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)
 
Old 07-27-2011, 09:47 AM
 
Location: San Antonio
927 posts, read 1,210,229 times
Reputation: 476

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by Ihatespoiledbrattypeople View Post
San Antonio, Football is like religion in Texas
Truer words were never spoken.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 07-27-2011, 09:59 AM
 
Location: San Antonio
927 posts, read 1,210,229 times
Reputation: 476
In actuality I see it happening sooner rather than later. Even though the Los Angeles area has been receiving all the attention regarding NFL relocation in recent years, in my view San Antonio has an even if not better shot at landing a team for play in 2012. Here are some reasons.

For one thing Minnesota's lease with the Metrodome ends at the end of this coming season. They will then be free to move to another city. Since the two venues currently available in LA are absolute dumps a natural alternative would be the Alamodome. Ditto with the Chargers. The Chargers could move into the Alamodome in 2012 and not have to worry about being lame ducks in San Diego while a new stadium is built in Los Angeles.

Of course you won't read or see any of this kind of talk in the media because San Antonio isn't supposed to be in any running for an NFL franchise. But San Antonio is after a both an NFL team and a MLB team and will not stop searching until it has both.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-27-2011, 12:01 PM
 
Location: The City
22,341 posts, read 32,192,195 times
Reputation: 7744
Quote:
Originally Posted by bresilhac View Post
In actuality I see it happening sooner rather than later. Even though the Los Angeles area has been receiving all the attention regarding NFL relocation in recent years, in my view San Antonio has an even if not better shot at landing a team for play in 2012. Here are some reasons.

For one thing Minnesota's lease with the Metrodome ends at the end of this coming season. They will then be free to move to another city. Since the two venues currently available in LA are absolute dumps a natural alternative would be the Alamodome. Ditto with the Chargers. The Chargers could move into the Alamodome in 2012 and not have to worry about being lame ducks in San Diego while a new stadium is built in Los Angeles.

Of course you won't read or see any of this kind of talk in the media because San Antonio isn't supposed to be in any running for an NFL franchise. But San Antonio is after a both an NFL team and a MLB team and will not stop searching until it has both.

I personally can not see the Vikings ever leaving Minnesota - The NFL fixed the Cleveland and Baltimore issues.

And honestly I do see LA getting a team. SA is small for the NFL (Yes I understand GB) but only Jax is close on size (among expanded teams). SA would likely be a good football city but dont see it yet. Especially when you consider that other places like Charlotte have more of a regional pull and dont have to compete with the likes of the Cowboys

For both the NFL and MLB i hope there is no more expansion unless the MLB goes to 32 but I personally hate expansion, it degrades the talent pool
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-27-2011, 06:12 PM
 
Location: Santa Ana
1,198 posts, read 2,050,683 times
Reputation: 458
Quote:
Originally Posted by bresilhac View Post
Truer words were never spoken.
yeah, also San Antonio is more than 200, or more than 300 miles away for the nearest NFL game
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-27-2011, 08:13 PM
JJG JJG started this thread
 
Location: Fort Worth
13,249 posts, read 19,197,436 times
Reputation: 7010
Quote:
Originally Posted by bresilhac View Post
In actuality I see it happening sooner rather than later. Even though the Los Angeles area has been receiving all the attention regarding NFL relocation in recent years, in my view San Antonio has an even if not better shot at landing a team for play in 2012. Here are some reasons.

For one thing Minnesota's lease with the Metrodome ends at the end of this coming season. They will then be free to move to another city. Since the two venues currently available in LA are absolute dumps a natural alternative would be the Alamodome. Ditto with the Chargers. The Chargers could move into the Alamodome in 2012 and not have to worry about being lame ducks in San Diego while a new stadium is built in Los Angeles.

Of course you won't read or see any of this kind of talk in the media because San Antonio isn't supposed to be in any running for an NFL franchise. But San Antonio is after a both an NFL team and a MLB team and will not stop searching until it has both.
I could see that happening.... but I would say the Chargers move back to L.A. before goin' to Texas. San Diego may have their stadium situation fixed in a couple years or at least close to it, but if they move anywhere, I'd say L.A. before S.A.

And nothing against the Alamodome, but it's not gonna be holding any other NFL teams. It's just not up to code. As of now, it will only be home to UTSA.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-28-2011, 08:49 PM
 
1,538 posts, read 5,284,019 times
Reputation: 1659
Quote:
Originally Posted by JJG View Post
Because L.A. had THREE teams and they all left.
i was wondering when someone would bring up this tired argument. it's pretty clear that you don't understand what really happened with the los angeles nfl situation, so let me explain.

the rams and raiders left LA because of two reasons:
1) stadium issues
2) negligent/carpetbagging owners who felt no loyalty toward the local fans in LA

because the rams' and raiders' owners (georgia frontiere and al davis, respectively) were unable to build state-of-the-art, revenue-generating stadiums in LA, they started to look elsewhere in the late '80s/early '90s. then when they received what they felt were better offers in st. louis and oakland, frontiere and davis ditched los angeles in favor of those other cities.

that's why the teams left, not because of lack of support. this is no different than what happened with the baltimore colts, st. louis (football) cardinals, cleveland browns, and houston oilers.

i should also mention that the nfl actually tried to block the rams and raiders from leaving LA, but ultimately had to back down due to the threat of an antitrust lawsuit by the teams' owners. so it's not as if the league "gave up" on los angeles as an nfl market; quite the contrary.

not coincidentally, stadium and ownership issues cost LA its two nfl teams back in 1995 and may now be the reason why LA regains a team or two in the next few years. given that there are two viable stadium proposals in the greater LA area and multiple teams in other cities with stadium and revenue concerns, it appears that things are finally coming full circle in LA.

as for the LA chargers leaving los angeles after one season, shall i bring up the 1952 dallas texans, who folded after one season in the nfl? unlike the rams or raiders - who relocated to other cities - the texans actually ceased operations due to poor attendance. believe it or not, dallas was considered a college football market only back in those days, with plenty of skeptics convinced that the nfl would never succeed there.

even when the dallas cowboys franchise was created in 1960, there were still plenty of doubters, especially as the team struggled in its first few seasons. but then the team became competitive in the mid-to-late '60s and a perennial super bowl contender (not to mention the league's de facto glamour team) by the 1970s, and the rest is history.

given the cowboys' massive popularity over the past 40+ years, doesn't it seem funny that people were questioning dallas' viability as an nfl market only 10-12 years before they became a nationwide phenomenon?

i should also mention that there was a second incarnation of the dallas texans - this franchise was based in the fledgling american football league (afl) and only lasted three seasons in dallas (1960-1962) before relocating to kansas city and becoming the chiefs. the reasons for the relocation? it was obvious that dallas couldn't support two teams, not to mention the afl was a struggling, upstart league that was far more unstable than the nfl, so texans' owner lamar hunt decided to move his franchise to an empty football market, which he found in kc.

similarly, the los angeles chargers of the afl couldn't compete in los angeles because of the well-established rams of the nfl, who were THE most popular team in LA at the time. that's why the chargers moved down to san diego after one season - in other words, because of the nfl's huge success in los angeles. the rams set all sorts of attendance records back in the day and remained an immensely popular team locally until their golddigging bimbo owner georgia frontiere inherited the team from her late husband in 1980 and proceeded to run the team into the ground.

so please spare me the argument that "LA is a bad sports town that can't hold onto its football teams" when your home metro area lost two teams of its own back in the day and another team in your state lost its team due to very similar reasons as the rams and raiders.

no one in their right mind would ever claim that dallas and houston are poor or even mediocre pro football markets, yet even they lost their teams due to various reasons. so enough with the anti-LA chatter - i've seen you make this argument on multiple occasions, and it's pretty weak.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-28-2011, 09:39 PM
 
1,538 posts, read 5,284,019 times
Reputation: 1659
Quote:
Originally Posted by bresilhac View Post
In actuality I see it happening sooner rather than later. Even though the Los Angeles area has been receiving all the attention regarding NFL relocation in recent years, in my view San Antonio has an even if not better shot at landing a team for play in 2012. Here are some reasons.

For one thing Minnesota's lease with the Metrodome ends at the end of this coming season. They will then be free to move to another city. Since the two venues currently available in LA are absolute dumps a natural alternative would be the Alamodome. Ditto with the Chargers. The Chargers could move into the Alamodome in 2012 and not have to worry about being lame ducks in San Diego while a new stadium is built in Los Angeles.

Of course you won't read or see any of this kind of talk in the media because San Antonio isn't supposed to be in any running for an NFL franchise. But San Antonio is after a both an NFL team and a MLB team and will not stop searching until it has both.
there is no way san antonio is getting an NFL team before los angeles. LA has two viable stadium proposals - one of which is completely approved and ready to go, with the other widely expected to have all of its approvals squared away by next spring. meanwhile, san antonio's only venue that could host a team is the alamodome - and whether you like it or not, the league does NOT consider it to be a viable 21st century stadium for the nfl in its current condition. it would need major upgrades to even enter the discussion as a serviceable modern nfl stadium.

the reason why the rams and raiders left los angeles 16 years ago was due to an inability to construct a modern, state-of-the-art, revenue generating facility in the LA area, not to mention negligent ownership that didn't care about screwing over their local fanbases with a move out of town. and in the rams' case, the golddigging owner deliberately ran the team into the ground during its final seasons in LA in order to damage attendance figures and then justify a move to st. louis. seriously, it was a ploy straight of the movie "major league".

but now LA's stadium situation appears to be resolved, which is why you're starting to hear lots of buzz about a team or two relocating to LA in the next few years.

and your statement that LA has two "dumps" for stadiums doesn't matter a bit since they'd only be temporary venues for a relocating team until the new LA nfl stadium is built. theoretically, if neither of the proposed nfl stadiums ever comes to fruition, then the nfl would not bother relocating to los angeles in the first place and your whole point would be rendered moot.

in other words, attracting a major league pro sports franchise to your city is all about having the following:
a) fully approved, concrete plans for a viable, modern, revenue generating stadium
b) an ownership group with deep pockets that wants to relocate a team to your city and has a good relationship with the league's current owners

that's it. LA has both of these, while san antonio does not have the first one (not sure about the second). that's why SA is not on the nfl or mlb radar right now.

for the record, i'm not at all trying to hate on san antonio. i believe it would make a good nfl market and could support a team quite well in 2012 and beyond. but it just isn't going to happen that soon, and certainly not before LA gets a team.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-29-2011, 04:21 PM
JJG JJG started this thread
 
Location: Fort Worth
13,249 posts, read 19,197,436 times
Reputation: 7010
Quote:
Originally Posted by pbergen View Post
i was wondering when someone would bring up this tired argument. it's pretty clear that you don't understand what really happened with the los angeles nfl situation, so let me explain.....
Yeah, no need. I've already heard everything said about the situations in L.A., so no need to write a book on it.

I wasn't bringing ANYTHING up. I was answering someone's questions on why people thought L.A. shouldn't have a team. It's just perception, like how the WAC, C-USA, Mountain West, and MAC conferences are all weak in college football. The fact that the NFL has gone more than 15 years without a francise in L.A. with no popularity issues doesn't help either.

Not that I'm saying there shouldn't be a team in L.A. (I did put them in the FIRST list ya know) and personally, I don't care either way. What I do have a problem with is everyone instantly saying the Jaguars WILL be the team to go to the city....
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-29-2011, 09:42 PM
 
Location: Santa Ana
1,198 posts, read 2,050,683 times
Reputation: 458
yeah i'm sick and tired of hearing that argument that L.A. won't support an NFL team, if that is the case then why is L.A. still full of legions of Raider fans eventhough they moved back to Oakland 16 years ago?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-30-2011, 02:25 AM
 
1,538 posts, read 5,284,019 times
Reputation: 1659
Quote:
Originally Posted by JJG View Post
Yeah, no need. I've already heard everything said about the situations in L.A., so no need to write a book on it.

I wasn't bringing ANYTHING up. I was answering someone's questions on why people thought L.A. shouldn't have a team. It's just perception, like how the WAC, C-USA, Mountain West, and MAC conferences are all weak in college football. The fact that the NFL has gone more than 15 years without a francise in L.A. with no popularity issues doesn't help either.

Not that I'm saying there shouldn't be a team in L.A. (I did put them in the FIRST list ya know) and personally, I don't care either way. What I do have a problem with is everyone instantly saying the Jaguars WILL be the team to go to the city....
nice attempted sidestep of my criticism.

this isn't the first time i've seen you write about how LA lost three pro football teams, with the sometimes implied, sometimes overtly stated declaration that LA isn't really worthy of another nfl team due to lackluster fan support. to be honest, i wouldn't have too much of a problem with it if you had your facts straight, but it's clear from your posting history on this topic that you don't. you're just trying to be a hater, and you've done it multiple times - that's why i called you out on it.

so you can claim all you want that you're merely "answering someone's question" and speaking about the "perception" that's out there, but come on...you're not fooling anyone. you've written too many posts about this for me to think otherwise.

in the future, i'd advise that you educate yourself on the history of pro football in LA and the pro sports culture in the city rather than repeating the same, tired mantra about LA losing its pro football teams. because then i'll have to remind you yet again about how Big D lost two of its own pro football teams back in the day...not that i'm even remotely insinuating that DFW is anything less than a great football market.
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