PDA

View Full Version : Small Market Economics


yourfavestoner
02-20-2007, 01:20 PM
I don't mean for this to be a Jaguars-only thread, as this is a league-wide issue. It's just that this particular article happens to be Jaguars related.

Jaguars' real concern is economics


By GENE FRENETTE, The Times-Union

Jaguars fans would prefer to read about which players the team intends to pursue in free agency, who the starting quarterback will be next season, or likely targets with the 17th overall pick in the NFL draft.

Sorry to disappoint you, but I want to touch on an underplayed subject with bigger long-term implications - Jacksonville's ability to survive in a 32-team economic jungle.

This is a convoluted and unpopular issue because nobody supporting a family on a $40,000 salary wants to hear about NFL owners and players fighting to divide billions of dollars.

But if Jaguars fans want to know why there's been speculation about the team moving, or why season-ticket prices are seemingly taking an excessive jump, then it's important to understand Jacksonville's status on the NFL money landscape.

The Jaguars finished 27th in the league last year in average ticket price ($45), which is a bigger bargain when you consider that includes 11,200 club seats - among the NFL's highest number of premium seats - into the calculation. This year, the Jaguars' average price will increase to $50, far below the league average of $63.

Before 46,000 season-ticket renewals accuse the Jaguars of a senseless money grab, they need to know that owner Wayne Weaver is merely trying to keep pace with a money train that is putting small-market teams at a competitive disadvantage.

Many thought it became a non-issue when a new Collective Bargaining Agreement was signed last year, but the truth is NFL owners still haven't agreed on a revenue-sharing formula.

"It's hard to get into these discussions because it comes across as whining," said Tim Connolly, the Jaguars' Senior Vice-President of Business Development. "The NFL agreed to give the players 59.5 percent of the league's average revenue, but it's not the same amount of the pie for everybody."

By Connolly's estimation, the Jaguars' player salaries eat up 65-70 percent of the team's overall revenues, compared to 40-45 percent for the Washington Redskins and New England Patriots. That's a lot more cash high-revenue clubs have to throw around in signing bonuses than Jacksonville.

Unless the NFL evens the playing field with a sound revenue-sharing plan, the Jaguars may eventually field weaker rosters.

Consider this: the Jaguars received $620,000 per year from Alltel for the stadium naming rights, which have expired, while the Patriots pocket $8 million per year from Gillette.

Right now, the Jaguars are struggling to find a new stadium sponsor for even half of what the Patriots are getting.

That 28-3 playoff rout New England put on the Jaguars two years ago is nothing compared to the money gap between them. The Patriots even have naming rights on their parking lot. Ford puts brand names of its cars there, reportedly at a price higher than what the Jaguars may command in a new stadium deal.

The Patriots are so shrewd at marketing, you wonder if they'll try to sell the naming rights to Tom Brady's baby.

Here's the economic reality: until Jacksonville's population and income rises significantly, the Jaguars will be in a money crunch.

Pay attention, Jaguars fans. When this franchise will return to being a Super Bowl contender is far from its only worry.

Jughead10
02-20-2007, 01:22 PM
So what does this atricle really saying? The NFL screwed up when even putting a team in Jacksonville in the first place?

Bohleive
02-20-2007, 01:28 PM
No offense to Jag's fans, but there's no way the expansion should've landed in Jax over Baltimore. It was a disgrace and a total hose-job. That said, I love my Ravens.

yourfavestoner
02-20-2007, 01:29 PM
So what does this atricle really saying? The NFL screwed up when even putting a team in Jacksonville in the first place?

You could certainly make that case, as Jacksonville is the league's smallest market and has the smallest fan base. However, it usually takes generations for a team and a city to establish a bond that results in a large and dedicated fan base. I also think the fact that the Jaguars have been able to sell out their stadium, despite having the smallest market and fan base, is a testament to the people of Jacksonville, as they have a much smaller pool of fans to work with. The biggest mistake they made when putting a team in Jacksonville was making the stadium far too large to sell out in a small market.

Like I said, this isn't a Jaguars-only issue. There are a number small market teams around the league who have this same problem.

TitleTown088
02-20-2007, 01:30 PM
How does Jacksonville have a franchise and LA dosen't?

Jughead10
02-20-2007, 01:33 PM
So what does this atricle really saying? The NFL screwed up when even putting a team in Jacksonville in the first place?

You could certainly make that case, as Jacksonville is the league's smallest market and has the smallest fan base. However, it usually takes generations for a team and a city to establish a bond that results in a large and dedicated fan base. I also think the fact that the Jaguars have been able to sell out their stadium, despite having the smallest market and fan base, is a testament to the people of Jacksonville, as they have a much smaller pool of fans to work with. The biggest mistake they made when putting a team in Jacksonville was making the stadium far too large to sell out in a small market.

Like I said, this isn't a Jaguars-only issue. There are a number small market teams around the league who have this same problem.

Didn't the Jaguars have to take a couple thousand seats out of the stadium so they could sell it out and air the games on TV in Jacksonville beacuse of the blackout rules?

Splat
02-20-2007, 01:33 PM
The Chiefs are in small market and have one of the bigger stadium's in the NFL Seating Capacity 79,451 it can be done.

yourfavestoner
02-20-2007, 01:34 PM
How does Jacksonville have a franchise and LA dosen't?

Because Los Angeles had an opportunity with two franchises and failed with both, and refuses to build new facilities for an NFL franchise.

Number 10
02-20-2007, 01:34 PM
So what does this atricle really saying? The NFL screwed up when even putting a team in Jacksonville in the first place?

You could certainly make that case, as Jacksonville is the league's smallest market and has the smallest fan base. However, it usually takes generations for a team and a city to establish a bond that results in a large and dedicated fan base. I also think the fact that the Jaguars have been able to sell out their stadium, despite having the smallest market and fan base, is a testament to the people of Jacksonville, as they have a much smaller pool of fans to work with. The biggest mistake they made when putting a team in Jacksonville was making the stadium far too large to sell out in a small market.

Like I said, this isn't a Jaguars-only issue. There are a number small market teams around the league who have this same problem.

Didn't the Jaguars have to take a couple thousand seats out of the stadium so they could sell it out and air the games on TV in Jacksonville beacuse of the blackout rules?

I've seen several Jaguars game with a tarp over seats......no way have they sold out all those seats.

yourfavestoner
02-20-2007, 01:35 PM
So what does this atricle really saying? The NFL screwed up when even putting a team in Jacksonville in the first place?

You could certainly make that case, as Jacksonville is the league's smallest market and has the smallest fan base. However, it usually takes generations for a team and a city to establish a bond that results in a large and dedicated fan base. I also think the fact that the Jaguars have been able to sell out their stadium, despite having the smallest market and fan base, is a testament to the people of Jacksonville, as they have a much smaller pool of fans to work with. The biggest mistake they made when putting a team in Jacksonville was making the stadium far too large to sell out in a small market.

Like I said, this isn't a Jaguars-only issue. There are a number small market teams around the league who have this same problem.

Didn't the Jaguars have to take a couple thousand seats out of the stadium so they could sell it out and air the games on TV in Jacksonville beacuse of the blackout rules?

Yes, they did, because the size of the stadium was wayy out of proportion with the size of the market.

The decision to cover the seats was one of the best decisions to make if the Jaguars wanted to stay in Jacksonville.

Bohleive
02-20-2007, 01:40 PM
This seems like it was obviously at least a small mistake, choosing Jax as the expansion. Not to beat a dead horse, but one of the more interesting issues here to me is was it unethical for Tagliabue to put the expanision team there just to placate his buddy Jack Kent Cooke. And it was a bad business move too. How many now Ravens fans were really former skins fans? Not me. It was probably Tags' biggest mistake. Again, no offense to Jags fans.

bearsfan_51
02-20-2007, 01:44 PM
The Chiefs are in small market and have one of the bigger stadium's in the NFL Seating Capacity 79,451 it can be done.
Kansas City draws from all over the place though. If you like in Kansas, Oklahoma, or Nebraska you're just as likely to be a Chiefs fan as anything else.

Jacksonville basically draws from Northern Florida and that's it. It was an awful move to put a football team there in the first place. That being said, I think the Bills are the worst-placed team in the NFL, and I would keep a close on on the rumors of them eventually moving to Toronto.

yourfavestoner
02-20-2007, 01:46 PM
This seems like it was obviously at least a small mistake, choosing Jax as the expansion. Not to beat a dead horse, but one of the more interesting issues here to me is was it unethical for Tagliabue to put the expanision team there just to placate his buddy Jack Kent Cooke. And it was a bad business move too. How many now Ravens fans were really former skins fans? Not me. It was probably Tags' biggest mistake. Again, no offense to Jags fans.

There's no offense taken, as it's all water under the bridge anyways. Plus, there's the fact that I think it's ridiculous that it took the NFL almost twenty years to give Baltimore a team after losing the Colts.

I also think it's ridiculous that Irsay was allowed to take the rights of the Colts with him. But I guess they learned their lesson, as that was the move that predicated the league forcing Art Modell to leave the rights of the Browns with the city of Cleveland.

But that's a whole other issue...

bearsfan_51
02-20-2007, 01:47 PM
This seems like it was obviously at least a small mistake, choosing Jax as the expansion. Not to beat a dead horse, but one of the more interesting issues here to me is was it unethical for Tagliabue to put the expanision team there just to placate his buddy Jack Kent Cooke. And it was a bad business move too. How many now Ravens fans were really former skins fans? Not me. It was probably Tags' biggest mistake. Again, no offense to Jags fans.

There's no offense taken, as it's all water under the bridge anyways. Plus, there's the fact that I think it's ridiculous that it took the NFL almost twenty years to give Baltimore a team after losing the Colts.

I also think it's ridiculous that Irsay was allowed to take the rights of the Colts with him. But I guess they learned their lesson, as that was the move that predicated the league forcing Art Modell to leave the rights of the Browns with the city of Cleveland.

But that's a whole other issue...
I could be wrong, but I believe the Irsay family founded the Colts. The Modell family did not found the Browns, (obviously by the name), that's another huge part of it.

Jughead10
02-20-2007, 01:49 PM
The Chiefs are in small market and have one of the bigger stadium's in the NFL Seating Capacity 79,451 it can be done.
Kansas City draws from all over the place though. If you like in Kansas, Oklahoma, or Nebraska you're just as likely to be a Chiefs fan as anything else.

Jacksonville basically draws from Northern Florida and that's it. It was an awful move to put a football team there in the first place. That being said, I think the Bills are the worst-placed team in the NFL, and I would keep a close on on the rumors of them eventually moving to Toronto.

Buffalo has some die hard fans though. Their fan base is not even close to as bad as Jacksonville.

Bohleive
02-20-2007, 01:49 PM
This seems like it was obviously at least a small mistake, choosing Jax as the expansion. Not to beat a dead horse, but one of the more interesting issues here to me is was it unethical for Tagliabue to put the expanision team there just to placate his buddy Jack Kent Cooke. And it was a bad business move too. How many now Ravens fans were really former skins fans? Not me. It was probably Tags' biggest mistake. Again, no offense to Jags fans.

There's no offense taken, as it's all water under the bridge anyways. Plus, there's the fact that I think it's ridiculous that it took the NFL almost twenty years to give Baltimore a team after losing the Colts.

I also think it's ridiculous that Irsay was allowed to take the rights of the Colts with him. But I guess they learned their lesson, as that was the move that predicated the league forcing Art Modell to leave the rights of the Browns with the city of Cleveland.

But that's a whole other issue...
I could be wrong, but I believe the Irsay family founded the Colts. The Modell family did not found the Browns, (obviously by the name), that's another huge part of it.
Irsays bought the Colts after the Unitas era.

bearsfan_51
02-20-2007, 01:53 PM
[quote=Splat420]The Chiefs are in small market and have one of the bigger stadium's in the NFL Seating Capacity 79,451 it can be done.
Kansas City draws from all over the place though. If you like in Kansas, Oklahoma, or Nebraska you're just as likely to be a Chiefs fan as anything else.

Jacksonville basically draws from Northern Florida and that's it. It was an awful move to put a football team there in the first place. That being said, I think the Bills are the worst-placed team in the NFL, and I would keep a close on on the rumors of them eventually moving to Toronto.

Buffalo has some die hard fans though.
Yes but Jacksonville at least has money and industries that can invest in the advertisements, media market, etc.

Fans are honestly a very overated aspect of what makes a market.

Finlayson56
02-20-2007, 01:53 PM
How does Jacksonville have a franchise and LA dosen't? because LA had three teams and they all failed

Splat
02-20-2007, 01:54 PM
The Chiefs are in small market and have one of the bigger stadium's in the NFL Seating Capacity 79,451 it can be done.
Kansas City draws from all over the place though. If you like in Kansas, Oklahoma, or Nebraska you're just as likely to be a Chiefs fan as anything else.

Jacksonville basically draws from Northern Florida and that's it. It was an awful move to put a football team there in the first place. That being said, I think the Bills are the worst-placed team in the NFL, and I would keep a close on on the rumors of them eventually moving to Toronto.

I think if the Bills or Jags move it will be to LA I don't think LA should get another chance but the NFL wants a team there bad so i think they have a better chance then Toronto.

yourfavestoner
02-20-2007, 01:58 PM
The Chiefs are in small market and have one of the bigger stadium's in the NFL Seating Capacity 79,451 it can be done.
Kansas City draws from all over the place though. If you like in Kansas, Oklahoma, or Nebraska you're just as likely to be a Chiefs fan as anything else.

Jacksonville basically draws from Northern Florida and that's it. It was an awful move to put a football team there in the first place. That being said, I think the Bills are the worst-placed team in the NFL, and I would keep a close on on the rumors of them eventually moving to Toronto.

Buffalo has some die hard fans though. Their fan base is not even close to as bad as Jacksonville.

Like I said, it usually takes generations for a team to build a solid bond with its city. It's a major sociological issue that I think gets overlooked when analyzing fan bases. If you think about it, the first generation of the fan base for an expansion team is people who have never had a pro team in their city before, and don't have a real attachment to the team. When the team first comes, buying tickets to the game is just the newest "fad" and after a few losing seasons, that fad wears off - just like any other ones. The die hard fans will come as the kids who grow up with the team and are more "die hard" fans get old enough to become season ticket holders.

Think about all of the teams who have what's considered a "die hard" fan base. The ones that usually come to mind the most quickly are the Bears, Packers, Steelers, and Giants - all teams that have been in the league since the 1930s.

princefielder28
02-20-2007, 02:16 PM
Jacksonville needs to be out of the NFL and the team needs to be put in a place where fans are starving for a team. I don't think LA really is starving for a team, but one city that would do anything in the world would be Las Vegas!!! Look at Green Bay and Kansas City, two cities that lack success in anything else, but when it comes to football, that is what they live for.

bearsfan_51
02-20-2007, 02:22 PM
Jacksonville needs to be out of the NFL and the team needs to be put in a place where fans are starving for a team. I don't think LA really is starving for a team, but one city that would do anything in the world would be Las Vegas!!! Look at Green Bay and Kansas City, two cities that lack success in anything else, but when it comes to football, that is what they live for.
Las Vegas makes so much less sense than Los Angeles. It's just a much smaller version with even bigger concerns. NBA teams can work in smaller-city markets that the NFL cannot. This is why an NBA team can play in Oklahoma City, which would never be feasible for an NFL team.

bearsfan_51
02-20-2007, 02:23 PM
The Chiefs are in small market and have one of the bigger stadium's in the NFL Seating Capacity 79,451 it can be done.
Kansas City draws from all over the place though. If you like in Kansas, Oklahoma, or Nebraska you're just as likely to be a Chiefs fan as anything else.

Jacksonville basically draws from Northern Florida and that's it. It was an awful move to put a football team there in the first place. That being said, I think the Bills are the worst-placed team in the NFL, and I would keep a close on on the rumors of them eventually moving to Toronto.

Buffalo has some die hard fans though. Their fan base is not even close to as bad as Jacksonville.

Like I said, it usually takes generations for a team to build a solid bond with its city. It's a major sociological issue that I think gets overlooked when analyzing fan bases. If you think about it, the first generation of the fan base for an expansion team is people who have never had a pro team in their city before, and don't have a real attachment to the team. When the team first comes, buying tickets to the game is just the newest "fad" and after a few losing seasons, that fad wears off - just like any other ones. The die hard fans will come as the kids who grow up with the team and are more "die hard" fans get old enough to become season ticket holders.

Think about all of the teams who have what's considered a "die hard" fan base. The ones that usually come to mind the most quickly are the Bears, Packers, Steelers, and Giants - all teams that have been in the league since the 1930s.
It has just as much to do, if not more, with geography. It's warm in Florida. You can go to the beach. You can't do **** in Pittsburgh or Cleveland. Trust me.

Ravens1991
02-20-2007, 02:29 PM
No offense to Jag's fans, but there's no way the expansion should've landed in Jax over Baltimore. It was a disgrace and a total hose-job. That said, I love my Ravens.

It ended up better for us, if Modell didnt hire his buddy Newsome we wouldnt have had that great D we have today.

Jughead10
02-20-2007, 02:39 PM
Jacksonville needs to be out of the NFL and the team needs to be put in a place where fans are starving for a team. I don't think LA really is starving for a team, but one city that would do anything in the world would be Las Vegas!!! Look at Green Bay and Kansas City, two cities that lack success in anything else, but when it comes to football, that is what they live for.
Las Vegas makes so much less sense than Los Angeles. It's just a much smaller version with even bigger concerns. NBA teams can work in smaller-city markets that the NFL cannot. This is why an NBA team can play in Oklahoma City, which would never be feasible for an NFL team.

I don't get why Oklahmo City woudl never be feasible for an NFL team. Please explain. I always thought Portland would be a good spot for an NFL team.

SeanTaylorRIP
02-20-2007, 02:43 PM
I've always wondered why my current homestate Virginia has no professional sports teams, I mean the best we had was the Dazzle of the NBDL and they even took them away from us last year. I mean Virginia is a big state probably our most historically traditional state and the home of all the first presidents and the Jamestown colony. I mean what do we need to do to get a team, it's not like we are North Dakota or anything, no harm intended.

Jughead10
02-20-2007, 02:47 PM
I've always wondered why my current homestate Virginia has no professional sports teams, I mean the best we had was the Dazzle of the NBDL and they even took them away from us last year. I mean Virginia is a big state probably our most historically traditional state and the home of all the first presidents and the Jamestown colony. I mean what do we need to do to get a team, it's not like we are North Dakota or anything, no harm intended.

Where exactly would they put it in Virginia? DC ruins it for you.

PackerFan20
02-20-2007, 02:47 PM
I've always wondered why my current homestate Virginia has no professional sports teams, I mean the best we had was the Dazzle of the NBDL and they even took them away from us last year. I mean Virginia is a big state probably our most historically traditional state and the home of all the first presidents and the Jamestown colony. I mean what do we need to do to get a team, it's not like we are North Dakota or anything, no harm intended.

The VB/Norfolk area has a large population and was in the running to get the Nats, never happened and I was fine with that, but I think SE VA should have a football team. Northern VA has many people too, but is probably too close to DC and Baltimore for the NFL to want to put a team there.

SeanTaylorRIP
02-20-2007, 02:49 PM
Living in Pentagon City which is basically D.C. I have no problem with not having a team but furthur south around Richmond, Hampton, Gynia Beach they deserve an sports team, I mean many of them cheer for the Panthers and Bobcats because that's what's closest.

Jughead10
02-20-2007, 02:51 PM
Living in Pentagon City which is basically D.C. I have no problem with not having a team but furthur south around Richmond, Hampton, Gynia Beach they deserve an sports team, I mean many of them cheer for the Panthers and Bobcats because that's what's closest.

They have the Tide. But didn't they just move out too? Ha. I drive through that area all the time. There isn't much there to a support a team.

bearsfan_51
02-20-2007, 03:18 PM
I've always wondered why my current homestate Virginia has no professional sports teams, I mean the best we had was the Dazzle of the NBDL and they even took them away from us last year. I mean Virginia is a big state probably our most historically traditional state and the home of all the first presidents and the Jamestown colony. I mean what do we need to do to get a team, it's not like we are North Dakota or anything, no harm intended.
Yes because the fact that James Madison is from Virginia has a lot to do with where you put an NFL team.

A large % of the population is suburban D.C. Richmond and Norfolk are moderately-sized cities but come on..get real.

yourfavestoner
02-20-2007, 03:22 PM
I've always wondered why my current homestate Virginia has no professional sports teams, I mean the best we had was the Dazzle of the NBDL and they even took them away from us last year. I mean Virginia is a big state probably our most historically traditional state and the home of all the first presidents and the Jamestown colony. I mean what do we need to do to get a team, it's not like we are North Dakota or anything, no harm intended.
Yes because the fact that James Madison is from Virginia has a lot to do with where you put an NFL team.

A large % of the population is suburban D.C. Richmond and Norfolk are moderately-sized cities but come on..get real.

The fact that James Madison is from Virginia is reason enough to keep the NFL out of Virginia.

And, no, Virginia people, I don't mean for that to be taken seriously.

princefielder28
02-20-2007, 03:23 PM
Jacksonville needs to be out of the NFL and the team needs to be put in a place where fans are starving for a team. I don't think LA really is starving for a team, but one city that would do anything in the world would be Las Vegas!!! Look at Green Bay and Kansas City, two cities that lack success in anything else, but when it comes to football, that is what they live for.
Las Vegas makes so much less sense than Los Angeles. It's just a much smaller version with even bigger concerns. NBA teams can work in smaller-city markets that the NFL cannot. This is why an NBA team can play in Oklahoma City, which would never be feasible for an NFL team.

I don't get why Oklahmo City woudl never be feasible for an NFL team. Please explain. I always thought Portland would be a good spot for an NFL team.

He was referring to OK City for the NBA, but with Vegas there's always gonna be people circulating through and people would attract to the NFL going on there, especially if it's difficult for them to get to a game in there hometown

SeanTaylorRIP
02-20-2007, 03:31 PM
I've always wondered why my current homestate Virginia has no professional sports teams, I mean the best we had was the Dazzle of the NBDL and they even took them away from us last year. I mean Virginia is a big state probably our most historically traditional state and the home of all the first presidents and the Jamestown colony. I mean what do we need to do to get a team, it's not like we are North Dakota or anything, no harm intended.
Yes because the fact that James Madison is from Virginia has a lot to do with where you put an NFL team.

A large % of the population is suburban D.C. Richmond and Norfolk are moderately-sized cities but come on..get real.

The fact that James Madison is from Virginia is reason enough to keep the NFL out of Virginia.

And, no, Virginia people, I don't mean for that to be taken seriously.

And George Washington and Thomas Jefferson. :D

reigle9
02-20-2007, 03:57 PM
I'm all for a team in Vegas. Put the field in the center of a casino, I'm getting chills just thinking about it. It would be the greatest spectacle on Earth.

Ward
02-20-2007, 04:08 PM
If I were a billionaire who was interested not only in die-hard fans, but cold, hard economics I would pick San Antonio. South Texas could support a professional football team. The Alamodome is already built! Austin is just as good an option, and ideally a suburb between the two would be ideal if you don't mind building a new stadium but want to maximize your TV coverage and fanbase. Texas can support a third football team, and I'd be willing to bet millions on it.

The Unseen
02-20-2007, 04:32 PM
Buffalo has some die hard fans though.
Yes but Jacksonville at least has money and industries that can invest in the advertisements, media market, etc.

Fans are honestly a very overated aspect of what makes a market.

Exactly. Why are the Bills in the threat to move? Because of the real issue in franchise stability: stadiums and the tickets. Ralph Wilson Stadium needs to be replaced, but the city won't bite. The Bills had blackouts later in the season.

Just to expound on what YFS said about stadium seating for the Jaguars: Alltel Stadium (no longer, as seen in the article) is somewhere in the top 5-10 in seating compared to the rest of the league; in fact, I thought I remember somewhere seeing it listed at #4, but I'm being safe with the 5-10 thing just in case. It's that way because of the Gator Bowl, and eventually it was for the Super Bowl and the ACC Championship game (which hardly draws in of itself...). That's way impractical for the Jacksonville market.

sweetness34
02-20-2007, 04:45 PM
Stoner, how the hell did you understand all this? Aren't all your brain cells gone from your dates with Mary Jane?

:lol:

Good read though. I think Las Vegas could support a team. The gambling capital of the world. Tourists there all the time. I think it would do pretty darn well.

bearsfan_51
02-20-2007, 05:07 PM
If I were a billionaire who was interested not only in die-hard fans, but cold, hard economics I would pick San Antonio. South Texas could support a professional football team. The Alamodome is already built! Austin is just as good an option, and ideally a suburb between the two would be ideal if you don't mind building a new stadium but want to maximize your TV coverage and fanbase. Texas can support a third football team, and I'd be willing to bet millions on it.
UT-Austin is a pro football team. It's the same reason why Columbus doesn't have a pro-team (outside of hockey).

Jughead10
02-20-2007, 05:07 PM
Football stadiums should always be sold out. Plain and simple. It is the easiest and most affordable sport to own season tickets in.

bearsfan_51
02-20-2007, 05:13 PM
Football stadiums should always be sold out. Plain and simple. It is the easiest and most affordable sport to own season tickets in.
Easiest? How in the world is it the easiest?

And in response to your comment about Oklahoma City, you could start with the fact that the entire metro population is just slightly over 1 million. Cleveland, by contrast, a city that is considered a small market, still has about 2.5 million. It would make just as little sense to put an NFL team in Oklahoma City as it did to put one in Jacksonville.

An NBA team, by contrast, only needs to sell 15-20 thousand tickets per game, and non-season tickets can be bought for 15-20 bucks so even non-fans can still go to a few games each year with their family and not have to spend very much money.

PackerFan20
02-20-2007, 05:30 PM
If anybody ever goes up to Northern Virginia you would realize how big it is and in some areas like Pentagon City, Rosslyn and Crystal City, are becoming more of their own cities rather than suburbs, so if you can have a team in BAL, why not in N VA?

someone447
02-20-2007, 05:33 PM
Stoner, how the hell did you understand all this? Aren't all your brain cells gone from your dates with Mary Jane?

:lol:

Good read though. I think Las Vegas could support a team. The gambling capital of the world. Tourists there all the time. I think it would do pretty darn well.

Stoner is his last name :lol: Anyway, weed doesnt kill brain cells, only numbs them, they come back later on. Alcohol kills them.

Like Ward said, Texas could easily support a 3rd team.

bearsfan_51
02-20-2007, 05:36 PM
If anybody ever goes up to Northern Virginia you would realize how big it is and in some areas like Pentagon City, Rosslyn and Crystal City, are becoming more of their own cities rather than suburbs, so if you can have a team in BAL, why not in N VA?
Don't the Redskins already play in Farifax County? Seriously. It's like 30 minutes. The Redskins are Northern Virginia's team just as much as they are DC's (which nobody really lives in D.C anyway). Whether or not Baltimore deserves it's own team is up for debate I suppose, but the Baltimore-D.C-Northern Virginia metropolitan area is the 4th largest in the country I believe. That should constitute two teams, which it has. Having three teams would just be stupid.

GB12
02-20-2007, 05:39 PM
If anybody ever goes up to Northern Virginia you would realize how big it is and in some areas like Pentagon City, Rosslyn and Crystal City, are becoming more of their own cities rather than suburbs, so if you can have a team in BAL, why not in N VA?
Don't the Redskins already play in Farifax County? Seriously. It's like 30 minutes. The Redskins are Northern Virginia's team just as much as they are DC's (which nobody really lives in D.C anyway). Whether or not Baltimore deserves it's own team is up for debate I suppose, but the Baltimore-D.C-Northern Virginia metropolitan area is the 4th largest in the country I believe. That should constitute two teams, which it has. Having three teams would just be stupid.

I think the Skins are technically in Maryland.

bearsfan_51
02-20-2007, 05:41 PM
If anybody ever goes up to Northern Virginia you would realize how big it is and in some areas like Pentagon City, Rosslyn and Crystal City, are becoming more of their own cities rather than suburbs, so if you can have a team in BAL, why not in N VA?
Don't the Redskins already play in Farifax County? Seriously. It's like 30 minutes. The Redskins are Northern Virginia's team just as much as they are DC's (which nobody really lives in D.C anyway). Whether or not Baltimore deserves it's own team is up for debate I suppose, but the Baltimore-D.C-Northern Virginia metropolitan area is the 4th largest in the country I believe. That should constitute two teams, which it has. Having three teams would just be stupid.

I think the Skins are technically in Maryland.
Yeah you're right. Team headquarters and training facilities are in Northern Virginia. That being said, it's really considered one area.

PackerFan20
02-20-2007, 05:44 PM
If anybody ever goes up to Northern Virginia you would realize how big it is and in some areas like Pentagon City, Rosslyn and Crystal City, are becoming more of their own cities rather than suburbs, so if you can have a team in BAL, why not in N VA?
Don't the Redskins already play in Farifax County? Seriously. It's like 30 minutes. The Redskins are Northern Virginia's team just as much as they are DC's (which nobody really lives in D.C anyway). Whether or not Baltimore deserves it's own team is up for debate I suppose, but the Baltimore-D.C-Northern Virginia metropolitan area is the 4th largest in the country I believe. That should constitute two teams, which it has. Having three teams would just be stupid.

I think the Skins are technically in Maryland.
Yeah you're right. Team headquarters and training facilities are in Northern Virginia. That being said, it's really considered one area.

Headquarters/practice facilities are in ashburn, fedex field is in landover maryland

dazuck
02-20-2007, 09:10 PM
If anybody ever goes up to Northern Virginia you would realize how big it is and in some areas like Pentagon City, Rosslyn and Crystal City, are becoming more of their own cities rather than suburbs, so if you can have a team in BAL, why not in N VA?
Don't the Redskins already play in Farifax County? Seriously. It's like 30 minutes. The Redskins are Northern Virginia's team just as much as they are DC's (which nobody really lives in D.C anyway). Whether or not Baltimore deserves it's own team is up for debate I suppose, but the Baltimore-D.C-Northern Virginia metropolitan area is the 4th largest in the country I believe. That should constitute two teams, which it has. Having three teams would just be stupid.

I think the Skins are technically in Maryland.
Yeah you're right. Team headquarters and training facilities are in Northern Virginia. That being said, it's really considered one area.

Headquarters/practice facilities are in ashburn, fedex field is in landover maryland

For decades it was all RFK. I think that once FeDex is all used up, Snyder will try to land the skins back in DC. The city has already asked Snyder, but he knows that hes sitting on a gold mine in Landover.

sweetness34
02-20-2007, 09:20 PM
Stoner, how the hell did you understand all this? Aren't all your brain cells gone from your dates with Mary Jane?

:lol:

Good read though. I think Las Vegas could support a team. The gambling capital of the world. Tourists there all the time. I think it would do pretty darn well.

Stoner is his last name :lol: Anyway, weed doesnt kill brain cells, only numbs them, they come back later on. Alcohol kills them.

Like Ward said, Texas could easily support a 3rd team.

Ok, I'm sorry....YFS.

Btw, my friends would beg to differ that smoking pot doesn't kill brain cells. I think my friend is legally retarted (IQ wise) because he's smoked so much.

rocksoff44
02-20-2007, 09:23 PM
If anybody ever goes up to Northern Virginia you would realize how big it is and in some areas like Pentagon City, Rosslyn and Crystal City, are becoming more of their own cities rather than suburbs, so if you can have a team in BAL, why not in N VA?
Don't the Redskins already play in Farifax County? Seriously. It's like 30 minutes. The Redskins are Northern Virginia's team just as much as they are DC's (which nobody really lives in D.C anyway). Whether or not Baltimore deserves it's own team is up for debate I suppose, but the Baltimore-D.C-Northern Virginia metropolitan area is the 4th largest in the country I believe. That should constitute two teams, which it has. Having three teams would just be stupid. The skins play in maryland not virginia

Hurricane Ditka
02-20-2007, 09:25 PM
Stoner, how the hell did you understand all this? Aren't all your brain cells gone from your dates with Mary Jane?

:lol:

Good read though. I think Las Vegas could support a team. The gambling capital of the world. Tourists there all the time. I think it would do pretty darn well.Marijuana doesn't kill brain cells, it makes them hungry.

sweetness34
02-20-2007, 09:33 PM
Stoner, how the hell did you understand all this? Aren't all your brain cells gone from your dates with Mary Jane?

:lol:

Good read though. I think Las Vegas could support a team. The gambling capital of the world. Tourists there all the time. I think it would do pretty darn well.Marijuana doesn't kill brain cells, it makes them hungry.

:lol:

jag
02-20-2007, 09:38 PM
This is why I shudder at the thought of a team moving to Los Angeles. Because if theres a team that needs to move, its the Jags.

Hurricane Ditka
02-20-2007, 09:42 PM
This is why I shudder at the thought of a team moving to Los Angeles. Because if theres a team that needs to move, its the Jags.Jacksonville just had a Super Bowl like 2 years ago.

JPLUFF
02-20-2007, 11:18 PM
This is why I shudder at the thought of a team moving to Los Angeles. Because if theres a team that needs to move, its the Jags.Jacksonville just had a Super Bowl like 2 years ago.

Yeah and sadly it was one of the poorest organized Super Bowls of all time.

I found this article, and granted it's like 5 years old but it's relevant to the debate.

"Tuesday, May 15, 2001

Story last updated at 11:38 p.m. on Monday, May 14, 2001
Jaguars' profit figures are worth remembering in future
See also: NFL lists Jags' 5-year profit at $79 million




Spinning around the news dial ... click.

Whoa. Here are some interesting figures.

In reporting on the Oakland Raiders' lawsuit against the National Football League, The Los Angeles Times obtained documents that had been entered into evidence that provided the financial performance of each of the league's 31 teams.

As you might imagine, such information has been closely guarded in the past. Even team owners didn't have a complete picture of what other teams were doing.

So, drum roll, how about the Jaguars?

According to the Los Angeles Times report, the Jacksonville Jaguars had operating profits in 1999 of $27.6 million and ranked fourth among NFL teams. In 1998, the Jaguars ranked second with operating profits of $30.1 million.

Not too shabby, eh? You might want to keep those numbers in mind when discussions come up about who should pay for improvements at Alltel Stadium that the Jaguars want done before the Super Bowl comes to town."

So the point here is that the Jaguars are doing fine. Basically all NFL teams are doing fine because it's the best ran professional sports league and it has evolved into America's most popular game. No NFL team should have to worry about being sold anytime soon.

Kurve
02-20-2007, 11:21 PM
Jacksonville needs to be out of the NFL and the team needs to be put in a place where fans are starving for a team. I don't think LA really is starving for a team, but one city that would do anything in the world would be Las Vegas!!! Look at Green Bay and Kansas City, two cities that lack success in anything else, but when it comes to football, that is what they live for.
Las Vegas makes so much less sense than Los Angeles. It's just a much smaller version with even bigger concerns. NBA teams can work in smaller-city markets that the NFL cannot. This is why an NBA team can play in Oklahoma City, which would never be feasible for an NFL team.


im assuming you dont know much about las vegas.... being that ive been living in Vegas for over 11 years and seen it grow like no other city in this country. From 1995 being about 200,000 people with in 10 years it grew close to 2 million people in the las vegas valley. You name one sporting event that is shown here in las vegas that hasnt had success. Boxing, UFC, ect . I personally worked this last weeks NBA all star week and we had the highest turn out for the nba jam sessions then any other previous city. They are looking into bringing it to vegas more often now. No other city can hold the people then vegas can, conventions, hotels, attractions and just the shire ease of having people travel just to come here and even to watch a game. If the tourist wouldnt fill seats then you have about 2 million people in the valley that are craving for a local team to support. I will tell you this much there is probably more money in this city then most nfl cities these casinos bring in so much money its crazy and many casino owners are all for bringing in a team because it will help them in the long run. Having a Great mayor who is working hard to get a team here and its his goal and having these casino backing a lot of money into a having a team here a stadium wouldnt be a issue of being build. Previous Vikings owner wanted to move the vikings to Las Vegas he had a interest here but ended up not doing it and that was 7 or 8 years ago i beleive, the city is even larger now. Montreal Expos wanted to move there team to vegas as well it was there 2nd choice outside of washington dc. So i do truely beleive Vegas would definatly be able to support a pro team and even NFL do i beleive that the first pro team will be a NFL team here in vegas no i think it will be Basketball or Baseball. Sorry hope i made some sense sometimes i can keep going and going lol but being that this has been my hometown for the past 11 years i truely beleive and support this city in the quest of getting a team here.


but i also agree los angeles deserves a city as well!

yourfavestoner
02-20-2007, 11:40 PM
Stoner, how the hell did you understand all this? Aren't all your brain cells gone from your dates with Mary Jane?

:lol:

Good read though. I think Las Vegas could support a team. The gambling capital of the world. Tourists there all the time. I think it would do pretty darn well.

Stoner is his last name :lol: Anyway, weed doesnt kill brain cells, only numbs them, they come back later on. Alcohol kills them.

Like Ward said, Texas could easily support a 3rd team.

Ok, I'm sorry....YFS.

Btw, my friends would beg to differ that smoking pot doesn't kill brain cells. I think my friend is legally retarted (IQ wise) because he's smoked so much.

There's no need to apologize. And don't get me wrong. I smoke a ******** of weed (at least twice a day).

Sveen
02-21-2007, 05:43 AM
I'd personally love to see a NFL franchise in Las Vegas, and I think it would do well also.

OzTitan
02-21-2007, 05:47 AM
So what does this atricle really saying? The NFL screwed up when even putting a team in Jacksonville in the first place?

You could certainly make that case, as Jacksonville is the league's smallest market and has the smallest fan base. However, it usually takes generations for a team and a city to establish a bond that results in a large and dedicated fan base. I also think the fact that the Jaguars have been able to sell out their stadium, despite having the smallest market and fan base, is a testament to the people of Jacksonville, as they have a much smaller pool of fans to work with. The biggest mistake they made when putting a team in Jacksonville was making the stadium far too large to sell out in a small market.

Like I said, this isn't a Jaguars-only issue. There are a number small market teams around the league who have this same problem.

Didn't the Jaguars have to take a couple thousand seats out of the stadium so they could sell it out and air the games on TV in Jacksonville beacuse of the blackout rules?

Yes, they did, because the size of the stadium was wayy out of proportion with the size of the market.

The decision to cover the seats was one of the best decisions to make if the Jaguars wanted to stay in Jacksonville.

Excuse me if i'm missing something here, but what good does covering seats really do beyond being able to say "Hey, we sold out!" easier?

OzTitan
02-21-2007, 05:50 AM
This seems like it was obviously at least a small mistake, choosing Jax as the expansion. Not to beat a dead horse, but one of the more interesting issues here to me is was it unethical for Tagliabue to put the expanision team there just to placate his buddy Jack Kent Cooke. And it was a bad business move too. How many now Ravens fans were really former skins fans? Not me. It was probably Tags' biggest mistake. Again, no offense to Jags fans.

There's no offense taken, as it's all water under the bridge anyways. Plus, there's the fact that I think it's ridiculous that it took the NFL almost twenty years to give Baltimore a team after losing the Colts.

I also think it's ridiculous that Irsay was allowed to take the rights of the Colts with him. But I guess they learned their lesson, as that was the move that predicated the league forcing Art Modell to leave the rights of the Browns with the city of Cleveland.

But that's a whole other issue...

Didn't seem to influence Bud Adams and the Oilers though, which was between the Colts and Browns cases. As you said though, whole other issue....

Sveen
02-21-2007, 05:51 AM
So what does this atricle really saying? The NFL screwed up when even putting a team in Jacksonville in the first place?

You could certainly make that case, as Jacksonville is the league's smallest market and has the smallest fan base. However, it usually takes generations for a team and a city to establish a bond that results in a large and dedicated fan base. I also think the fact that the Jaguars have been able to sell out their stadium, despite having the smallest market and fan base, is a testament to the people of Jacksonville, as they have a much smaller pool of fans to work with. The biggest mistake they made when putting a team in Jacksonville was making the stadium far too large to sell out in a small market.

Like I said, this isn't a Jaguars-only issue. There are a number small market teams around the league who have this same problem.

Didn't the Jaguars have to take a couple thousand seats out of the stadium so they could sell it out and air the games on TV in Jacksonville beacuse of the blackout rules?

Yes, they did, because the size of the stadium was wayy out of proportion with the size of the market.

The decision to cover the seats was one of the best decisions to make if the Jaguars wanted to stay in Jacksonville.

Excuse me if i'm missing something here, but what good does covering seats really do beyond being able to say "Hey, we sold out!" easier?

Well. By putting away seats and having them "not for sale" it makes the stadium capacity on paper lower and it gets easier to sell out. That way when all the tickets for sale are sold out they can air the games on local television.

The Unseen
02-21-2007, 05:55 AM
Football stadiums should always be sold out. Plain and simple. It is the easiest and most affordable sport to own season tickets in.

Huh?

Now, while I think Jacksonville should support the team and sell out the seats, but easiest and affordable? I definitely doubt that. It's cheap in Jacksonville, but most everyone else it's an arm and a leg to get a good seat.

JagHombre22
02-21-2007, 07:50 AM
I think the point of the thread was to suggest that eventually small market teams like the jaguars and bills will not be able to provide competitive rosters, much like baseball now, if something isn't done to parallel the gap between teams such as the Patriots and Jaguars....the thread wasn't created to discuss WHY Jacksonville has a franchise...

eacantdraft
02-21-2007, 07:56 AM
So what does this atricle really saying? The NFL screwed up when even putting a team in Jacksonville in the first place?

You could certainly make that case, as Jacksonville is the league's smallest market and has the smallest fan base. However, it usually takes generations for a team and a city to establish a bond that results in a large and dedicated fan base. I also think the fact that the Jaguars have been able to sell out their stadium, despite having the smallest market and fan base, is a testament to the people of Jacksonville, as they have a much smaller pool of fans to work with. The biggest mistake they made when putting a team in Jacksonville was making the stadium far too large to sell out in a small market.

Like I said, this isn't a Jaguars-only issue. There are a number small market teams around the league who have this same problem.

Jacksonville is not the smallest market in the NFL. Green Bay is, by far. Green Bay has 100,000, Jacksonville metro has over a million and is growing very fast. Green Bay is successful because of a long winning tradition.

Has it ever occured to anyone that Jacksonville may be a college football town? Both Florida and Florida State is within a reasonable driving distance. Both storied programs. Not everyone is thrilled with pro sports.

On to Buffalo. Once Ralph Wilson passes on, that team may be in trouble. Buffalo's population is shrinking, poor, and old. It doesn't have much of a base to draw on. The best scenario is to probably play one or two regular season games in Toronto (they really should play in Canada on Canada fan appreciation day).

njx9
02-21-2007, 08:00 AM
Football stadiums should always be sold out. Plain and simple. It is the easiest and most affordable sport to own season tickets in.

Huh?

Now, while I think Jacksonville should support the team and sell out the seats, but easiest and affordable? I definitely doubt that. It's cheap in Jacksonville, but most everyone else it's an arm and a leg to get a good seat.

there are relatively few tickets to buy (8 at, the league average of 63$ a pop, compared to 81 at 20? for baseball, and whatever the numbers are for basketball). he didn't say it was easy to buy tickets, but that the sport should be the easiest way to afford a set of season tickets out of the three majors.

Iamcanadian
02-21-2007, 08:12 AM
I'd say Buffalo is in deeper sh-t than Jacksonville. Toronto with it's 16 million regional population is very attractive and might be the NFL's 1st step towards making the game international.

Jughead10
02-21-2007, 09:23 AM
Football stadiums should always be sold out. Plain and simple. It is the easiest and most affordable sport to own season tickets in.

Huh?

Now, while I think Jacksonville should support the team and sell out the seats, but easiest and affordable? I definitely doubt that. It's cheap in Jacksonville, but most everyone else it's an arm and a leg to get a good seat.

there are relatively few tickets to buy (8 at, the league average of 63$ a pop, compared to 81 at 20? for baseball, and whatever the numbers are for basketball). he didn't say it was easy to buy tickets, but that the sport should be the easiest way to afford a set of season tickets out of the three majors.

Basically that is what I was saying. I am on the list for Giants season tickets. I won't get them for another 40 years ( :cry: ) but if they called tomorrow I could afford them at a relatively young age and average salary. The games are basically every other sunday. So it wouldn't take up all my time like 41 home basketball/hockey games or 81 baseball games. Also it is technically 10 games because they make you pay for the preseason. So one season ticket at the league average is about $630, Lets bump it up even to $700 for error/round number purposes.

So lets say a football stadium does go up in Oklahoma City. There should be enough people within a 2 hour radius in any direction who can fork over $700 dollars a year to fill lets say a 65,000 seat stadium. The only problem with OK City is that I would assume most of them are already Cowboy fans.

The bottom line is at the age of 23, I can financially afford to own Giants season tickets if the waiting list wasn't 40 years long. I can't do the same for the Yankees, Knicks, or Rangers.

steelernation77
02-21-2007, 09:29 AM
The Chiefs are in small market and have one of the bigger stadium's in the NFL Seating Capacity 79,451 it can be done.
Kansas City draws from all over the place though. If you like in Kansas, Oklahoma, or Nebraska you're just as likely to be a Chiefs fan as anything else.

Jacksonville basically draws from Northern Florida and that's it. It was an awful move to put a football team there in the first place. That being said, I think the Bills are the worst-placed team in the NFL, and I would keep a close on on the rumors of them eventually moving to Toronto.

Buffalo has some die hard fans though. Their fan base is not even close to as bad as Jacksonville.

Like I said, it usually takes generations for a team to build a solid bond with its city. It's a major sociological issue that I think gets overlooked when analyzing fan bases. If you think about it, the first generation of the fan base for an expansion team is people who have never had a pro team in their city before, and don't have a real attachment to the team. When the team first comes, buying tickets to the game is just the newest "fad" and after a few losing seasons, that fad wears off - just like any other ones. The die hard fans will come as the kids who grow up with the team and are more "die hard" fans get old enough to become season ticket holders.

Think about all of the teams who have what's considered a "die hard" fan base. The ones that usually come to mind the most quickly are the Bears, Packers, Steelers, and Giants - all teams that have been in the league since the 1930s.
It has just as much to do, if not more, with geography. It's warm in Florida. You can go to the beach. You can't do *********** in Pittsburgh or Cleveland. Trust me.

I like Pittsburgh

Bohleive
02-21-2007, 09:54 AM
I like Pittsburgh
And may god have mercy on your soul...

bearsfan_51
02-21-2007, 10:00 AM
I'd say Buffalo is in deeper sh-t than Jacksonville. Toronto with it's 16 million regional population is very attractive and might be the NFL's 1st step towards making the game international.
Honestly I think Toronto is best case scenario for Bills fans. It's only like an hour drive isn't it? They would still be in the home market and making the trip to Bills games wouldn't be a problem at all.

bearsfan_51
02-21-2007, 10:01 AM
Football stadiums should always be sold out. Plain and simple. It is the easiest and most affordable sport to own season tickets in.

Huh?

Now, while I think Jacksonville should support the team and sell out the seats, but easiest and affordable? I definitely doubt that. It's cheap in Jacksonville, but most everyone else it's an arm and a leg to get a good seat.

there are relatively few tickets to buy (8 at, the league average of 63$ a pop, compared to 81 at 20? for baseball, and whatever the numbers are for basketball). he didn't say it was easy to buy tickets, but that the sport should be the easiest way to afford a set of season tickets out of the three majors.

Basically that is what I was saying. I am on the list for Giants season tickets. I won't get them for another 40 years ( :cry: ) but if they called tomorrow I could afford them at a relatively young age and average salary. The games are basically every other sunday. So it wouldn't take up all my time like 41 home basketball/hockey games or 81 baseball games. Also it is technically 10 games because they make you pay for the preseason. So one season ticket at the league average is about $630, Lets bump it up even to $700 for error/round number purposes.

So lets say a football stadium does go up in Oklahoma City. There should be enough people within a 2 hour radius in any direction who can fork over $700 dollars a year to fill lets say a 65,000 seat stadium. The only problem with OK City is that I would assume most of them are already Cowboy fans.

The bottom line is at the age of 23, I can financially afford to own Giants season tickets if the waiting list wasn't 40 years long. I can't do the same for the Yankees, Knicks, or Rangers.
The biggest issues is local advertising revenue and media market. Just because they could feasible fill a stadium doesn't mean there would be anyone else left around to watch the game on television. The market is just too small. Filling the stadium is only a very small part of the equation.

frogstomp
02-21-2007, 10:09 AM
I still honestly think they should send a team to Toronto. It's the fifth largest city in North America, and it would also want a football team. Also, if Toronto got a team it would immediately become "Canada's Team," giving it a fan base of almost every football watcher in Canada.

I just think it would be good for the NFL in so many ways.

someone447
02-21-2007, 11:28 AM
NOOOOOOOOOOOO!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Although Canada is home to the best sports nickname in all of sports, Vancouver Canucks.

bearsfan_51
02-21-2007, 12:56 PM
NOOOOOOOOOOOO!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Although Canada is home to the best sports nickname in all of sports, Vancouver Canucks.
http://www.brandsoftheworld.com/brands/0005/8237/brand.gif
I beg to differ.

yourfavestoner
02-21-2007, 04:05 PM
So what does this atricle really saying? The NFL screwed up when even putting a team in Jacksonville in the first place?

You could certainly make that case, as Jacksonville is the league's smallest market and has the smallest fan base. However, it usually takes generations for a team and a city to establish a bond that results in a large and dedicated fan base. I also think the fact that the Jaguars have been able to sell out their stadium, despite having the smallest market and fan base, is a testament to the people of Jacksonville, as they have a much smaller pool of fans to work with. The biggest mistake they made when putting a team in Jacksonville was making the stadium far too large to sell out in a small market.

Like I said, this isn't a Jaguars-only issue. There are a number small market teams around the league who have this same problem.

Jacksonville is not the smallest market in the NFL. Green Bay is, by far. Green Bay has 100,000, Jacksonville metro has over a million and is growing very fast. Green Bay is successful because of a long winning tradition.

Has it ever occured to anyone that Jacksonville may be a college football town? Both Florida and Florida State is within a reasonable driving distance. Both storied programs. Not everyone is thrilled with pro sports.

On to Buffalo. Once Ralph Wilson passes on, that team may be in trouble. Buffalo's population is shrinking, poor, and old. It doesn't have much of a base to draw on. The best scenario is to probably play one or two regular season games in Toronto (they really should play in Canada on Canada fan appreciation day).

Jacksonville is officially second-smallest, with Green Bay being the smallest. However, the situation in Green Bay is unique. Although Green Bay is the smallest market in the league, it has Milwaukee right down the road. The Packers played home games in both cities for a lot of years and had ticket offices in both cities. The Packers also draw from across the entire state of Wisconsin.

Calling Jacksonville a college football city is also a myth. Jacksonville routinely has some of the highest television ratings for NFL games in the entire country. There's definite interest, but they don't get statewide support like a lot of teams in the league. They're pigeonholed in north Florida, and there are already established fan bases for Tampa and Miami down south, and there are the Falcons to the north in Georgia.

PackerFan20
02-21-2007, 04:42 PM
jacksonville does have a fairly exciting team though.
Players like Maurice Jones-Drew(or is it the other way around) who are quick and real finnesse type players do bring a sort of excitement to the game and so that might save them. Also have any of yall ever been to KC? It keeps on getting compered to GB, but if youve ever been to KC youd notice skyscraper-type buildings, not as tall as in NY or nothing but KC isnt all that small time to me.

yourfavestoner
02-21-2007, 04:46 PM
jacksonville does have a fairly exciting team though.
Players like Maurice Jones-Drew(or is it the other way around) who are quick and real finnesse type players do bring a sort of excitement to the game and so that might save them. Also have any of yall ever been to KC? It keeps on getting compered to GB, but if youve ever been to KC youd notice skyscraper-type buildings, not as tall as in NY or nothing but KC isnt all that small time to me.

KC is much like Green Bay in that their DMAs (designated market areas) are small, but their EMA (extended market areas) are huge. They both draw from all over their entire state.

And in regards to Jacksonville: just win. It'll take care of everything, especially since the market keeps growing and growing. I'd be much more concerned about a team like Buffalo.

steelernation77
02-21-2007, 07:54 PM
I like Pittsburgh
And may god have mercy on your soul...

There's just as much to do as Baltimore, with the added bonus of not having to worry about getting shot around every corner.

locseti
02-21-2007, 07:56 PM
How does Jacksonville have a franchise and LA dosen't?

B/C there is way more to do in LA and they could care less about football. What does JAX have besides trhe jags?

njx9
02-21-2007, 08:43 PM
How does Jacksonville have a franchise and LA dosen't?

B/C there is way more to do in LA and they could care less about football. What does JAX have besides trhe jags?

yeah, there's pretty much nothing to do in NYC, that's why the area's supported two NFL teams for years. :roll:

eacantdraft
02-22-2007, 07:23 AM
How does Jacksonville have a franchise and LA dosen't?

B/C there is way more to do in LA and they could care less about football. What does JAX have besides trhe jags?

yeah, there's pretty much nothing to do in NYC, that's why the area's supported two NFL teams for years. :roll:

I see that you know about as much about NYC and LA as you do about football :roll: In other words, nothing. :roll:

LA has much nicer weather than NYC. LA has two major college football teams. NYC has Rutgers. LA has Disney and Las Vegas is a short drive away. New York has the Bronx and Atlanta City is a short drive away. :roll:

Also New York has a population that supports sports. In LA it's Hollywood and glamour.

I'm not surprised that you are sticking your foot in your mouth again. :roll:

njx9
02-22-2007, 07:53 AM
How does Jacksonville have a franchise and LA dosen't?

B/C there is way more to do in LA and they could care less about football. What does JAX have besides trhe jags?

yeah, there's pretty much nothing to do in NYC, that's why the area's supported two NFL teams for years. :roll:

I see that you know about as much about NYC and LA as you do about football :roll: In other words, nothing. :roll:

LA has much nicer weather than NYC. LA has two major college football teams. NYC has Rutgers. LA has Disney and Las Vegas is a short drive away. New York has the Bronx and Atlanta City is a short drive away. :roll:

Also New York has a population that supports sports. In LA it's Hollywood and glamour.

I'm not surprised that you are sticking your foot in your mouth again. :roll:

the bolded bit is the only part of that that was worth saying. but hey, i could essentialize LA as just having gang wars, being covered in pollution so thick you can't see the sun, and having such crap traffic you can't get to anything you'd ever want to do anyways. but then, i'm not a complete moron and i've come to terms with the fact that arguments like that a) don't prove your point and b) make you sound like an idiot if someone's ever been to both places.

but yes, feel free to imagine that the ONLY thing to do in NYC is go to the bronx.

Jughead10
02-22-2007, 07:56 AM
How does Jacksonville have a franchise and LA dosen't?

B/C there is way more to do in LA and they could care less about football. What does JAX have besides trhe jags?

yeah, there's pretty much nothing to do in NYC, that's why the area's supported two NFL teams for years. :roll:

I see that you know about as much about NYC and LA as you do about football :roll: In other words, nothing. :roll:

LA has much nicer weather than NYC. LA has two major college football teams. NYC has Rutgers. LA has Disney and Las Vegas is a short drive away. New York has the Bronx and Atlanta City is a short drive away. :roll:

Also New York has a population that supports sports. In LA it's Hollywood and glamour.

I'm not surprised that you are sticking your foot in your mouth again. :roll:

the bolded bit is the only part of that that was worth saying. but hey, i could essentialize LA as just having gang wars, being covered in pollution so thick you can't see the sun, and having such crap traffic you can't get to anything you'd ever want to do anyways. but then, i'm not a complete moron and i've come to terms with the fact that arguments like that a) don't prove your point and b) make you sound like an idiot if someone's ever been to both places.

but yes, feel free to imagine that the ONLY thing to do in NYC is go to the bronx.

Ha, I was about to comment on that too. There are tons of reasons not to be a sports fan in NYC. Hell, I would imagine 4 out of 5 random NYers don't even know who Alex Rodriguez is and NYC is more of a baseball town than a football town.

eacantdraft
02-22-2007, 10:35 AM
How does Jacksonville have a franchise and LA dosen't?

B/C there is way more to do in LA and they could care less about football. What does JAX have besides trhe jags?

yeah, there's pretty much nothing to do in NYC, that's why the area's supported two NFL teams for years. :roll:

I see that you know about as much about NYC and LA as you do about football :roll: In other words, nothing. :roll:

LA has much nicer weather than NYC. LA has two major college football teams. NYC has Rutgers. LA has Disney and Las Vegas is a short drive away. New York has the Bronx and Atlanta City is a short drive away. :roll:

Also New York has a population that supports sports. In LA it's Hollywood and glamour.

I'm not surprised that you are sticking your foot in your mouth again. :roll:

the bolded bit is the only part of that that was worth saying. but hey, i could essentialize LA as just having gang wars, being covered in pollution so thick you can't see the sun, and having such crap traffic you can't get to anything you'd ever want to do anyways. but then, i'm not a complete moron and i've come to terms with the fact that arguments like that a) don't prove your point and b) make you sound like an idiot if someone's ever been to both places.

but yes, feel free to imagine that the ONLY thing to do in NYC is go to the bronx.

No you are not a complete moron. You are so imcompetent that you even failed to be a complete moron. :roll:

Care to your explaination why LA has no NFL franchises. Surely a genius like yourself can come up with one other than. :roll: :roll: must be some kind the short bus lingo.

bearsfan_51
02-22-2007, 11:29 AM
LA could easily sustain a franchise. Just because the Rams and Raiders moved doesn't mean it's not a viable market. Cities lose and regain teams all the time. That doesn't mean they can't sustain a franchise.

Also to imply that LA doesn't have a market that sustain sports is absurd. They have two baseball teams, two basketball teams, and a two hockey teams. Not to mention to colleges that are highly competitive in almost everything. But yeah....it's all just about glitz and glamour.

bigbluedefense
02-22-2007, 11:36 AM
LA could easily sustain a franchise. Just because the Rams and Raiders moved doesn't mean it's not a viable market. Cities lose and regain teams all the time. That doesn't mean they can't sustain a franchise.

Also to imply that LA doesn't have a market that sustain sports is absurd. They have two baseball teams, two basketball teams, and a two hockey teams. Not to mention to colleges that are highly competitive in almost everything. But yeah....it's all just about glitz and glamour.

LA is not a friendly market for the NFL. People of the area are fickle. Theyre not like East Coast cities who are big and support their franchises, they won't support their team through thick and thin. They only root for teams when its winning. Look at SD, they all of a sudden had a bunch of fans this year, whereas in years past you couldn't even fill the stadium. USC is now the hot team to root for because theyre winners, but before Carroll no one in the area gave 2 shits about USC.

The Rams and Raiders left because theres no fan loyalty. LA is a bunch of bandwagoners quite honestly. Also couple the fact that many who live there are not originally from LA, and you have no real market to advertise to.

Guys there are just different. My best friend moved there from Jersey to Cali and he hates it now. The fakeness is just too much for an east coast guy.

The only franchise that has success there is the Lakers. And thats because theyre the Yankees of basketball.

Nitschke-Hawk
02-22-2007, 12:08 PM
Every team should create extra attractions in the area to create more revenue. Green Bay is the smallest market and has one of the highest revenues because they know how to market the team and have turned Lambeau into a museum and landmark rather than just a place to play football. Now I understand a large part of the revenue is based off of tradition, history, high ticket prices, a legend in Brett Favre, (imagine how many Brett Favre jerseys have been sold) usually winning seasons, and huge fan base all over the nation.

My advice to any small market team would be to market your players, create catch phrases, build these guys up in the community and most importantly, WIN. Do whatever it takes (legally :D ). Win a Super Bowl, the 2005 Chicago White Sox ( I know it's not a small market team) won the World Series and had no problem selling tickets and merchandise, and now they're in the top 5 in the league in salary, they're a big time baseball club now. For the longest time the White Sox have been the second most popular baseball team in Chicago to the Cubs (in fact they still are but it's much closer than it used to be) and drew about 25,000 fans a game and sell way more than that now.

Do whatever you can to market the team to the area. The closest AFC team to the Jags is the Dolphins way down in Miami. You can be a fan of the Falcons AND Jags or Buccaneers AND Jags. Run commercials with John Henderson and Marcus Stroud, put up billboards and posters. Call them the twin towers or something. I think the Jags have ton of players they can market to the entire area. That stadium is electric in a big game. But the best way to create revenue is to go deep in the postseason.

njx9
02-22-2007, 04:18 PM
How does Jacksonville have a franchise and LA dosen't?

B/C there is way more to do in LA and they could care less about football. What does JAX have besides trhe jags?

yeah, there's pretty much nothing to do in NYC, that's why the area's supported two NFL teams for years. :roll:

I see that you know about as much about NYC and LA as you do about football :roll: In other words, nothing. :roll:

LA has much nicer weather than NYC. LA has two major college football teams. NYC has Rutgers. LA has Disney and Las Vegas is a short drive away. New York has the Bronx and Atlanta City is a short drive away. :roll:

Also New York has a population that supports sports. In LA it's Hollywood and glamour.

I'm not surprised that you are sticking your foot in your mouth again. :roll:

the bolded bit is the only part of that that was worth saying. but hey, i could essentialize LA as just having gang wars, being covered in pollution so thick you can't see the sun, and having such crap traffic you can't get to anything you'd ever want to do anyways. but then, i'm not a complete moron and i've come to terms with the fact that arguments like that a) don't prove your point and b) make you sound like an idiot if someone's ever been to both places.

but yes, feel free to imagine that the ONLY thing to do in NYC is go to the bronx.

No you are not a complete moron. You are so imcompetent that you even failed to be a complete moron. :roll:

Care to your explaination why LA has no NFL franchises. Surely a genius like yourself can come up with one other than. :roll: :roll: must be some kind the short bus lingo.

and yet i'm not the one who said that NYC only has the bronx.

and yeah, the excellent use of the english language in the second paragraph there clearly demonstrates that *i* should be riding the short bus. regardless.

LA is, in my mind, full of pathetic sports fans (not all of them sarf). but to imply that they don't care about sports because they have "better things to do" is absurd, as demonstrated.

yourfavestoner
02-22-2007, 05:50 PM
LA could easily sustain a franchise. Just because the Rams and Raiders moved doesn't mean it's not a viable market. Cities lose and regain teams all the time. That doesn't mean they can't sustain a franchise.

Also to imply that LA doesn't have a market that sustain sports is absurd. They have two baseball teams, two basketball teams, and a two hockey teams. Not to mention to colleges that are highly competitive in almost everything. But yeah....it's all just about glitz and glamour.

LA is not a friendly market for the NFL. People of the area are fickle. Theyre not like East Coast cities who are big and support their franchises, they won't support their team through thick and thin. They only root for teams when its winning. Look at SD, they all of a sudden had a bunch of fans this year, whereas in years past you couldn't even fill the stadium. USC is now the hot team to root for because theyre winners, but before Carroll no one in the area gave 2 shits about USC.

The Rams and Raiders left because theres no fan loyalty. LA is a bunch of bandwagoners quite honestly. Also couple the fact that many who live there are not originally from LA, and you have no real market to advertise to.

Guys there are just different. My best friend moved there from Jersey to Cali and he hates it now. The fakeness is just too much for an east coast guy.

The only franchise that has success there is the Lakers. And thats because theyre the Yankees of basketball.

And this is the reason why I hate southern California teams and their fans.

eacantdraft
02-23-2007, 08:00 AM
How does Jacksonville have a franchise and LA dosen't?

B/C there is way more to do in LA and they could care less about football. What does JAX have besides trhe jags?

yeah, there's pretty much nothing to do in NYC, that's why the area's supported two NFL teams for years. :roll:

I see that you know about as much about NYC and LA as you do about football :roll: In other words, nothing. :roll:

LA has much nicer weather than NYC. LA has two major college football teams. NYC has Rutgers. LA has Disney and Las Vegas is a short drive away. New York has the Bronx and Atlanta City is a short drive away. :roll:

Also New York has a population that supports sports. In LA it's Hollywood and glamour.

I'm not surprised that you are sticking your foot in your mouth again. :roll:

the bolded bit is the only part of that that was worth saying. but hey, i could essentialize LA as just having gang wars, being covered in pollution so thick you can't see the sun, and having such crap traffic you can't get to anything you'd ever want to do anyways. but then, i'm not a complete moron and i've come to terms with the fact that arguments like that a) don't prove your point and b) make you sound like an idiot if someone's ever been to both places.

but yes, feel free to imagine that the ONLY thing to do in NYC is go to the bronx.

No you are not a complete moron. You are so imcompetent that you even failed to be a complete moron. :roll:

Care to your explaination why LA has no NFL franchises. Surely a genius like yourself can come up with one other than. :roll: :roll: must be some kind the short bus lingo.

and yet i'm not the one who said that NYC only has the bronx.

and yeah, the excellent use of the english language in the second paragraph there clearly demonstrates that *i* should be riding the short bus. regardless.

LA is, in my mind, full of pathetic sports fans (not all of them sarf). but to imply that they don't care about sports because they have "better things to do" is absurd, as demonstrated.

Of course New York has more than the Bronx. :roll: I was just joking and pointing out LA has more gold standards than NY. NY has nothing like Disney and Atlantic City looks like a war zone and looks nothing like Vegas. LA wins. They also have college football that draws quite a bit of support. LA has UCLA and USC, NYC has Rutgers and Fordham. Enough said.

Not everyone thinks pro sports is the best thing since slice bread anyways.

bearsfan_51
02-23-2007, 10:54 AM
LA could easily sustain a franchise. Just because the Rams and Raiders moved doesn't mean it's not a viable market. Cities lose and regain teams all the time. That doesn't mean they can't sustain a franchise.

Also to imply that LA doesn't have a market that sustain sports is absurd. They have two baseball teams, two basketball teams, and a two hockey teams. Not to mention to colleges that are highly competitive in almost everything. But yeah....it's all just about glitz and glamour.

LA is not a friendly market for the NFL. People of the area are fickle. Theyre not like East Coast cities who are big and support their franchises, they won't support their team through thick and thin. They only root for teams when its winning. Look at SD, they all of a sudden had a bunch of fans this year, whereas in years past you couldn't even fill the stadium. USC is now the hot team to root for because theyre winners, but before Carroll no one in the area gave 2 shits about USC.

The Rams and Raiders left because theres no fan loyalty. LA is a bunch of bandwagoners quite honestly. Also couple the fact that many who live there are not originally from LA, and you have no real market to advertise to.

Guys there are just different. My best friend moved there from Jersey to Cali and he hates it now. The fakeness is just too much for an east coast guy.

The only franchise that has success there is the Lakers. And thats because theyre the Yankees of basketball.
The Dodgers and Angels generate some of the highest revenue in baseball. Obviously it's different than New York, but just because it's not New York doesn't mean it can't sustain an NFL team, and it especially doesn't mean it can't sustain a sports franchise considering they have as many as any city outside of New York.

lod01
02-23-2007, 12:00 PM
How does Jacksonville have a franchise and LA dosen't?

Because no one one in LA goes to football games. I thought everyone knew that.

bigbluedefense
02-23-2007, 12:11 PM
LA could easily sustain a franchise. Just because the Rams and Raiders moved doesn't mean it's not a viable market. Cities lose and regain teams all the time. That doesn't mean they can't sustain a franchise.

Also to imply that LA doesn't have a market that sustain sports is absurd. They have two baseball teams, two basketball teams, and a two hockey teams. Not to mention to colleges that are highly competitive in almost everything. But yeah....it's all just about glitz and glamour.

LA is not a friendly market for the NFL. People of the area are fickle. Theyre not like East Coast cities who are big and support their franchises, they won't support their team through thick and thin. They only root for teams when its winning. Look at SD, they all of a sudden had a bunch of fans this year, whereas in years past you couldn't even fill the stadium. USC is now the hot team to root for because theyre winners, but before Carroll no one in the area gave 2 shits about USC.

The Rams and Raiders left because theres no fan loyalty. LA is a bunch of bandwagoners quite honestly. Also couple the fact that many who live there are not originally from LA, and you have no real market to advertise to.

Guys there are just different. My best friend moved there from Jersey to Cali and he hates it now. The fakeness is just too much for an east coast guy.

The only franchise that has success there is the Lakers. And thats because theyre the Yankees of basketball.
The Dodgers and Angels generate some of the highest revenue in baseball. Obviously it's different than New York, but just because it's not New York doesn't mean it can't sustain an NFL team, and it especially doesn't mean it can't sustain a sports franchise considering they have as many as any city outside of New York.

Those baseball teams you mentioned actually benefit from the new revenue sharing policy. Its like welfare for baseball teams. The bottom 10 teams in baseball profit more per year than the top 10. The Yankees and Red Sox alone account for 60% of baseball revenue. The overall revenue is split up and divided so other teams can survive. The bottom 10 teams take that money and run to the bank with it, they don't want to spend it to develop a team thus coming out with higher revenues as a whole compared to the top 10 teams.

The problem is, most people from the LA area either root for the Raiders or 49ers anyway. The niche market that you would go after is small. And with the fickle personality of the area, once you start losing, no one will show up.

The NFL would love to have a market in LA. The problem is, theres no market. They tried twice and failed twice. LA is simply not a football town. Have you ever been to LA? I have, and I definately got the impression that those people could care less about football.

Turbeauxdog
02-23-2007, 12:29 PM
The NFL probably wants a franchise in LA (for the billion dollar expansion fee), but I don't think TV wants a franchise there, becuase they won't sell out the stadium, and the nation's 2nd largest media market will be blacked out.

LA has always had good basketball teams, from UCLA through the Lakers they have about 25 championships, so they are supported well.

The Dodgers and Angels benefit from the large Latino population that loves baseball.

No one cares too much about the Kings and Ducks, except for when they win.

Also, no city in California will build a stadium for a team, and that doesn't help.

pysseddoph
02-25-2007, 10:22 AM
The Chiefs are in small market and have one of the bigger stadium's in the NFL Seating Capacity 79,451 it can be done.
Kansas City draws from all over the place though. If you like in Kansas, Oklahoma, or Nebraska you're just as likely to be a Chiefs fan as anything else.

Jacksonville basically draws from Northern Florida and that's it. It was an awful move to put a football team there in the first place. That being said, I think the Bills are the worst-placed team in the NFL, and I would keep a close on on the rumors of them eventually moving to Toronto.

kinda funny you say this in the same breath as you speak of the chiefs situation. the bills are a regional as well. as far south as erie pa, as far east a syracuse ny and as far north as toronto ontario. that is how large the blackout area is for the bills. you have fans that make the drive every sunday.

i think the bills should move but my plan is one that works more for the state of new york and the bills as well. they should move to niagara falls ny.

pysseddoph
02-25-2007, 10:47 AM
I'd say Buffalo is in deeper sh-t than Jacksonville. Toronto with it's 16 million regional population is very attractive and might be the NFL's 1st step towards making the game international.

just to add.

toronto also has something of merit more than just the fans. toronto has company headquarters there. toronto is the nyc/la of canada. they could get recompetetive with stadium naming rights because there would be a real market for such a thing. the club and box seats could be sold there as the economy could support such a thing.

now the ideal thing would to have a team in canda ( toronto ) and a team in mexico ( mexico city ). the nfl is a business and they understand the overall grand scheme. its about product placement. the nfl brand. now looking at these 2 cities .... you would have a domed 65 to 75k seat stadium in toronto. i think thats all they can handle. but in new mexico you would put an 80k plus stadium. get the firm that didnt the new texas stadium to do the one in mexico city.

also at this time you would do another realignment of the league ( the bills should have went to the afcn to begin with, smh at mr wilson for fighting that ) because as it stands right now ... both of the probable teams are in the afc.

Iamcanadian
02-26-2007, 02:28 PM
LA is not a friendly market for the NFL. People of the area are fickle. Theyre not like East Coast cities who are big and support their franchises, they won't support their team through thick and thin. They only root for teams when its winning. Look at SD, they all of a sudden had a bunch of fans this year, whereas in years past you couldn't even fill the stadium. USC is now the hot team to root for because theyre winners, but before Carroll no one in the area gave 2 shits about USC.

The Rams and Raiders left because theres no fan loyalty. LA is a bunch of bandwagoners quite honestly. Also couple the fact that many who live there are not originally from LA, and you have no real market to advertise to.

Guys there are just different. My best friend moved there from Jersey to Cali and he hates it now. The fakeness is just too much for an east coast guy.

The only franchise that has success there is the Lakers. And thats because theyre the Yankees of basketball.

Not a LA fan but I think your completely wrong. The biggest roadblock for a successful franchise in LA is a stadium. The colisium isn't a pro standard stadium and it's in the wrong part of town as I understand it. Until LA builds a new modern stadium, pro football has no chance in that city. Build the fans a great venu to watch the game and LA would have no trouble filling the stadium and supporting the team.
The only black mark on LA is its refusal to build a modern facility so a team could prosper. It's really hard to explain their failure to erect a stadium in this day an age.

bearsfan_51
02-26-2007, 02:45 PM
kinda funny you say this in the same breath as you speak of the chiefs situation. the bills are a regional as well. as far south as erie pa, as far east a syracuse ny and as far north as toronto ontario. that is how large the blackout area is for the bills. you have fans that make the drive every sunday.

i think the bills should move but my plan is one that works more for the state of new york and the bills as well. they should move to niagara falls ny.
They should move to Toronto, like I already said. It's a major metro area that is still very close to the region.

And there are just as many Browns fans in Erie as there are Bills fans. It's not the same as Kansas City as the Chiefs cover much more territory.

bearsfan_51
02-26-2007, 02:48 PM
Those baseball teams you mentioned actually benefit from the new revenue sharing policy. Its like welfare for baseball teams. The bottom 10 teams in baseball profit more per year than the top 10. The Yankees and Red Sox alone account for 60% of baseball revenue. The overall revenue is split up and divided so other teams can survive. The bottom 10 teams take that money and run to the bank with it, they don't want to spend it to develop a team thus coming out with higher revenues as a whole compared to the top 10 teams.

The problem is, most people from the LA area either root for the Raiders or 49ers anyway. The niche market that you would go after is small. And with the fickle personality of the area, once you start losing, no one will show up.

The NFL would love to have a market in LA. The problem is, theres no market. They tried twice and failed twice. LA is simply not a football town. Have you ever been to LA? I have, and I definately got the impression that those people could care less about football.
You talked to everyone in the city about whether or not they care about football? USC has a huge following, so obviously they care about football.

The Rams and Raiders didn't work b/c they were competing against themselves. I agree it's not like New York, but they could easily sustain one team. Easily.

eacantdraft
02-26-2007, 04:08 PM
just to add.

toronto also has something of merit more than just the fans. toronto has company headquarters there. toronto is the nyc/la of canada. they could get recompetetive with stadium naming rights because there would be a real market for such a thing. the club and box seats could be sold there as the economy could support such a thing.

now the ideal thing would to have a team in canda ( toronto ) and a team in mexico ( mexico city ). the nfl is a business and they understand the overall grand scheme. its about product placement. the nfl brand. now looking at these 2 cities .... you would have a domed 65 to 75k seat stadium in toronto. i think thats all they can handle. but in new mexico you would put an 80k plus stadium. get the firm that didnt the new texas stadium to do the one in mexico city.

also at this time you would do another realignment of the league ( the bills should have went to the afcn to begin with, smh at mr wilson for fighting that ) because as it stands right now ... both of the probable teams are in the afc.

One difference. Toronto is first world, Mexico City is third world. I don't think players would want to live their and the populace can't afford to attend many NFL games.

bearsfan_51
02-26-2007, 08:59 PM
One difference. Toronto is first world, Mexico City is third world. I don't think players would want to live their and the populace can't afford to attend many NFL games.

The first world-third world dichotomy is so incredibly outdated. Anyone that uses that in academics is laughed at. It's similar to duck and cover.

eacantdraft
02-27-2007, 07:42 AM
The first world-third world dichotomy is so incredibly outdated. Anyone that uses that in academics is laughed at. It's similar to duck and cover.

Have you ever been to Mexico City?

UKfan
02-27-2007, 11:13 AM
Have you ever been to Mexico City?

I don't think he means that Mexico City isn't third world ( I don't know ) I think he means no one describes places as first or third world in academic circles.

njx9
02-27-2007, 11:22 AM
and that it's a complete cop out to use that kind of terminology because it requires no real thought. moreso in a context in which something can be "dismissed" as third world by someone who doesn't really know what they're talking about.

eacantdraft
02-27-2007, 12:37 PM
and that it's a complete cop out to use that kind of terminology because it requires no real thought. moreso in a context in which something can be "dismissed" as third world by someone who doesn't really know what they're talking about.


Last time I checked it's not Americans illegally crossing the border so they can live in the glorious country of Le Mexique.

When a city bigger than New York doesn't have any professional sports franchises, there is a reason.

eacantdraft
02-27-2007, 12:52 PM
You talked to everyone in the city about whether or not they care about football? USC has a huge following, so obviously they care about football.

The Rams and Raiders didn't work b/c they were competing against themselves. I agree it's not like New York, but they could easily sustain one team. Easily.


Umm, the Rams had LA all to themselves once the Raiders left and even then they couldn't survive.

bearsfan_51
02-27-2007, 06:11 PM
Have you ever been to Mexico City?
I'm really not going to take much time to explain this to you, because you're flippant sarcastic attitude shows that you aren't going to listen anyway. But here are a few points.

1)As pointed out by others, nobody uses the first world/third world dichotomy. Even economists don't use it anymore. It is a remnant of the Cold War to explain countries that were neither capitalistic or communist. It makes no sense to use it now.

2)It also completely lacks nuance. As uneducated people like to use it now, it is in the creation of a rigid and bifurcated notion of modernity. A country is either modern or it's not, it's either progressive or it's not. Looking beyond the fact that nobody can truely define modern or progressive as they are historical constructions, such vague terms really mean nothing.

3)You're not even talking about a country, you're talking about a city. Even using your outdated terms they don't apply. Is Alabama third world even though it's in the United States? Is Gary, Indiana or Flint, Michigan?