Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

OFFICIAL POLL: Where should the NFL expand next?

Collapse
X
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #61
    nowhere. no more teams. look at how crappy and long it is taking the gotdamn Texans to turn into a team that is at least .500.
    my scent?...like making love to a lumberjack
    <TACKLE> i will ngata give you a bj raji
    <+BOE> Scott, with Burfict's character concerns (whether legit or not) you think Pioli would draft him. :D
    <+ScottWright> Why not. Baldwin does need a sparring partner...
    Originally posted by Hermstheman83
    What's with the hate on Ricky Stanzi? Those youtube clips of him with the hulk hogan theme music instantly make him better than Luck.

    Comment


    • #62
      Originally posted by duckseason View Post
      We were talking about the bay area. Which is in northern California, and just one specific area of the state. If the "Cal Area" juts all the way into Arizona and the like, then that would more fittingly be referred to as the "West Coast." 4 teams is all we have West of Denver. There are only 7 teams West of St. Louis. Out of 32! I don't think 4 teams is too many at all. Especially in comparison to the density of teams out East. And yes I realize that the East (half of the map) is more densely populated. But not at a 80/20 ratio.

      Personally, I am opposed to the idea of giving LA another chance at being the home of an NFL team. There are just too many other cities that would actually embrace their team and provide consistent support regardless of whether or not the weather was fair. Not sure I'm an advocate of seeing the league bleed into Canada either. Not for lack of support, but just because I think there are far too many qualifying cities within the bounds of our nation to consider looking elsewhere.
      If by 4 teams you mean 6 teams (Denver, Arizona, Oakland, San Diego, Seattle, San Fransisco)

      And if by 7 teams you mean 11 teams (the 6 previously mentioned teams plus St. Louis, Kansas City, Minnesota, Houston, & Dallas... and New Orleans is just east of St. Louis if you wanted to thow in a 12th team)

      Comment


      • #63
        Look at a map of where all of the NFL Teams are and then look at a population density map of the US. You'd be surprised just how similar they are

        Comment


        • #64
          Out of those options, LA.

          Comment


          • #65
            Originally posted by FahvRay View Post
            If by 4 teams you mean 6 teams (Denver, Arizona, Oakland, San Diego, Seattle, San Fransisco)

            And if by 7 teams you mean 11 teams (the 6 previously mentioned teams plus St. Louis, Kansas City, Minnesota, Houston, & Dallas... and New Orleans is just east of St. Louis if you wanted to thow in a 12th team)
            Yeah, I apologize for my sloppiness. I meant to say west of Kansas City. I get the location of them and St. Louis crossed up sometimes. And then I forgot about Arizona. Damn, when I read that, I must've been sleep walking when I wrote that. Shoulda broke out a map or something. The point I was trying to make is that there aren't many teams in the western half of the country. Just 8. And there are 5 west of Denver. Not 6. Denver is certainly not west of Denver. I guess it's not quite as slanted as I made it out to be with the whole 80/20 ratio thing, but it's still 75/25. There should certainly be a higher density of teams out east, but I don't think it's asking too much to have another team or 2 out here.

            Comment


            • #66
              Since this is the active thread in this debate, here's what I posted in the original regarding Toronto:

              Anyone who's suggesting Toronto doesn't quite understand the whole TV revenue thing.

              The NFL thrives on its huge TV contracts that are split evenly amongst the teams. In Canada, however, the Canadian stations bid for the rights to broadcast in Canada and put in their own commercials, which is why we don't see the good Super Bowl commercials.

              The problem is that these contracts only factor in US ratings. As a result, the ratings people only record half of the potential viewers because all the Canadian viewers don't register for American TV ratings. Why would advertisers pay for only half an audience? I doubt that the FCC and the CRTC (the Canadian equivalent of the FCC) would agree to merge revenues.

              As much as I'd like to see an NFL franchise in Toronto, it's an economic impossibility.
              Another victim of Ontario's public education system.

              Comment


              • #67
                Originally posted by JoeSixPac View Post
                Don't forget about what happened to the Expos, they lost all their fans after the strike in '94 and I can see that happening to a Montreal team if their NFL franchise starts to lose. Additionally, I don't see the NFL wanting to move to a predominantly French speaking market.
                Come on...

                the state of baseball isn't close to the state of football in Québec. Football is growing at a furious speed in Québec.

                Thanks to BoneKrusher

                Comment


                • #68
                  Originally posted by duckseason View Post
                  Yeah, I apologize for my sloppiness. I meant to say west of Kansas City. I get the location of them and St. Louis crossed up sometimes. And then I forgot about Arizona. Damn, when I read that, I must've been sleep walking when I wrote that. Shoulda broke out a map or something. The point I was trying to make is that there aren't many teams in the western half of the country. Just 8. And there are 5 west of Denver. Not 6. Denver is certainly not west of Denver. I guess it's not quite as slanted as I made it out to be with the whole 80/20 ratio thing, but it's still 75/25. There should certainly be a higher density of teams out east, but I don't think it's asking too much to have another team or 2 out here.
                  Like I said, look at a population density map. It matches pretty much perfectly with the map of the NFL teams.

                  Comment


                  • #69
                    Originally posted by FahvRay View Post
                    Like I said, look at a population density map. It matches pretty much perfectly with the map of the NFL teams.
                    Except for that big blob in southern california.

                    Comment


                    • #70
                      Originally posted by duckseason View Post
                      Except for that big blob in southern california.
                      What do you mean? There is a big blob of people and a big blob of sports team in southern california. Exactly like I said, the maps match up.

                      http://www.princeton.edu/~rvdb/JAVA/...sity_small.gif

                      http://geography.about.com/library/weekly/aa042700d.htm
                      (this one doesn't have Houston on it, but it's close enough)

                      Comment


                      • #71
                        Originally posted by Handel View Post
                        Come on...

                        the state of baseball isn't close to the state of football in Québec. Football is growing at a furious speed in Québec.
                        Come on... NFL team in Québec is clearly impossible... this is not a great market for a new team !!!

                        #MoncriefArmy

                        Comment


                        • #72
                          Originally posted by FahvRay View Post
                          What do you mean? There is a big blob of people and a big blob of sports team in southern california. Exactly like I said, the maps match up.

                          http://www.princeton.edu/~rvdb/JAVA/...sity_small.gif

                          http://geography.about.com/library/weekly/aa042700d.htm
                          (this one doesn't have Houston on it, but it's close enough)
                          No. We are talking about the NFL. What do YOU mean?

                          Comment


                          • #73
                            Originally posted by duckseason View Post
                            No. We are talking about the NFL. What do YOU mean?
                            Seriously, what are you talking about? You have a team in southern California. What you want two right next to each other? I don't think it's big enough to justify having 2 teams down there. New York is totally different.

                            Comment


                            • #74
                              Originally posted by FahvRay View Post
                              Seriously, what are you talking about? You have a team in southern California. What you want two right next to each other? I don't think it's big enough to justify having 2 teams down there. New York is totally different.
                              How is New York totally different? Los Angeles is the biggest city in the US and they deserve a football team. Los Angeles San Diego is a 2 hour drive on a good day. The only way we get a team in Los Angeles is if a team moves because the league is even now.

                              Comment


                              • #75
                                Originally posted by FahvRay View Post
                                Seriously, what are you talking about? You have a team in southern California. What you want two right next to each other? I don't think it's big enough to justify having 2 teams down there. New York is totally different.
                                Is the font too small for you, or is it that your comprehension skills are really that lacking? If you were to read my posts, you would understand that what I'm talking about is the imbalance of NFL teams in the western and eastern halves of the United States. I stated that I agree that there should be a larger portion of teams out east, but not quite to the degree that exists today. For you to say that Socal would have 2 teams right next to eachother is a ridiculous argument, and goes against your little population density theory. There are teams within close proximity to each other all over the place. Look at Florida. NY. Ohio. DC. And even the Bay Area. I'm not saying that any of these places shouldn't have the teams that they do, I'm just saying that I am an advocate of bringing another team or two out west. I think a ratio of 2.2 to 1 isn't asking too much. And "out west" does not mean "LA." I only brought up LA to annihilate your little population density argument. Based on that argument, and in comparison to what exists in the NFL today, we should have roughly 6 or 7 teams in California. Further, if you were to read my posts, you would realize that I don't think LA deserves a team. I don't believe that population density should be the lone criteria for deciding where teams are placed. So, once again, what exactly do YOU mean?

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X

                                Debug Information