2009 NFL Regular Season Thread - Page 45 - Calgarypuck Forums - The Unofficial Calgary Flames Fan Community

Bobblehead · 10-01-2009, 11:54 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by rubecube

So, as I understand it, these are the teams at risk to move over the next ten years:

Buffalo
Jacksonville
Minnesota
San Francisco (or has this been resolved?)
Oakland
St. Louis

Am I missing any? That seems like a lot. Obviously L.A. will get one of those teams. San Antonio is a prime candidate for another. If more than two teams move, I think Toronto could potentially get one. I've never been a firm believer in Toronto as an NFL market, but it's a way bigger market than most of the teams mentioned above. Of course, if more than two of these teams move, the real elephant in the room will be Vegas.

There is a public vote in Santa Clara about whether they would be willing to cover a share of the stadium, so until that vote (next year - late spring/early summer) things are kind of in limbo.

And I don't know if the NFL will ever go to Vegas. They kicked up a massive ruckus over Delaware allowing betting, let alone some place where it would be wide open.

rubecube · 10-01-2009, 12:49 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Pagal4321

I think Jacksonville is the front runner to be moved to LA. Based on the attendance lows they will see this year, I see no better team to move out West.

You can say goodbye to some pretty good rivalries if Jacksonville moves to L.A. The Chiefs will get moved to the AFC South if that happens.

Sylvanfan · 10-01-2009, 01:00 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by rubecube

You can say goodbye to some pretty good rivalries if Jacksonville moves to L.A. The Chiefs will get moved to the AFC South if that happens.

I don't know if the NFL would want to take away the old AFL rivalry that the Chiefs have with teams like the Chargers, Bronco's and Raiders much like they won't move the Cowboys out of the NFC East when that makes no sense whatsover geographically. Similar as to why the Dolphins stay in the AFC East as opposed to being moved to the South, or Baltimore didn't get shifted to the East.

Travel in the NFL isn't as big of an issue as it is in other sports and given the times of the games you don't run into things like the fans in Indy, Houston or Memphis can't watch a game that starts at 3:00 local time. I suspect they'd still keep LA in the South. The old NFC West had New Orleans and Atlanta in the same Division as San Franciso and Los Angeles, than eventually Carolina. But the sound of the Los Angeles Vikings...do not like.

Pagal4321 · 10-01-2009, 01:01 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by rubecube

You can say goodbye to some pretty good rivalries if Jacksonville moves to L.A. The Chiefs will get moved to the AFC South if that happens.

You move Minnesota and you do the same thing. Effectively, any team that makes that move to LA, will be blamed for altering some long lived rivalries.

mykalberta · 10-01-2009, 01:15 PM

I always thought the reason for no NFL team in LA was that the NFL wanted something like a Billion dollar expansion fee. I dont see a team moving their without a large fee being paid for being the only NFL teal in the LA area.

rubecube · 10-01-2009, 03:18 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sylvanfan

Travel in the NFL isn't as big of an issue as it is in other sports and given the times of the games you don't run into things like the fans in Indy, Houston or Memphis can't watch a game that starts at 3:00 local time. I suspect they'd still keep LA in the South. The old NFC West had New Orleans and Atlanta in the same Division as San Franciso and Los Angeles, than eventually Carolina. But the sound of the Los Angeles Vikings...do not like.

The problem is when the West Coast teams have to play an early game in the Eastern time zone. They always bitch about that. I don't think they'll want to break up those rivalries either, but I think the California owners would drool if they had a chance to put Oakland, San Diego, and L.A. in the same division.

EDIT: Mind you, the Cardinals used to play in the NFC East, so what do I know?

Sylvanfan · 10-01-2009, 04:30 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by rubecube

The problem is when the West Coast teams have to play an early game in the Eastern time zone. They always bitch about that. I don't think they'll want to break up those rivalries either, but I think the California owners would drool if they had a chance to put Oakland, San Diego, and L.A. in the same division.

EDIT: Mind you, the Cardinals used to play in the NFC East, so what do I know?

Yeah, I see what you are getting at, but the Chargers and Raiders have had to play 10:00 starts in KC for years. If they put the Jags in LA and keep them in the South it would only be 2 hours out of sorts as all the other teams are in the central time zone. Plus there are teams where they adjust the start time too. Occasionally East coast teams play a 4:00 Eastern start for National TV type of thing or they end up on Sunday or Monday night.

I'm sure the other california teams would like the idea of playing L.A. But I can't see the NFL telling the Hunt family who more or less kept the AFL going that your team is changing divisions. Plus the Chargers and Broncos are probably licking their lips at the thought of torturing the Chiefs for the 5 or so years it will take to fix that team.

Montana Moe · 10-01-2009, 11:54 PM

First off, I'm so happy that there is a discussion concerning NFL teams moving and the Saints aren't the subject!

Second, I think the Minnesota taxpayers also funded the beautiful new stadium that the Golden Gophers are christening this year. So, much like Seattle after Safeco Field and Qwest Field, when the Sonics came calling, the well is dry.

Third, how bout them Cowboys? What makes the NFC East so special that they leave that division intact when Dallas should be in the NFC South or West? If the AFC West was serious about remaining as is, that would be my first argument. Not that it would get any traction because Dallas seems to have more pull than those teams...

transplant99 · 10-02-2009, 01:16 AM

Quote:

What makes the NFC East so special that they leave that division intact when Dallas should be in the NFC South or West

Pretty simple.

Giants/Cowboys regularly draw the highest ratings on TV every year. No matter the ability of either team in any given season.

Quote:

I always thought the reason for no NFL team in LA was that the NFL wanted something like a Billion dollar expansion fee. I dont see a team moving their without a large fee being paid for being the only NFL teal in the LA area

The biggest stumbling block is a venue. I have been to games both at the LA Coliseum and the Rose Bowl in Pasadena, and niether is anywhere close to being qualified for an NFL team. Lots of seats....in both....but past that, no amenities that any NFL team would need to be successful.

Quote:

So, as I understand it, these are the teams at risk to move over the next ten years:

Buffalo
Jacksonville
Minnesota
San Francisco (or has this been resolved?)
Oakland
St. Louis

The first 3 yes....the last 3 not so much. St louis isnt going anywhere anytime soon, why would they? With Al Davis...who knows. He is whacko enough to want to re-locate again, but it is a costly decision. The Niners wont be going anywhere either.

burn_baby_burn · 10-02-2009, 08:24 AM

The Chiefs won't be moving from the AFC West. There is a reason the AFC trophy is named after Lamar Hunt. The only way the Chiefs leave the AFC West is if the Hunt family gives its blessing.

It makes more sense to have an NFC team in LA. It would be a natural rivalry with SF, more so than SF and Seattle. Personally, I would like to see the Rams move back to LA.

transplant99 · 10-02-2009, 08:49 AM

Quote:

Personally, I would like to see the Rams move back to LA.

This has been mentioned a few times now...why?

AFAIK the only reason would be because their lease is coming up for renewal, but is that it? If so, that is a minor problem, as both the city of St Lou and the team need one another at this point..

transplant99 · 10-02-2009, 09:26 AM

Just heard a wild stat...

the Chargers have never ever beaten the Steelers in regular season play... 0-13 all time.

rubecube · 10-02-2009, 10:42 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by transplant99

This has been mentioned a few times now...why?

AFAIK the only reason would be because their lease is coming up for renewal, but is that it? If so, that is a minor problem, as both the city of St Lou and the team need one another at this point..

They've had problems with a lack of corporate sponsors and declining ticket sales in the last few years. Even in their peak years, they didn't get a lot of support. St. Louis is a baseball town. I believe they are also under new ownership or for sale.

transplant99 · 10-02-2009, 12:15 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by rubecube

They've had problems with a lack of corporate sponsors and declining ticket sales in the last few years. Even in their peak years, they didn't get a lot of support. St. Louis is a baseball town. I believe they are also under new ownership or for sale.

Point 1. they sold 92% of their tickets last season. No idea abou corporate sponsors or whatnot, but they get the same big slice of pie from TV as all the other teams.

Point 2. So is Boston, so is Chicago, so is New York but moreso...so is Los Angeles.

Sainters7 · 10-02-2009, 02:47 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by transplant99

Point 2. So is Boston, so is Chicago, so is New York but moreso...so is Los Angeles.

In terms of sports, LA always strikes me as more of a "we're a fan of whatever of our teams is doing the best" type of fickle sports town. It's a big reason why when it looked like the Saints were going to move there a few years back, I was seriously considering dropping them as my favourite team. I can't cheer for a team who play in a pathetic, frivolous sports town.

rubecube · 10-02-2009, 02:49 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by transplant99

Point 1. they sold 92% of their tickets last season. No idea abou corporate sponsors or whatnot, but they get the same big slice of pie from TV as all the other teams.

Point 2. So is Boston, so is Chicago, so is New York but moreso...so is Los Angeles.

Yeah, I'm not entirely sure what the reasoning is behind it. I'm always a little stunned by it as well, but I keep hearing it from reputable people/sources.

mykalberta · 10-02-2009, 03:11 PM

If Denver is going to have a good season they need to beat Dallas at home so I am putting my money on them

$5 On Denver, NYG, NWO, SF gets you $39.95

Fingers crossed.

transplant99 · 10-03-2009, 11:21 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Clever_Iggy

I don't understand Garcia's motivations. I wish he would have stayed in Oakland. Stupid circus-trick Russel.

And here is his answer for that very question...

Quote:

"It was to a point where I felt like guys who walked through those doors that just were there to collect a check and not really interested in putting everything that they had within themselves on to the football field," he said. "And that was the frustrating thing for me to see.

Garcia said Friday that he attempted to infuse a different outlook and a "fresh new start" into his Raiders teammates.

"To see the reality of the situation and realize what I may be up against staying here for the entire year, it hurt me, it broke my heart to do that to step up," Garcia said. "But I just felt like it was something I really didn't want to put myself through anymore."

What a circus that team is.

http://sports.espn.go.com/nfl/news/story?id=4528142

Bobblehead · 10-03-2009, 03:45 PM

Funny shirt being marketed by some Niner fans (note: Vernon Davis is #85)

The Ditch · 10-03-2009, 04:37 PM

I want Garcia on the Seahawks this year if Matt gets injured again, and likely he will, love the guy and all but he makes some pretty bone headed decisions on when and how to run the ball.