Mark Vader Posted July 11, 2014 Share Posted July 11, 2014 You're not quite right on this one, Mark. The city of San Jose has been pushing the league very hard to get the A's to move to a new Stadium in SJ. Unfortunately, the Giants somehow claim that they have territorial rights to San Jose (even though the A's current home is 10 miles closer to San Jose) that they refuse to give up. The city of San Jose has even gone as far as filing a lawsuit against the Giants and Major League Baseball to enable the Athletics to make the move. As long as the A's continue to play the way they are playing, the pressure from MLB on the Giants to relinquish their ridiculous claim will continue to mount. It is hugely embarassing for a sports league on the level of Major League Baseball to have one of (if not THE) best team in their ranks playing in the worst stadium currently used for professional baseball. When an ALCS or World Series game is postponed or delayed by a sewage problem, power outage, or whatever else can and will go wrong at that stadium, MLB will be wearing some serious egg on their face for not enabling the team to acquire a brand new stadium in a city that is desperate to have them. I am as big an an A's fan as I am a Bills fan, and have been my entire life, so I am somewhat in tune to the developments around this situation. I made that comment in jest, devldog. This drama with the A's seems never ending, and I do think the Giants proposed lawsuit is ridiculous. I guarantee you that Giants fans living in the South Bay will remain Giants fans, even if the A's move to San Jose, or Fremont, or whatever South Bay sight they have their eyes on. The Oakland Coliseum is old and outdated. Something has to be done about it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
devldog131 Posted July 11, 2014 Share Posted July 11, 2014 Has anyone floated the idea of Las Vegas for the NFL? UNLV is building a stadium that would make Jerruh Jones green with envy. The NFL won't touch Vegas with a ten foot pole. The league has a major aversion to being associated with gambling in any way, and to put an NFL team in Vegas would be a correlation to gambling so strong that the NFL would never, ever, begin to even consider it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mark Vader Posted July 11, 2014 Share Posted July 11, 2014 Has anyone floated the idea of Las Vegas for the NFL? UNLV is building a stadium that would make Jerruh Jones green with envy. Every major sports league has entertained that idea, and the results always end up the same: It'll never happen. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr. WEO Posted July 11, 2014 Share Posted July 11, 2014 They may not get that status there. And who is to say they don't chip in for a stadium? Their value will double if they go south and they will be able to get far more revenue than in Oakland That's possible. The Raiders would probably be more popular than the Rams. If the owner of the Rams builds a stadium in LA to move the Rams there, you think that the Raiders would be the primary tenant of that stadium if they share it? Makes no sense to me... How much money were the Raiders willing to contribute to a stadium in the Bay Area? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
devldog131 Posted July 11, 2014 Share Posted July 11, 2014 I made that comment in jest, devldog. This drama with the A's seems never ending, and I do think the Giants proposed lawsuit is ridiculous. I guarantee you that Giants fans living in the South Bay will remain Giants fans, even if the A's move to San Jose, or Fremont, or whatever South Bay sight they have their eyes on. The Oakland Coliseum is old and outdated. Something has to be done about it. You're not kidding. That stadium used to be a gorgeous baseball stadium. The area we not so affectionately refer to as "Mt. Davis" beyond the outfield wall didn't have seating until Al bullied the city into constructing that giant concrete eyesore in order to get the team back from LA. That area used to be adorned with flora in green, gold, and white, which was gorgeous. It also had beautiful views of the Oakland hills in the background and the fresh breezes that were once able to permeate the stadium made it a far more pleasant game watching experience. Before: After: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SF Bills Fan Posted July 11, 2014 Author Share Posted July 11, 2014 You're not quite right on this one, Mark. The city of San Jose has been pushing the league very hard to get the A's to move to a new Stadium in SJ. Unfortunately, the Giants somehow claim that they have territorial rights to San Jose (even though the A's current home is 10 miles closer to San Jose) that they refuse to give up. The city of San Jose has even gone as far as filing a lawsuit against the Giants and Major League Baseball to enable the Athletics to make the move. As long as the A's continue to play the way they are playing, the pressure from MLB on the Giants to relinquish their ridiculous claim will continue to mount. It is hugely embarassing for a sports league on the level of Major League Baseball to have one of (if not THE) best team in their ranks playing in the worst stadium currently used for professional baseball. When an ALCS or World Series game is postponed or delayed by a sewage problem, power outage, or whatever else can and will go wrong at that stadium, MLB will be wearing some serious egg on their face for not enabling the team to acquire a brand new stadium in a city that is desperate to have them. I am as big an an A's fan as I am a Bills fan, and have been my entire life, so I am somewhat in tune to the developments around this situation. Nice I'm an A's fan too. Have been since my days growing up in OP. It was nice to take 3 of 4 from the Giants this week. I think the A's will definitely end up down in San Jose in the next few years, even with that lease they signed. It is clear ownership doesn't have interest in a stadium on the Jack London land. They want to move south. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mark Vader Posted July 12, 2014 Share Posted July 12, 2014 If the owner of the Rams builds a stadium in LA to move the Rams there, you think that the Raiders would be the primary tenant of that stadium if they share it? Makes no sense to me... How much money were the Raiders willing to contribute to a stadium in the Bay Area? Good point. I still wonder who the people of Los Angeles would want to welcome back more, the Rams or Raiders? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Buffalo Barbarian Posted July 12, 2014 Share Posted July 12, 2014 I saw this article in the SF Chronicle today. These are the first official public rumblings from Raiders officials about a new stadium. http://www.sfgate.co...ite-5607825.php There is no way that the Raiders will get a new stadium in Oakland and there is no way that they will get the Coliseum torn down in 2 years. The A's just signed a 10 year deal there. They are starting to make the noise so that when they get the official "no", they can use that as a catalyst to move to LA. Why is this relevant to us? Because this will make any LA group they may want to bid think twice. If they overbid on the Bills with the intention to eventually move to LA, they may find that they are beat to the punch. There cannot be two AFC teams in the LA market. I predict the Raiders and Rams will both be there in 3-4 years. I bet it's just the Raiders that go and Rams stay. LA doesn't deserve a team but I hope the Raiders go there so we can stop hearing about all this hand wringing about getting a Team in LA. No one is over bidding for the Bills to move them to LA. The National Football League thinks it's important for each franchise to have its own home stadium with its own character. We strongly support the efforts to get a new stadium built in Oakland for the Raiders. thanks Roger Dublin would also be a headache to get to and I'm trying to envision where in Dublin a stadium would go. Yeah, the Irish are a rowdy bunch they just might go for it He's campaigning to get the Lombardi Trophy redesigned and renamed for him. Janus? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rocky Landing Posted July 12, 2014 Share Posted July 12, 2014 Good point. I still wonder who the people of Los Angeles would want to welcome back more, the Rams or Raiders? I live in Los Angeles, and I would think that the Raiders would win an LA poll. There are still quite a few Raiders fans in LA-- you see a lot of jerseys at bars, and such. Plenty of Chargers fans, also. But, for some reason, I rarely see a Rams jersey. Personally, I'd love to see an expansion team. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chris heff Posted July 12, 2014 Share Posted July 12, 2014 Has anyone floated the idea of Las Vegas for the NFL? UNLV is building a stadium that would make Jerruh Jones green with envy. Among other things, after the debacle NBA Allstar Game, there will never be any franchise in Las Vegas. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mark Vader Posted July 12, 2014 Share Posted July 12, 2014 Among other things, after the debacle NBA Allstar Game, there will never be any franchise in Las Vegas. Yeah, what a disastrous weekend that was. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Roger Goodell Posted July 12, 2014 Share Posted July 12, 2014 Has anyone floated the idea of Las Vegas for the NFL? Currently the league feels there are other cities better suited for a National Football League franchise. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mark Vader Posted July 12, 2014 Share Posted July 12, 2014 (edited) Currently the league feels there are other cities better suited for a National Football League franchise. Like London, Barcelona, Berlin, Frankfurt, Rome, Madrid, Amsterdam & Stockholm, right? Edited July 12, 2014 by Mark Vader Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
machine gun kelly Posted July 12, 2014 Share Posted July 12, 2014 Like London, Barcelona, Berlin, Frankfurt, Rome, Madrid, Amsterdam & Stockholm, right? Don't forget Mexico City, Toronto, and LA x 2. Let's give everyone a break and just open up 8 more teams. Another AFC division, and an NFC division. I wonder which one gets the Europe cities. 4 cities in Europe would be a nice solution, and two in LA, as well as Mexico City and Toronto ( in addition to the Bills staying here). I bet we wouldn't lose much at all in terms of seats. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rocky Landing Posted July 13, 2014 Share Posted July 13, 2014 Currently the league feels there are other cities better suited for a National Football League franchise. Still, it would be a pretty interesting market. I don't believe there is a city in the country with as high a percentage of its occupants vacationing in a hotel. Perhaps a Vegas' teams fan base wouldn't be enormous, but I'll bet all their games would sell out. Don't forget Mexico City, Toronto, and LA x 2. Let's give everyone a break and just open up 8 more teams. Another AFC division, and an NFC division. I wonder which one gets the Europe cities. 4 cities in Europe would be a nice solution, and two in LA, as well as Mexico City and Toronto ( in addition to the Bills staying here). I bet we wouldn't lose much at all in terms of seats. It's a great idea, but I would add one team to each division, and add two games to the regular season, plus another bye week, making the regular season 20 weeks, 18 games. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
devldog131 Posted July 14, 2014 Share Posted July 14, 2014 Still, it would be a pretty interesting market. I don't believe there is a city in the country with as high a percentage of its occupants vacationing in a hotel. Perhaps a Vegas' teams fan base wouldn't be enormous, but I'll bet all their games would sell out. It's a great idea, but I would add one team to each division, and add two games to the regular season, plus another bye week, making the regular season 20 weeks, 18 games. I like your thinking, but you'd have to extend the season by four games (unless you eliminate the two strength of schedule games). You have the two additional games within division and both of the other divisions you play would each have an extra team. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Roger Goodell Posted July 14, 2014 Share Posted July 14, 2014 Like London, Barcelona, Berlin, Frankfurt, Rome, Madrid, Amsterdam & Stockholm, right? At the current time we're exploring many possibilities for future league expansion. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mark Vader Posted July 14, 2014 Share Posted July 14, 2014 It's a great idea, but I would add one team to each division, and add two games to the regular season, plus another bye week, making the regular season 20 weeks, 18 games. At the current time we're exploring many possibilities for future league expansion. We don't need anymore teams! Don't you think the talent level of NFL players has been diluted enough? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rocky Landing Posted July 14, 2014 Share Posted July 14, 2014 We don't need anymore teams! Don't you think the talent level of NFL players has been diluted enough? I've never even considered the idea that the talent level of the NFL has been diluted. In fact, over the decades, I think it's certainly gone the other way. We now have high schools dedicated to churning out professional football players. I haven't done a search, but I also suspect that over the years, the average size, and speed of an NFL player has gone up. It used to be an everyman's, blue-collar sport. I love that there are elite players, but there's a line between elite, and elitist. Sometimes, the NFL reminds me of what's happened to the America's Cup in sailing, where it went from a millionaire's sport to a billionaire's sport. I think there has also been a slow shift, over the decades, away from football being a source of regional pride. Hometown heroes are a rarity. That didn't used to be the case. The question also is: should football expand internationally? Honestly, I don't think I could care less about that. The London game just annoys me-- I'm not sure why. And, just how diluted would the league become? 53x8=424. There are, what, over 300 million people in the U.S.? Sure, there would be a lower percentage of elite players. But, the dispersion of elite players to piss-poor players isn't a straight line. Thee are many more average NFL players than there are elite players. Obviously. I pretty much just rattled this whole post off the top of my head, so I might change my mind. Interesting topic, though. Maybe it deserves its own thread? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
What a Tuel Posted July 14, 2014 Share Posted July 14, 2014 That has been my theory with the rumors (and near confirmation, it will be next season) of playoff expansion, it would make sense to add a couple teams (I didn't think about 4, but 2) at the same time so the playoffs aren't watered down too much. As for the diluting of players, there are so many teams that just don't have the space to keep and develop good players. Adding "424" players would certainly make it so that teams would have to put more into developing their players than just acquiring "elite" players. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mark Vader Posted July 14, 2014 Share Posted July 14, 2014 I've never even considered the idea that the talent level of the NFL has been diluted. In fact, over the decades, I think it's certainly gone the other way. We now have high schools dedicated to churning out professional football players. I haven't done a search, but I also suspect that over the years, the average size, and speed of an NFL player has gone up. It used to be an everyman's, blue-collar sport. I love that there are elite players, but there's a line between elite, and elitist. Sometimes, the NFL reminds me of what's happened to the America's Cup in sailing, where it went from a millionaire's sport to a billionaire's sport. I think there has also been a slow shift, over the decades, away from football being a source of regional pride. Hometown heroes are a rarity. That didn't used to be the case. The question also is: should football expand internationally? Honestly, I don't think I could care less about that. The London game just annoys me-- I'm not sure why. And, just how diluted would the league become? 53x8=424. There are, what, over 300 million people in the U.S.? Sure, there would be a lower percentage of elite players. But, the dispersion of elite players to piss-poor players isn't a straight line. Thee are many more average NFL players than there are elite players. Obviously. I pretty much just rattled this whole post off the top of my head, so I might change my mind. Interesting topic, though. Maybe it deserves its own thread? That has been my theory with the rumors (and near confirmation, it will be next season) of playoff expansion, it would make sense to add a couple teams (I didn't think about 4, but 2) at the same time so the playoffs aren't watered down too much. As for the diluting of players, there are so many teams that just don't have the space to keep and develop good players. Adding "424" players would certainly make it so that teams would have to put more into developing their players than just acquiring "elite" players. I just feel that 32 teams is enough. We have 8 divisions comprised of 4 teams each, which is perfect. There doesn't need to be anymore expansion. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts