Draft Countdown Forums

Go Back   Draft Countdown Forums > Draft Countdown Forums > Pro Football

Pro Football Discuss professional football.

View Poll Results: Where should the NFL expand next?
Oklahoma City 8 6.61%
San Antonio 10 8.26%
Columbus 6 4.96%
Portland 7 5.79%
Toronto 21 17.36%
L.A. 27 22.31%
Hawaii 10 8.26%
Anywhere in Utah 2 1.65%
Las Vegas 18 14.88%
OTHER 12 9.92%
Voters: 121. You may not vote on this poll

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
Old 04-22-2007, 07:05 PM    (permalink
FahvRay
 
Posts: n/a
Reputation:
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by kalbears13 View Post
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.
Wow, are you serious. Let me give you a quick lesson.

New York - Population: 8,143,197
Population Density: 26,353 per sq mile

Los Angeles - Population: 3,844,829
Population Density: 8,198 per sq mile

San Diego - Population: 1,255,540
Population Density: 3,875 per sq mile

Los Angeles & San Diego - Population: 5,100,369
Population Density: 6,399 per sq mile

Thats how New York is different!
  Reply With Quote
Old 04-22-2007, 07:11 PM    (permalink
255979119
Veteran
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Eh?
Posts: 1,128
Reputation: 204
255979119 hopes to escalate quickly but not get out of hand.
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by bored of education View Post
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.
How many years did it take the Buc's to turn it around?
255979119 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-22-2007, 07:21 PM    (permalink
FahvRay
 
Posts: n/a
Reputation:
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by duckseason View Post
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?
Wow, thanks for just throwing arbitrary numbers out.

I actually went and did the math. By population, 41% of Americans live west of the Mississippi. Currently there are 12 of 32 teams west of the Mississippi, 37.5%. If one team were to move west of the Mississippi, it woudl result in approximately 41% of the teams. However, when we look at the population denisty, there is 45.34 people per sq mile. East of the Mississippi that number is 204.65 people per sq mile. That's a 1:4 ratio. So that would mean 6 teams west of the Mississippi.

And I like how you just throw out that "Based on that argument, and in comparison to what exists in the NFL today, we should have roughly 6 or 7 teams in California." By my arguement there would be 6 teams between California and Texas considering they make up over half the population west of the Mississippi... ohh and what do you know, there are 5 teams between California and Texas. Not too far off.

And I don't care if you think LA deserves a team or not. You said something that wasn't factually based and I called you on it.

And as you can see, the way the NFL teams are set up are closer to population than population density. But if you look at the two maps, where there is a large area of white on the population map, there is usually a corresponding NFL team. THAT IS WHAT I MEANT!
  Reply With Quote
Old 04-22-2007, 07:31 PM    (permalink
FahvRay
 
Posts: n/a
Reputation:
Default

Another thing to think about, only 25% of the population west of the Mississippi live in a state without a NFL team.

23% of the population east of the Mississippi live in a state without a NFL team.

Also you say a 2.2:1 ratio would be nice. Currently the ratio is 1.6:1, which if you know anything about ratio's, is better than what you are asking for.
  Reply With Quote
Old 04-22-2007, 07:44 PM    (permalink
FahvRay
 
Posts: n/a
Reputation:
Default

Not to mention there are already 9 sports franchises in Southern California. New York has 9 franchises and they have, like I've stated before, over double the population of LA.

You may say that we are talking about the NFL so the other sports shouldn't matter. I think it should because it's harder for the team to convince the population to spend their money on their product rather than the 9 other teams.
  Reply With Quote
Old 04-22-2007, 09:14 PM    (permalink
BuffaloDraftGeek
Rookie
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Posts: 325
Reputation: 61
BuffaloDraftGeek hopes to escalate quickly but not get out of hand.
Default

Not LA, no no no. A team would crash and burn in LA. I'm talking by year 3 they wouldn't sell out any home games. LA is a tourist magnet, a place for vacation. Who goes on vacation to see a football game?
__________________
BuffaloDraftGeek is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-23-2007, 03:04 PM    (permalink
duckseason
All-Pro
 
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Eugene
Posts: 6,835
Reputation: 10364
duckseason is kind of a big deal around here, people know him.duckseason is kind of a big deal around here, people know him.duckseason is kind of a big deal around here, people know him.duckseason is kind of a big deal around here, people know him.duckseason is kind of a big deal around here, people know him.duckseason is kind of a big deal around here, people know him.duckseason is kind of a big deal around here, people know him.duckseason is kind of a big deal around here, people know him.duckseason is kind of a big deal around here, people know him.duckseason is kind of a big deal around here, people know him.duckseason is kind of a big deal around here, people know him.
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by FahvRay View Post
I actually went and did the math. By population, 41% of Americans live west of the Mississippi. Currently there are 12 of 32 teams west of the Mississippi, 37.5%. If one team were to move west of the Mississippi, it woudl result in approximately 41% of the teams. However, when we look at the population denisty, there is 45.34 people per sq mile. East of the Mississippi that number is 204.65 people per sq mile. That's a 1:4 ratio. So that would mean 6 teams west of the Mississippi.
Once again, if you were to actually comprehend what I was saying, you would realize that I am talking about the western HALF of the country. Not the western 2/3 or 3/4 or any other chunk of the country that you try to force into your argument. I specifically stated that I am speaking of the 8 teams west of Kansas City.

Quote:
And I like how you just throw out that "Based on that argument, and in comparison to what exists in the NFL today, we should have roughly 6 or 7 teams in California." By my arguement there would be 6 teams between California and Texas considering they make up over half the population west of the Mississippi... ohh and what do you know, there are 5 teams between California and Texas. Not too far off.
Well, when you consider the fact that there are about 35 million people who live in the state of California to go with 3 teams, and there are about 15 million people in the state of Florida to go along with 3 teams......well, like you said, it's all about population, right? There are 12 million people in Pennsylvania to go along with 2 teams. And just 11 million people in Ohio to go along with 2 teams. So yeah, it's certainly a ridiculous thing to say that California should have 6 or 7 teams, but YOU said it.

Quote:
And I don't care if you think LA deserves a team or not. You said something that wasn't factually based and I called you on it.
Huh? Please enlighten me. Actually, I pointed this fact out because your entire post implied that I wanted a team down there, and you actually made it sound like I was from there. So yeah, that was a result of YOUR error.

Quote:
And as you can see, the way the NFL teams are set up are closer to population than population density. But if you look at the two maps, where there is a large area of white on the population map, there is usually a corresponding NFL team. THAT IS WHAT I MEANT!
Yeah. I get that. Which is why I pointed out one of the biggest blobs of all. LA! Which happens to be out west.

Quote:
Originally Posted by FahvRay View Post
Another thing to think about, only 25% of the population west of the Mississippi live in a state without a NFL team.

23% of the population east of the Mississippi live in a state without a NFL team.

Also you say a 2.2:1 ratio would be nice. Currently the ratio is 1.6:1, which if you know anything about ratio's, is better than what you are asking for.
Again, I am not talking about the teams west of the Mississippi. So I'm not sure why you bring this up again. And no, the ratio is not 1.6 to 1. It is actually 3 to 1. Remember, there are only 8 teams west of KC.

Quote:
Originally Posted by FahvRay View Post
Not to mention there are already 9 sports franchises in Southern California. New York has 9 franchises and they have, like I've stated before, over double the population of LA.

You may say that we are talking about the NFL so the other sports shouldn't matter. I think it should because it's harder for the team to convince the population to spend their money on their product rather than the 9 other teams.
And this is my favorite part. What are you talking about up there? LA or Southern California? You can't have it both ways. If you want to talk about all of Southern California, well, we all know that New York is not more populous at all. And again, I am OPPOSED to having another team in LA! So save that last paragraph. Your constant need to change the parameters of the conversation in order to support your "argument" is quite laughable.

All I ever said was that I am in favor of bringing another team or two out west, and I brought up the small number of teams out here to illustrate the current imbalance. Why? Because I live out here! And I love the NFL. I feel that there are a few places out here that have been overlooked when considering where the NFL would thrive. I think it's obvious that there is a disparity between the two halves of the country when it comes to number of NFL franchises. Moreso than the population disparity. Which you didn't need to bring up, btw. I already stated that I believe there should be more teams out east, but just not quite to the degree that there currently is. I think the 17 to 13 ratio we see in the NBA is more reasonable, and I would be very happy to see just 1 team out here for every 2.4 out there. Once again, I ask you what exactly are YOU talking about? What is your motivation? To just argue for the sake of arguing?
__________________
duckseason is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-23-2007, 03:11 PM    (permalink
roidrunner
Pro Bowler
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Under a Rock
Posts: 4,004
Reputation: 6111
roidrunner wakes up in the morning and pisses excellence.roidrunner wakes up in the morning and pisses excellence.roidrunner wakes up in the morning and pisses excellence.roidrunner wakes up in the morning and pisses excellence.roidrunner wakes up in the morning and pisses excellence.roidrunner wakes up in the morning and pisses excellence.roidrunner wakes up in the morning and pisses excellence.roidrunner wakes up in the morning and pisses excellence.roidrunner wakes up in the morning and pisses excellence.roidrunner wakes up in the morning and pisses excellence.roidrunner wakes up in the morning and pisses excellence.
Default

i think the best places for a team would be Vegas, LA, and Portland in no order. but a personal favorite would be louisville. i mean louisville is th 16th biggest city in america. and the people love sports down here. and the state has no pro teams. but that is just wishful thinking.
roidrunner is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-23-2007, 06:40 PM    (permalink
FahvRay
 
Posts: n/a
Reputation:
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by duckseason View Post

Yeah. I get that. Which is why I pointed out one of the biggest blobs of all. LA! Which happens to be out west.
I'll respond to this one first and by itself. San Diego and LA are fairly close. The white area encompasses both cities. And with that white area there is an NFL team that is present (in San Diego). I never said the bigger the blob the more teams. I merely stated that for the most part, a NFL team correlated with the high population density.
  Reply With Quote
Old 04-23-2007, 06:57 PM    (permalink
duckseason
All-Pro
 
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Eugene
Posts: 6,835
Reputation: 10364
duckseason is kind of a big deal around here, people know him.duckseason is kind of a big deal around here, people know him.duckseason is kind of a big deal around here, people know him.duckseason is kind of a big deal around here, people know him.duckseason is kind of a big deal around here, people know him.duckseason is kind of a big deal around here, people know him.duckseason is kind of a big deal around here, people know him.duckseason is kind of a big deal around here, people know him.duckseason is kind of a big deal around here, people know him.duckseason is kind of a big deal around here, people know him.duckseason is kind of a big deal around here, people know him.
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by FahvRay View Post
I'll respond to this one first and by itself. San Diego and LA are fairly close. The white area encompasses both cities. And with that white area there is an NFL team that is present (in San Diego). I never said the bigger the blob the more teams. I merely stated that for the most part, a NFL team correlated with the high population density.
Could somebody from Socal please come in here and explain to this guy the difference between LA and SD.
__________________
duckseason is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-23-2007, 08:21 PM    (permalink
FahvRay
 
Posts: n/a
Reputation:
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by duckseason View Post
Could somebody from Socal please come in here and explain to this guy the difference between LA and SD.
Somebody said that San Diego and LA are about 2 hours away from each other.

Milwaukee and Chicago are about 2 hours away from each other and the Milwaukee/Chicago area has been named a megacity. In my opinion, this means San Diego and LA are close enough to group together when talking about an area as large as the US. Obviously San Diego and LA are two seperate, distinct cities. But they are close enough to group together.
  Reply With Quote
Old 04-23-2007, 08:25 PM    (permalink
255979119
Veteran
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Eh?
Posts: 1,128
Reputation: 204
255979119 hopes to escalate quickly but not get out of hand.
Default

Instead of expanding, what is wrong with staying put? Every franchise sells out their games virtually every week.
255979119 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-23-2007, 08:34 PM    (permalink
FahvRay
 
Posts: n/a
Reputation:
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by duckseason View Post
Once again, if you were to actually comprehend what I was saying, you would realize that I am talking about the western HALF of the country. Not the western 2/3 or 3/4 or any other chunk of the country that you try to force into your argument. I specifically stated that I am speaking of the 8 teams west of Kansas City.
Well guess what, the western HALF of the country (in which I considered all of the states west of the states bordering the Mississippi) is populated by only 100 million people. And of those 100 million that live on the west half, over 36 million come from California and over 22 million come from Texas (most of the from the east side of Texas at that). There are 5 teams for those 60 million people and you want another 5 or 6 teams for the other 40 million people. 40 million people (13% of population) over 2 million sq miles (54% of land area) Other than specific areas, I donít believe the west is necessarily populated densely enough.



Quote:
Originally Posted by duckseason View Post
Well, when you consider the fact that there are about 35 million people who live in the state of California to go with 3 teams, and there are about 15 million people in the state of Florida to go along with 3 teams......well, like you said, it's all about population, right? There are 12 million people in Pennsylvania to go along with 2 teams. And just 11 million people in Ohio to go along with 2 teams. So yeah, it's certainly a ridiculous thing to say that California should have 6 or 7 teams, but YOU said it.
When did I ever look at a specific state? I looked at landmasses. You canít say Pennsylvania has two teams but it only services 12 million people. Each Pennsylvania team services many more people that are outside the Pennsylvania borders. So yeah, way to twist my words around. Great contribution!



Quote:
Originally Posted by duckseason View Post
Huh? Please enlighten me. Actually, I pointed this fact out because your entire post implied that I wanted a team down there, and you actually made it sound like I was from there. So yeah, that was a result of YOUR error.
As far as I know, I made a comment about how when I looked at the map of NFL teams and a population density I noticed something interesting. For the most part, the denser places had an NFL team in the area. Then you made mention except for the LA area. Considering the size of the nation, I consider San Diego to be relatively close to LA, especially since in the population density map, itís all one blob. Then you made the comment that ďNo. We are talking about NFL teams.Ē So I guess when I started I may have thought you were arguing for it. That was MY fault. But please explain, what did that comment refer to? I obviously knew that we were talking about NFL teams. How come you said no to my comment that an NFL team correlated with the denser areas in the U.S. Could that possibly have been YOUR error?



Quote:
Originally Posted by duckseason View Post
And this is my favorite part. What are you talking about up there? LA or Southern California? You can't have it both ways. If you want to talk about all of Southern California, well, we all know that New York is not more populous at all. And again, I am OPPOSED to having another team in LA! So save that last paragraph. Your constant need to change the parameters of the conversation in order to support your "argument" is quite laughable.
Sorry, I should have put a big label on this saying NOT FOR YOU! This was directed at the guy that made the comment that LA was more populated that NYC and that it should have an NFL team.
Although I will address your last sentence. Arenít you doing the same thing? Kansas City could just as easily include as it is directly in the center. You choose to include it with the teams to the east. I choose to include it with the west. Also you talk about how the west is so under represented. You fail to mention that 60% of the population in the west is locked up into 2 states. (And most of Texasís population lay on the east side of the state, basically an extension of the population from the east)




Quote:
Originally Posted by duckseason View Post
All I ever said was that I am in favor of bringing another team or two out west, and I brought up the small number of teams out here to illustrate the current imbalance. Why? Because I live out here! And I love the NFL. I feel that there are a few places out here that have been overlooked when considering where the NFL would thrive. I think it's obvious that there is a disparity between the two halves of the country when it comes to number of NFL franchises. Moreso than the population disparity. Which you didn't need to bring up, btw. I already stated that I believe there should be more teams out east, but just not quite to the degree that there currently is. I think the 17 to 13 ratio we see in the NBA is more reasonable, and I would be very happy to see just 1 team out here for every 2.4 out there. Once again, I ask you what exactly are YOU talking about? What is your motivation? To just argue for the sake of arguing?


My initial motivation was to defend the FACT (not even an opinion, but fact) that NFL teams are located in the denser populated areas. Then after YOU started arguing this FACT, my motivation was to defend the facts and opinions that I presented from thereafter.
  Reply With Quote
Old 04-23-2007, 08:41 PM    (permalink
FahvRay
 
Posts: n/a
Reputation:
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by duckseason View Post
And this is my favorite part. What are you talking about up there? LA or Southern California? You can't have it both ways. If you want to talk about all of Southern California, well, we all know that New York is not more populous at all. And again, I am OPPOSED to having another team in LA! So save that last paragraph. Your constant need to change the parameters of the conversation in order to support your "argument" is quite laughable.
Primarily of New York metropolitan area and the greater Los Angeles area.

New York pop: 18,747,320

LA pop: 12,923,547

But either way, I was trying to demonstrate that New York has a much higher population

NYC: 8,143,198

LA: 3,844,829
  Reply With Quote
Old 04-24-2007, 09:52 AM    (permalink
BigJax
 
Posts: n/a
Reputation:
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by awfullyquiet View Post
I KNOW.
i'm not even from VaBeach. But it's the largets market without a professional sports team period (and growing). And please, those punks over there root for atlanta because of michael vick. They need someone else to root for.

But, if were gonna grow. it goes, in order, VaBeach-Tidewater-Newport News-Hampton Roads CDP, LA, Vegas and that's it. Mind you that all of those are still bigger than green bay.
I would love a team in the Hampton Roads area, but I am not sure the team would get much support. Most people in this area are here due to the military, and most military members not truly being from this area have teams that they already support. Also with the military turn around, not many people would be here long enough to really get into a team.

Also, from my observation most "locals" here seem to support the Redskins...
  Reply With Quote
Reply


Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is On
Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 01:31 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.