland is actually closer to Pittsburgh than Detroit!
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 12-25-2013, 07:46 PM
 
Location: Living on the Coast in Oxnard CA
15,758 posts, read 26,819,823 times
Reputation: 20413
Quote:
Originally Posted by DewDropInn View Post
The name is Los Angeles Angels of Anaheim and they play smack dab in the middle of Anaheim and have since 1966. They play in the stadium, fondly known by locals as the Big A, they once shared with the Rams.
I love that stadium and all. But the Angels did infact used to play in Los Angeles. They also played at Dodger Stadium prior to having a stadium in Aneheim. Walter O'Malley used to own the team prior to owning the Dodgers. We call the Los Angeles Angels of Aneheim to remind people of their roots. Angels = City of Angels = Los Angeles. I am no fan of allowing the Angels to use Los Angeles in their name but it is history and with Baseball it is all about history and your roots.

As far as Rams history they used to play in Los Angeles as well. They called the Coliseum home for much longer than their stay in Aneheim. Also I don't ever remember the Rams being called the Aneheim Rams by the team, news, or anyone else.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 12-26-2013, 03:13 PM
 
32,532 posts, read 30,709,008 times
Reputation: 32350
Quote:
Originally Posted by SOON2BNSURPRISE View Post
They also played at Dodger Stadium prior to having a stadium in Aneheim.
It was called Chavez Ravine when the Angels played there.

(Sorry HH. OT I know. But perish the thought anyone should think we put up with the "D" word prior to the move to Anaheim. )

Last edited by DewDropInn; 12-26-2013 at 03:34 PM..
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 12-26-2013, 05:23 PM
 
Location: Living on the Coast in Oxnard CA
15,758 posts, read 26,819,823 times
Reputation: 20413
Quote:
Originally Posted by DewDropInn View Post
It was called Chavez Ravine when the Angels played there.

(Sorry HH. OT I know. But perish the thought anyone should think we put up with the "D" word prior to the move to Anaheim. )
It is still called Chavez Ravine. That is the place that they built the stadium, the one that is called Dodgers Stadium, the same place that the Angels paid the Dodgers rent untill they could get their own home.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-02-2014, 12:30 AM
 
Location: Dallas TX sucks
373 posts, read 266,143 times
Reputation: 241
It was a toss up between Louisville and Birmingham. I picked Louisville. Alabama could support an NFL team IMO. It is only a college state because well there has never ever been a team there. I hate that argument smh.

I like the idea of Jags heading to OKC.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-18-2014, 10:11 PM
 
Location: the Chicago suburbs
818 posts, read 742,112 times
Reputation: 343
definitely LA
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-18-2014, 10:50 PM
 
3,438 posts, read 4,741,797 times
Reputation: 5403
Quote:
Originally Posted by blackgem View Post
It was a toss up between Louisville and Birmingham. I picked Louisville. Alabama could support an NFL team IMO. It is only a college state because well there has never ever been a team there. I hate that argument smh.

I like the idea of Jags heading to OKC.

Birmingham is too small and too close to Atlanta ( IMHO )
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-19-2014, 09:43 PM
 
Location: Long Island,New York
8,163 posts, read 13,201,234 times
Reputation: 2489
1- A true NY team that could play at Shea or Yankee Stadium
2- San Antonio
3- Oklahoma City
4- Birmingham (definitely strong for college,why not pro)
5- Las Vegas
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-19-2014, 09:51 PM
 
279 posts, read 365,132 times
Reputation: 399
Quote:
Originally Posted by Teddy52 View Post
Birmingham is too small and too close to Atlanta ( IMHO )

That argument works for MLB but not for the NFL. Virtually nobody in Birmingham or Central Alabama cares about the Falcons. Even people in Atlanta only half-heartedly care. The Braves are the only Atlanta team that has a strong, consistent following season after season in ATL and throughout the South. Birmingham is not Falcons country. Even when the Falcons are good, nobody in Alabama cares.

Birmingham's biggest problem is its lack of a viable football stadium. Legion Field was built in the 1920s and is falling apart. No way could it support an NFL team - even the Iron Bowl moved from Legion Field like 20 years ago.

If Birmingham built a new stadium, it'd be a serious contender. Otherwise, no way. That being said, the obvious choice on your list is Los Angeles, given that it's the second largest city in the U.S. Everything else is a distant second.
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 > General Forums > Sports > Pro Football
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