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.
Missouri's population is very concentrated in two large metropolitan areas...so even though the state isn't as populated as Florida, it's urban centers are large enough to support 2 teams. I don't agree with the poster that stated Florida doesn't "deserve" 3 teams.
I doubt decisions to award NFL franchises are based on state population...I'm sure there is some consideration as to how much support a team will get from residents all over the state, but most important is the support it will get from local fans.
I get that, I was disputing the claim that California somehow deserves five teams.
But your point was number of teams in the state relative to state population. The State of New York only has one team. If state borders don't really matter, why not just ascribe the Rams to Illinois, or the Chiefs to Kansas?
I get that, I was disputing the claim that California somehow deserves five teams.
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.
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.
You would think so. And yet...
It just doesn't seem like L.A. residents are that interested in an NFL team, much less two. Various reasons have been given throughout this thread as to why that is.
Really for the Jets and Giants, you can't go by state as their market reaches more than a bit into CT and NJ. Just as you can't say Green Bay is all of the Packer's market. If you think people in Milwaukee, Madison, Appelton, Oshkosh, Sheboygan, Eau Claire, La Crosse, Wassau, Beloit, Kenosha, Racine, and Janesville aren't crazy for the Packer's, you shouldn't be posting in this thread.
I'm surprised the Vikings haven't been mentioned cause they're stuck in the Dome with little hope for a new stadium in the foreseable future (less than a third of residents in a recent Pioneer Press survey said they'd support a new stadium getting public funds, so no politician is going to be crazy enough to go for that.) Yet they will not move as they have incredible support and a market that stretches well into northern Iowa, South Dakota, North Dakota, and even western Montana. Plus the metrodome is fine. The only person who doesn't think so is the owner. It's a terrible place for college football and baseball, but great for the NFL. Still, a lot of a fans are still paranoid of the team moving, especially seeing how we are most hockey crazy state in the country and we lost an NHL team - I am still pissed at losing the North Stars, the Wild will never replace them.
Also, the NFL would be crazy to move Cincy, buffalo, or detroit.
They only teams I can realistically see moving out of their current metro areas are Jacksonville, Oakland, and St. Louis. Oakland to LA and Jacksonville to San Antonio or Salt Lake City. St. Louis should and probably will stay put, but i wouldn't rule them out as that is primarily a baseball town.
Really for the Jets and Giants, you can't go by state as their market reaches more than a bit into CT and NJ. Just as you can't say Green Bay is all of the Packer's market. If you think people in Milwaukee, Madison, Appelton, Oshkosh, Sheboygan, Eau Claire, La Crosse, Wassau, Beloit, Kenosha, Racine, and Janesville aren't crazy for the Packer's, you shouldn't be posting in this thread.
Kenosha and Racine aren't very solid Packers territory -- there's a lot of Bears fan overlap down there.
Quote:
Originally Posted by MN55
I'm surprised the Vikings haven't been mentioned cause they're stuck in the Dome with little hope for a new stadium in the foreseable future (less than a third of residents in a recent Pioneer Press survey said they'd support a new stadium getting public funds, so no politician is going to be crazy enough to go for that.) Yet they will not move as they have incredible support and a market that stretches well into northern Iowa, South Dakota, North Dakota, and even western Montana. Plus the metrodome is fine. The only person who doesn't think so is the owner. It's a terrible place for college football and baseball, but great for the NFL.
Yet it has happened time and again that a publicly financed stadium has been built despite the local constituents' explicit objection. Is there anything wrong with the Metrodome other than 1) it's a lousy venue for baseball (problem solved) and 2) it's kinda old? As a football venue, it still seems perfectly serviceable facility to me. Are the Vikings asking for a new stadium?
With LA it was more of a stadium problem than a market problem. The Coliseum was outdated long before the Northridge quake that damaged both it and Anaheim Stadium. They were supposed to get the expansion franchise that became the Houston Texans but they couldn't get a stadium deal worked out. If they do, expect a team to move there shortly after.
The idea that the second-largest city is inherently incapable of supporting an NFL franchise - as in attending games if there was a proper place for it to play games - is preposterous.
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.
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.
