Straight Dope Message Board

Straight Dope Message Board (https://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/index.php)
-   The Game Room (https://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/forumdisplay.php?f=17)
-   -   Likelihood San Diego, Oakland or St. Louis will ever get NFL teams again (https://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?t=888982)

russian heel 01-25-2020 12:01 AM

Likelihood San Diego, Oakland or St. Louis will ever get NFL teams again
 
For the first time since the 1940s cities have lost their NFL teams with the possibility of never getting another one or having a second team in their metropolitan market.

SAN DIEGO
PROS: HUGE city of over a million people. City was willing to help fund a new stadium for the Padres. Spurned fans have refused to make the 2 hour trip to support the Chargers in hated LA so football loyalty can be easily won over.

CONS: San Diego has a reputation as a bit of a lukewarm sports town. That’s not a knock: if I lived in such a nice place I’d probably not care about sports either. The proof is in the pudding: a metro area of 3.3 million and left with only one sports team.

LIKELIHOOD: SLIGHT, BUT IT WILL TAKE MANY YEARS. At some point there’s a possibility the Chargers will tire of being second banana and paying rent to another NFL team in LA. If San Diego changes its attitude and offers a favorable stadium deal, the Chargers will move back in a New York minute.

OAKLAND
PROS: Absolutely none. Oakland has not approved a new stadium in like 50 years and teams are leaving in droves. The Raiders left , the Warriors moved across the Bay and even rumors abound the A’s are looking to move to their fourth city. Raiders fans will make the 6 hour drive or one hour flight to Las Vegas in droves to keep supporting their Raiders because after all its Vegas, and aren’t interested in another team.

CONS: Kinda just covered it. Oakland has quickly become a sports wasteland.

LIKELIHOOD: None. Zero. Oakland will never land another NFL franchise. Even the XFL doesn’t want them.

ST. LOUIS
PROS: No NFL team here has left a geographic black hole in the Midwest (Kansas City is 248 hours away). There is a legacy of two teams and one Super Bowl here in the past 60 years. With a metropolitan market of almost 3 million and only two well supported teams, there’s plenty of room for a third NFL foray into this market.

CONS: Like I just said, “third”. And both the Cardinals and Rams were stolen from other cities so any NFL legacy here is questionable at best. Both the Cardinals and Rams fled during low attendance seasons.

LIKELIHOOD: SLIGHT AND IT WILL TAKE A LOT OF MOVING PARTS. St. Louis fans won’t accept another “rent-a-team”. The only way the NFL will return is through expansion, which is very unlikely, and a stadium deal, which is another reason the Rams moved to LA. That said, there’s no reason to think St. Louis fans will not embrace an NFL teams that is truly their own, not someone else’s cast off.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

thelurkinghorror 01-25-2020 12:18 AM

In what world is Las Vegas a 6 hour drive from Oakland? 8 plus.

Oakland will need to build a new stadium(s) and that probably can't be done without a lot of graft. I don't see a reason why they can't keep the name while moving nearby though, the Giants and the Jets exist.

Ellis Dee 01-25-2020 12:57 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by thelurkinghorror (Post 22099520)
Oakland will need to build a new stadium(s) and that probably can't be done without a lot of graft. I don't see a reason why they can't keep the name while moving nearby though, the Giants and the Jets exist.

See also the Arlington Cowboys, Orchard Park Bills, Santa Clara 49ers and Landover (Maryland) Redskins.

thelurkinghorror 01-25-2020 01:13 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ellis Dee (Post 22099556)
See also the Arlington Cowboys, Orchard Park Bills, Santa Clara 49ers and Landover (Maryland) Redskins.

Huh, didn't know about the Bills. Santa Clara is particularly egregious as that's 45 minutes to an hour drive.

russian heel 01-25-2020 01:33 AM

Fair enough I still think Raiders fans will make the trip.

I was afraid the 49ers/Jets-Giants points were going to come up. Letís be honest if the 49ers win the Super Bowl San Francisco will go nuts and the same applies to New York.

I was in Milwaukee when Green Bay won their last Super Bowl and they celebrated just like Milwaukee won.

NDP 01-25-2020 01:38 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by thelurkinghorror (Post 22099563)
Huh, didn't know about the Bills. Santa Clara is particularly egregious as that's 45 minutes to an hour drive.

Just for comparison, how far is between Boston and Foxborough in terms of mileage and driving time?

Ellis Dee 01-25-2020 01:42 AM

It's actually kind of funny when people poke fun of the "New Jersey Giants/Jets" because it means they inexplicably think those teams are named after the state, as opposed to that massive city (biggest in the country!) literally 4 miles away from the stadium.

Get your acts together, people...they're properly mocked as the "East Rutherford Giants/Jets."

gnoitall 01-25-2020 09:13 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by thelurkinghorror (Post 22099520)
In what world is Las Vegas a 6 hour drive from Oakland?

Likewise, in what universe is St. Louis 248 hours from KC? You could walk the distance faster than that. (I assume that's more of a typo, since 248 miles is approximately correct.)

Little Nemo 01-25-2020 09:25 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by gnoitall (Post 22099867)
Likewise, in what universe is St. Louis 248 hours from KC? You could walk the distance faster than that. (I assume that's more of a typo, since 248 miles is approximately correct.)

Have you seen gameday traffic?

asahi 01-25-2020 10:06 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by russian heel (Post 22099509)
For the first time since the 1940s cities have lost their NFL teams with the possibility of never getting another one or having a second team in their metropolitan market.

SAN DIEGO
PROS: HUGE city of over a million people. City was willing to help fund a new stadium for the Padres. Spurned fans have refused to make the 2 hour trip to support the Chargers in hated LA so football loyalty can be easily won over.

CONS: San Diego has a reputation as a bit of a lukewarm sports town. Thatís not a knock: if I lived in such a nice place Iíd probably not care about sports either. The proof is in the pudding: a metro area of 3.3 million and left with only one sports team.

LIKELIHOOD: SLIGHT, BUT IT WILL TAKE MANY YEARS. At some point thereís a possibility the Chargers will tire of being second banana and paying rent to another NFL team in LA. If San Diego changes its attitude and offers a favorable stadium deal, the Chargers will move back in a New York minute.

OAKLAND
PROS: Absolutely none. Oakland has not approved a new stadium in like 50 years and teams are leaving in droves. The Raiders left , the Warriors moved across the Bay and even rumors abound the Aís are looking to move to their fourth city. Raiders fans will make the 6 hour drive or one hour flight to Las Vegas in droves to keep supporting their Raiders because after all its Vegas, and arenít interested in another team.

CONS: Kinda just covered it. Oakland has quickly become a sports wasteland.

LIKELIHOOD: None. Zero. Oakland will never land another NFL franchise. Even the XFL doesnít want them.

ST. LOUIS
PROS: No NFL team here has left a geographic black hole in the Midwest (Kansas City is 248 hours away). There is a legacy of two teams and one Super Bowl here in the past 60 years. With a metropolitan market of almost 3 million and only two well supported teams, thereís plenty of room for a third NFL foray into this market.

CONS: Like I just said, ďthirdĒ. And both the Cardinals and Rams were stolen from other cities so any NFL legacy here is questionable at best. Both the Cardinals and Rams fled during low attendance seasons.

LIKELIHOOD: SLIGHT AND IT WILL TAKE A LOT OF MOVING PARTS. St. Louis fans wonít accept another ďrent-a-teamĒ. The only way the NFL will return is through expansion, which is very unlikely, and a stadium deal, which is another reason the Rams moved to LA. That said, thereís no reason to think St. Louis fans will not embrace an NFL teams that is truly their own, not someone elseís cast off.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I wouldn't entirely rule Oakland out. One advantage that it has is that it's part of a major metropolitan area, and over time, populations can shift. Who's to say that the population gets priced out of the peninsula and moves east, bringing high tech jobs and incomes with them? I don't see happening now, but I could see it happening at some point. I've also wondered if at some point the East Bay and Sacramento couldn't perhaps share some sports teams.

I really don't see St Louis getting another major sports franchise. Its metropolitan area population growth has stagnated for the past 10-15 years. If you're a St Louis area public official, it's hard to see how you sell the city to the league and it's hard to see how you see the league to the city considering how badly they got screwed by the Rams and the NFL leadership.

San Diego seems the most likely to get a team and it wouldn't surprise me to see the Chargers eventually decide that they were better off down South. Obviously, we're talking a minimum of a decade for this 'experiment' in L.A. to play out, but I hope San Diego gets their team back.

Bijou Drains 01-25-2020 10:19 AM

NFL not worried about Oakland while the 49ers are still in the area. They were not even worried when LA had no team for a long while. NFL is so big they can be OK with a few issues that would hurt other leagues.

Raskolnikov 01-25-2020 11:06 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by thelurkinghorror (Post 22099563)
Huh, didn't know about the Bills. Santa Clara is particularly egregious as that's 45 minutes to an hour drive.

to be fair, the Administration and Practice Facility has always been located in Santa Clara, even going back to the 1980's when Joe Montana was the quarterback.

They would just bus up to SF the night before and stay at a hotel by the airport for games at Candlestick.

kenobi 65 01-25-2020 12:24 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by asahi (Post 22099943)
San Diego seems the most likely to get a team and it wouldn't surprise me to see the Chargers eventually decide that they were better off down South. Obviously, we're talking a minimum of a decade for this 'experiment' in L.A. to play out, but I hope San Diego gets their team back.

I think that this is a distinct possibility. The Chargers haven't been able to draw in L.A. since they moved (though being stuck in that soccer stadium didn't help), and they will almost undoubtedly continue to play second fiddle to the Rams, even after they move into Stan Kroenke's new stadium for 2020.

Maybe that's enough for Chargers ownership, but if not, and if they can come up with a way to build a new stadium in San Diego that the taxpayers can support, I could totally foresee them moving back.

As for Oakland and St. Louis, I think the outlook is grimmer, at least for the foreseeable future. I don't know that there are any other teams which are going to consider moving in the near future, other than maybe the Jaguars, and the NFL is far more interested in getting a team into London than in going back to those two cities.

Atamasama 01-25-2020 12:33 PM

I agree that Sam Diego seems like it’s the most likely landing spot.

garygnu 01-25-2020 12:35 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Raskolnikov (Post 22100029)
to be fair, the Administration and Practice Facility has always been located in Santa Clara, even going back to the 1980's when Joe Montana was the quarterback.

They would just bus up to SF the night before and stay at a hotel by the airport for games at Candlestick.

And there's just as many, or even more, 49er fans in Silicon Valley as SF proper. The people raising the biggest stink were the ones who think the world drops off south of the city and the bridges lead to nowhere.

russian heel 01-25-2020 12:37 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Raskolnikov (Post 22100029)
to be fair, the Administration and Practice Facility has always been located in Santa Clara, even going back to the 1980's when Joe Montana was the quarterback.



They would just bus up to SF the night before and stay at a hotel by the airport for games at Candlestick.


I think almost every team does this the night before the game regardless of location of the stadium. They want their players away from their families with each other the night before the game.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

dalej42 01-25-2020 12:40 PM

I doubt Oakland ever again. The Oakland Raiders became prominent during the explosion of football on TV during the 1970s, even the kids that watched them are now in their 50s. The Bay Area is very international and diverse, there’s room for one NFL team, but pro football will never dominate the market there.

San Diego. Highly doubt it unless the Chargers flop horribly in LA. San Diego isn’t a great sports town, it’s got lots of military and retired military with their old sports loyalties and the weather is just too nice. The NFL season kicks into high gear after Halloween as the weather gets lousy in a lot of the country while San Diegans are debating which surfboard to use on Thanksgiving.

St Louis is a a tough one. It’s a city that supports baseball and hockey and doesn’t have a lot of transplants. But, it’s not a growing city and certainly isn’t a target of most millennials. And, it’s failed twice. No one is clamouring to bring hockey back to Atlanta, for example.

dalej42 01-25-2020 12:47 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by kenobi 65 (Post 22100140)
I think that this is a distinct possibility. The Chargers haven't been able to draw in L.A. since they moved (though being stuck in that soccer stadium didn't help), and they will almost undoubtedly continue to play second fiddle to the Rams, even after they move into Stan Kroenke's new stadium for 2020.

Maybe that's enough for Chargers ownership, but if not, and if they can come up with a way to build a new stadium in San Diego that the taxpayers can support, I could totally foresee them moving back.

As for Oakland and St. Louis, I think the outlook is grimmer, at least for the foreseeable future. I don't know that there are any other teams which are going to consider moving in the near future, other than maybe the Jaguars, and the NFL is far more interested in getting a team into London than in going back to those two cities.

I still donít ever see a team in London. The NFL can do everything possible to try to grow the game there but they canít change the fact that the Sunday night game is often the best of the week and that starts at 1 am London time.

asahi 01-25-2020 01:10 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by kenobi 65 (Post 22100140)
I think that this is a distinct possibility. The Chargers haven't been able to draw in L.A. since they moved (though being stuck in that soccer stadium didn't help), and they will almost undoubtedly continue to play second fiddle to the Rams, even after they move into Stan Kroenke's new stadium for 2020.

The Chargers will probably experience a nice bump in popularity once they move into their new stadium - one would hope anyway. But the real test comes once they're a few years in and trying to sell out the stadium.

RickJay 01-25-2020 01:12 PM

The Chargers' move to LA was extremely ill-advised; it's one of the dumbest franchise moves in the history of a major North American sports league. San Diego will get another team eventually, and, yeah, it could be the Chargers.

Oakland is very unlikely in any foreseeable timeframe.

St. Louis was seriously burned by the Rams, and I don't think they have a taste for the NFL's bullshit.

Here's the thing about pro sports:

1. All the major leagues have a policy, official or unofficial, that any stadium must be paid for, at least mostly, by the taxpayers.
2. So far they have usually been able to get politicians to agree to this.
3. IT's a gigantic scam that the taxpayers always get ripped off on.
4. Some places have wised up and that number will grow.

Right now, I think most US cities could be grifted into building a new stadium for an NFL team. I am not sure that is true of all of them, and St. Louis may be one of the exceptions. They did offer the Rams half a billion dollars of taxpayer money and the Rams responded by essentially insulting the city and saying St. Louis sucked. That might be it, especially when a lot of St. Louis fans still remember the Cardinals.

kenobi 65 01-25-2020 01:36 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by asahi (Post 22100233)
The Chargers will probably experience a nice bump in popularity once they move into their new stadium - one would hope anyway. But the real test comes once they're a few years in and trying to sell out the stadium.

One hopes so, for their sake. I wouldn't be surprised if the Chargers are heading into a down period (if they aren't already in one), and that'll make it harder still to draw casual support.

The Rams likely had the advantage of still having a semblance of a fan base in Los Angeles when they moved back; they'd only been gone for 21 seasons, and as they weren't replaced in LA when they left, I imagine that a lot of Rams fans from before remained fans.

The Chargers, OTOH, are essentially having to build a fan base from scratch in LA (the fact that they started out in LA in '60 is mostly just a trivia answer now), and they have to do so at the same time that the Rams are working to build up their own fan base. And, the sense I get is that the Chargers fans who were left behind in San Diego are very bitter about being jilted, and most have little interest in making the trek north for games.

RickJay 01-25-2020 03:35 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by asahi (Post 22099943)
I really don't see St Louis getting another major sports franchise. Its metropolitan area population growth has stagnated for the past 10-15 years.

Incidentally, as to this... there is no major pro sport where population matters LESS than the NFL. You only have to sell out eight home games, plus playoff games if you get them, and they're mostly on Sundays. The NFL thrives in Green Bay, which is very small (granted, it draws from Milwaukee, but that's not a very large market either) and New Orleans, which is quite a bit smaller than many cities without NFL football. St. Louis isn't even close to being the smallest NFL market; its metro area is larger than Green Bay, New Orleans, Baltimore, Pittsburgh, Indianapolis, Cincinnati, or Cleveland, and I think the Titans play in Nashville and it's bigger than that, too.

dalej42 01-25-2020 03:59 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by RickJay (Post 22100423)
Incidentally, as to this... there is no major pro sport where population matters LESS than the NFL. You only have to sell out eight home games, plus playoff games if you get them, and they're mostly on Sundays. The NFL thrives in Green Bay, which is very small (granted, it draws from Milwaukee, but that's not a very large market either) and New Orleans, which is quite a bit smaller than many cities without NFL football. St. Louis isn't even close to being the smallest NFL market; its metro area is larger than Green Bay, New Orleans, Baltimore, Pittsburgh, Indianapolis, Cincinnati, or Cleveland, and I think the Titans play in Nashville and it's bigger than that, too.

True statements but moving forward Iíd think the NFL would want markets that are growing rather than stagnant. They donít care about the unwashed masses, but theyíd still prefer to be in a growing area where thereís corporate sponsors and luxury box buyers.

But, what do I know? Jacksonville is still a head scratcher to this day.

Kent Clark 01-25-2020 04:26 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by RickJay (Post 22100236)
St. Louis was seriously burned by the Rams, and I don't think they have a taste for the NFL's bullshit.

St. Louis is currently suing both the NFL and the Rams, and it's unlikely the suits will be settled by putting an NFL team back in St. Louis.

And you can forget about the taxpayers approving any funding for an NFL team/stadium for at least an entire generation. Those burns were third-degree. Besides, the stadium the Rams and NFL deemed not good enough to play in won't even be paid off for another five years.

kenobi 65 01-25-2020 04:40 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dalej42 (Post 22100467)
But, what do I know? Jacksonville is still a head scratcher to this day.

This article seems to do a good job of explaining it. Charlotte had been an obvious choice for expansion in the early '90s, but the finalists for the second expansion city were Baltimore, St. Louis, and Jacksonville. For Baltimore, they had been looking at Bob Tisch to be owner, but he bought into the Giants instead, and Redskins owner Jack Kent Cooke was fighting against having a new team in his backyard. Experts had figured that St. Louis would get the other spot, but they had problems getting an ownership group put together (even after the NFL gave them another month to sort things out). So, they kind of wound up with Jacksonville (which had been lobbying the NFL for a team for 20 years) by default.

Jacksonville has a lot of issues, as we've discussed in the past here -- smallish metro area, shoehorned geographically in between the fan bases of three existing teams (Falcons, Bucs, and Dolphins), and in a region where football is loved, but the NFL is often second-tier behind college ball.

dalej42 01-25-2020 05:10 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by kenobi 65 (Post 22100529)
This article seems to do a good job of explaining it. Charlotte had been an obvious choice for expansion in the early '90s, but the finalists for the second expansion city were Baltimore, St. Louis, and Jacksonville. For Baltimore, they had been looking at Bob Tisch to be owner, but he bought into the Giants instead, and Redskins owner Jack Kent Cooke was fighting against having a new team in his backyard. Experts had figured that St. Louis would get the other spot, but they had problems getting an ownership group put together (even after the NFL gave them another month to sort things out). So, they kind of wound up with Jacksonville (which had been lobbying the NFL for a team for 20 years) by default.

Jacksonville has a lot of issues, as we've discussed in the past here -- smallish metro area, shoehorned geographically in between the fan bases of three existing teams (Falcons, Bucs, and Dolphins), and in a region where football is loved, but the NFL is often second-tier behind college ball.

Yeah, that makes sense. I went to college at FSU and while the common room at the dorm was packed on Saturdays for college football (Mostly ACC/SEC/Big 10) but on Sundays barely anyone watching the NFL. Of course, that may have just been students getting back to reality on Sunday after shaking off the hangover from non stop partying from Friday afternoon until Saturday night

Jackmannii 01-25-2020 07:53 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by RickJay (Post 22100236)
1. All the major leagues have a policy, official or unofficial, that any stadium must be paid for, at least mostly, by the taxpayers.
2. So far they have usually been able to get politicians to agree to this.
3. IT's a gigantic scam that the taxpayers always get ripped off on.
4. Some places have wised up and that number will grow.

Agreed. I think this shell game is declining in popularity and mostly needs new suckers to survive. The old victims are especially wary of being burned.

jaycat 01-25-2020 07:55 PM

I wonder if I'm the only East Coast guy who periodically gets confused about which California team is currently playing out of which city? Talking about the Oakland/LA/Oakland Raiders... the LA/San Diego/LA Chargers... the LA/Anaheim/Angels... (are there more?). It seems like they're all on endless journeys up and down the coast.

kenobi 65 01-25-2020 08:04 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by jaycat (Post 22100802)
I wonder if I'm the only East Coast guy who periodically gets confused about which California team is currently playing out of which city? Talking about the Oakland/LA/Oakland Raiders... the LA/San Diego/LA Chargers... the LA/Anaheim/Angels... (are there more?). It seems like they're all on endless journeys up and down the coast.

It's understandable. The NFL has had four teams based in California (down to three as of this upcoming season), and of those four, three of them have both (a) moved to Los Angeles at some point, and (b) moved away from Los Angeles at some point. :D

Ellis Dee 01-25-2020 10:28 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by RickJay (Post 22100236)
1. All the major leagues have a policy, official or unofficial, that any stadium must be paid for, at least mostly, by the taxpayers.
2. So far they have usually been able to get politicians to agree to this.
3. IT's a gigantic scam that the taxpayers always get ripped off on.
4. Some places have wised up and that number will grow.

MetLife Stadium was privately funded.

thelurkinghorror 01-26-2020 12:09 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by NDP (Post 22099575)
Just for comparison, how far is between Boston and Foxborough in terms of mileage and driving time?

30 minutes, 28 vs. 43 miles. The main difference is that Santa Clara is not really a suburb of SF in any particular way, it's a suburb of an even larger city.

Bijou Drains 01-26-2020 06:36 AM

agree Chargers to LA is a bad idea. they only need 1 team.

If the NFL ever goes to London Jacksonville is the likely team to go there . Their owner owns a soccer team in London, Fulham. Even though they keep talking about it I think a London team is not likely. Makes more sense to have a team in Canada or Mexico due to the time zone issue in London. Fans in Canada already follow the NFL since the CFL is basically a minor league .

RickJay 01-26-2020 08:23 AM

The NFL has a policy of not hurting the CFL, so expansion to Canada is unlikely.

Obviously Toronto would do very well as an NFL city, but that would be fatally harmful to the CFL, even though the Toronto Argonauts are one of its least popular teams. Canadians tend to rally around a Canadian franchise in a major league; you will find that Vancouver has more Blue Jay fans than Mariners fans, for instance, and that Winnipeg has more Raptors fans than Timberwolves fans. Even in Windsor, where you can see Tigers, Red Wings, Lions and Pistons games in about a twenty-minute drive, Toronto teams have made headway. A Toronto NFL team would risk pulling fans across the country away from interest in the CFL.

Of course, even if the NFL said "fuck it," again, you need an owner in Toronto willing to put up a metric (ha!) shit-ton of money for expansion fees and to partially construct a new stadium ANd with the pull to fleece the government into hundred of millions of dollars of funding; the SkyDome/Rogers Centre is not suitable.

Bijou Drains 01-26-2020 09:54 AM

NFL does not care about hurting Mexico I assume? Mexico city area has 21 million people so it would be no brainer to go there. Lots of night games I would think due to the climate. Altitude is 7200 feet which might be an issue for visiting teams. (obviously Denver is around 5200)

actually I just noticed the hot season in Mexico city is March to June so that's not really a problem

dalej42 01-26-2020 10:44 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by RickJay (Post 22101259)
The NFL has a policy of not hurting the CFL, so expansion to Canada is unlikely.

Obviously Toronto would do very well as an NFL city, but that would be fatally harmful to the CFL, even though the Toronto Argonauts are one of its least popular teams. Canadians tend to rally around a Canadian franchise in a major league; you will find that Vancouver has more Blue Jay fans than Mariners fans, for instance, and that Winnipeg has more Raptors fans than Timberwolves fans. Even in Windsor, where you can see Tigers, Red Wings, Lions and Pistons games in about a twenty-minute drive, Toronto teams have made headway. A Toronto NFL team would risk pulling fans across the country away from interest in the CFL.

Of course, even if the NFL said "fuck it," again, you need an owner in Toronto willing to put up a metric (ha!) shit-ton of money for expansion fees and to partially construct a new stadium ANd with the pull to fleece the government into hundred of millions of dollars of funding; the SkyDome/Rogers Centre is not suitable.

And, of course, the players need to be eligible to enter Canada as well as be able to get a work permit quickly should you have some marginal guy who gets signed at the last minute to be a special teams guy. Itís occasionally been an issue in hockey.

silenus 01-26-2020 11:38 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by kenobi 65 (Post 22100140)

Maybe that's enough for Chargers ownership, but if not, and if they can come up with a way to build a new stadium in San Diego that the taxpayers can support, I could totally foresee them moving back.

That ain't gonna happen. Not until everybody involved in San Diego loses 150 IQ points. Taxpayer funded stadiums are always and always will be boondoggles to subsidize billionaires. San Diego has wised up to this fact. If the Chargers want a new stadium in SD, they can bloody well pay for it themselves. There will be no tax incentives or public money spent on such a thing in the foreseeable future.

dalej42 01-26-2020 12:06 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by silenus (Post 22101554)
That ain't gonna happen. Not until everybody involved in San Diego loses 150 IQ points. Taxpayer funded stadiums are always and always will be boondoggles to subsidize billionaires. San Diego has wised up to this fact. If the Chargers want a new stadium in SD, they can bloody well pay for it themselves. There will be no tax incentives or public money spent on such a thing in the foreseeable future.

From what I know about the political climate in SD, I think youíre right. And a lot of voters have wisened up to the Ďonly the visitors will pay ití nonsense. Even if it was true, I think people are sick of massive hotel and car rental taxes when they travel to other cities. The Dallas/Fort Worth area is particularly awful, no idea how much goes to stadiums but you get soaked with taxes and fees there

That Don Guy 01-26-2020 12:08 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by thelurkinghorror (Post 22099520)
Oakland will need to build a new stadium(s) and that probably can't be done without a lot of graft. I don't see a reason why they can't keep the name while moving nearby though, the Giants and the Jets exist.

The way I see it, the minute the A's get a new stadium - and I doubt it will be where the current one is - the Coliseum is doomed for demolition. What does the arena have now, other than when the Globetrotters show up?

From what I have heard, the only non-baseball stadium even on anybody's drawing boards in the San Francisco Bay Area is a soccer stadium in Concord, but that has limited support as it is; I don't see plans to make it large enough for an NFL team working out, and even if they did, (a) where would Concord be on the list of cities to move an NFL team to, and (b) what makes everyone so sure that the team would be called Oakland?

Disgruntled Penguin 01-26-2020 03:04 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jackmannii (Post 22100797)
Agreed. I think this shell game is declining in popularity and mostly needs new suckers to survive. The old victims are especially wary of being burned.

Do you have a cite for this?

It appears their television numbers increased last year and though game attendance was down last year it's hardly a steep decline. In fact, their television viewership was up.

Since each team equally shares the TV revenues that's the more important number than the people who sit in the stadium if your team sucks.

cites:

Quote:

The NFL says it increased its average TV viewership to 16.5 million per game, a rise from the 15.8 million viewers it averaged last year. NFL games finished with 47 of the top 50 telecasts during the season.
https://www.cnbc.com/2019/12/31/nfl-...19-season.html

Attendance numbers last 10 years.

https://www.statista.com/statistics/...ce-in-the-nfl/

If the game is dying it sure is taking it's sweet time about it.

Ellis Dee 01-26-2020 03:12 PM

The "shell game" referred to as being in decline was getting taxpayers to pay for new stadiums, not the sport itself.

Disgruntled Penguin 01-26-2020 03:22 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ellis Dee (Post 22101885)
The "shell game" referred to as being in decline was getting taxpayers to pay for new stadiums, not the sport itself.

Ahhh, that makes sense then.

RickJay 01-26-2020 06:21 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dalej42 (Post 22101457)
And, of course, the players need to be eligible to enter Canada as well as be able to get a work permit quickly should you have some marginal guy who gets signed at the last minute to be a special teams guy. Itís occasionally been an issue in hockey.

Seems to be something they know how to manage with the Blue Jays and Raptors. Pro sports teams have this stuff down pat. Once in a great while you hear about Smith being help up a day or two, but as risks go it's maybe 1/10,000th as big a deal as the injury issues sports teams are perpetually dealing with.

If anything, the NFL, where you only play a game a week, gives a team a little extra room to manage this stuff.

Bijou Drains 01-26-2020 07:11 PM

Panthers paid for their stadium with seat licenses which they are quick to point out. They are not as quick to mention they just got a lot of tax money for upgrades. I think at least
$100 mil. And the new owner is talking about a new stadium even though the current place is nice and has plenty of boxes and club seats. It was built in 1996. One unique thing is the playing surface is large enough for soccer and the owner just got a MLS expansion team that will play there until a soccer only stadium is built.

Harrington 01-26-2020 07:13 PM

As much as I'm sure Oakland's populace wants an(another) NFL team, the pain of losing that team must be greater than the excitement of getting that team.

thelurkinghorror 01-26-2020 10:43 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ellis Dee (Post 22101885)
The "shell game" referred to as being in decline was getting taxpayers to pay for new stadiums, not the sport itself.

The Shell-don Adelson game you mean. I can't even conveniently watch a home game and stuck paying his bills.

racepug 01-27-2020 12:23 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by jaycat (Post 22100802)
I wonder if I'm the only East Coast guy who periodically gets confused about which California team is currently playing out of which city? Talking about the Oakland/LA/Oakland Raiders... the LA/San Diego/LA Chargers... the LA/Anaheim/Angels... (are there more?). It seems like they're all on endless journeys up and down the coast.

I was thinking about this just yesterday. LOTS of teams out west have moved over the decades and not just from eastern cities. Sticking with just the N.F.L., you've got: Raiders, Rams, Cardinals, Chargers, Chiefs, Titans, Colts, Bears, Lions. And that doesn't include the Ravens (since, as far as the N.F.L. is concerned, that was considered to be a "new" team when Art Modell moved it from Cleveland). Lots out west, though while most N.F.L. teams that are based out west these days started out further east, not all of them did. In fact one of them (Raiders) is actually moving further east from having started in California.

dalej42 01-29-2020 05:43 PM

Some sabre rattling (pun intended) out of Buffalo about their stadium situation. Iím sure Buffalo is a market the NFL is eager to be out of. I donít see any scenario where that area becomes a growth area or full of the corporate sponsors the NFL craves. And they donít have the history of a Green Bay since their most famous historical player wonít be doing any marketing campaigns unless itís for a private prison lobbying firm.


https://profootballtalk.nbcsports.co...coming-months/

dalej42 01-29-2020 05:55 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by racepug (Post 22103567)
I was thinking about this just yesterday. LOTS of teams out west have moved over the decades and not just from eastern cities. Sticking with just the N.F.L., you've got: Raiders, Rams, Cardinals, Chargers, Chiefs, Titans, Colts, Bears, Lions. And that doesn't include the Ravens (since, as far as the N.F.L. is concerned, that was considered to be a "new" team when Art Modell moved it from Cleveland). Lots out west, though while most N.F.L. teams that are based out west these days started out further east, not all of them did. In fact one of them (Raiders) is actually moving further east from having started in California.

Some of those are a bit of a stretch. I donít think thereís anyone alive that was around in the early days of the NFL for the Bears and Lions. The Chiefs would have been the early 1960s so theyíd have to be around 60. The Cardinals would have been sometime in the 1980s along with the Titans and Colts. Even the Browns to Ravens has been over 20 years ago.

The average NFL fan isnít going to remember most of these franchise shifts unless theyíre auditioning for Jeopardy. Even the Rams/Raiders leaving LA was the early 1990s.

glowacks 01-29-2020 08:31 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by racepug (Post 22103567)
I was thinking about this just yesterday. LOTS of teams out west have moved over the decades and not just from eastern cities. Sticking with just the N.F.L., you've got: [...] Lions.

What? The Lions' only move between cities was in the 30s, from a small town in southern Ohio to Detroit. The town is positively tiny and I had no idea where it even was until a few minutes ago even though I knew that's where the Lions originated. It's not particularly interesting that a team moved out of a very small town to a major city. Lots of teams back then did that.

asahi 01-29-2020 09:07 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by racepug (Post 22103567)
I was thinking about this just yesterday. LOTS of teams out west have moved over the decades and not just from eastern cities. Sticking with just the N.F.L., you've got: Raiders, Rams, Cardinals, Chargers, Chiefs, Titans, Colts, Bears, Lions. And that doesn't include the Ravens (since, as far as the N.F.L. is concerned, that was considered to be a "new" team when Art Modell moved it from Cleveland). Lots out west, though while most N.F.L. teams that are based out west these days started out further east, not all of them did. In fact one of them (Raiders) is actually moving further east from having started in California.

Toronto, with its 7 million residents, is just across the lake and there are a fair number of Bills fans in that area. I've known several Torontonians who've called themselves Bills fans. I know the NFL is supposed to protect the CFL and all but if there's a city in Canada that would be great for the NFL, it's Toronto.


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 10:39 PM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2020, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.

Send questions for Cecil Adams to: cecil@straightdope.com

Send comments about this website to: webmaster@straightdope.com

Terms of Use / Privacy Policy

Advertise on the Straight Dope!
(Your direct line to thousands of the smartest, hippest people on the planet, plus a few total dipsticks.)

Copyright © 2019 STM Reader, LLC.