Los Angeles Will Get a Franchise in the Next Year?

[Reignman]

I didn't want to sully up the cuts and signings thread with expansion talk so how bout we do it here?

Oct 10, 2014 9:21:36 GMT -6 PotGoblin said:

Oct 10, 2014 9:10:31 GMT -6 Funkytown said:

ESPN - NFL: "Highly likely" that Los Angeles will get a franchise in the next year, says Mayor Eric Garcetti

So who is moving or are we looking at expansion teams

to even get expansion teams to work and have even divisions they would need 4 more - Thus breaking into 2 conferences of 3 divisions [east, central, and west] and 6 teams in each division

Yeah that's about the only way they could do it without ruining alignment. But 4 new teams would really water down the talent. There are already so many teams with crappy QB's, there would be 4 more with expansion. But something tells me an LA expansion is there way of getting a London expansion too. So what other 2 cities would get an expansion? Toronto and Mexico City, if they want to keep with the international theme? How bout San Antonio or Utah?

I hope the Raiders are just moving back to LA. Why would they want to play in that dump of a stadium in that dump of a town Oakland anyway? If it's the Raiders, then they wouldn't have to realign. Otherwise 6 team divisions is going to breakup a lot of rivalries.

[Minniman]

But something tells me an LA expansion is there way of getting a London expansion too.

Just say no.

I hope the Raiders are just moving back to LA.

The Rams, Raiders or Chargers look to be the best bets, although the Jaguars have little fan base and a small market.

The Chargers and Raiders want to each control their namesake market and have a piece of the LA pie.  Neither wants the other to move into LA.

Chargers protecting L.A. interests

[Reignman]

Here's how I'd do it. With Los Angeles, London, Mexico City, and Toronto each getting an expansion team. The NFC and AFC South divisions would be dropped with the teams finding new homes in the other divisions. No teams would have to switch conference.

NFC EAST
Dallas
N.Y. Giants
Philadelphia
Washington
Atlanta - realigned
London - expansion

NFC CENTRAL
Chicago
Detroit
Green Bay
Minnesota
Carolina - realigned
Tampa Bay - realigned

NFC WEST
Arizona
St. Louis
San Francisco
Seattle
New Orleans - realigned
Mexico City - expansion

AFC EAST
Buffalo
Miami
New England
N.Y. Jets
Jacksonville - realigned
Toronto - expansion

AFC CENTRAL
Baltimore
Cincinnati
Cleveland
Pittsburgh
Indianapolis - realigned
Tennessee - realigned

AFC WEST
Denver
Kansas City
Oakland
San Diego
Houston - realigned
Los Angeles - expansion

[Reignman]

Oct 11, 2014 4:37:13 GMT -6 Minniman said:

But something tells me an LA expansion is there way of getting a London expansion too.

Just say no.

I hope the Raiders are just moving back to LA.

The Rams, Raiders or Chargers look to be the best bets, although the Jaguars have little fan base and a small market.

The Chargers and Raiders want to each control their namesake market and have a piece of the LA pie.  Neither wants the other to move into LA.

Chargers protecting L.A. interests

I would love to say no to London. And I really don't want an existing team to move there. Jacksonville seems to be the favorite to move to London right now.

I'm OK with either, Oakland, San Diego, or St. Louis moving back to LA. All 3 started there lol. Stupid LA, can't hang onto a franchise, why should they get another? Jacksonville moving to LA really screws up alignment.

[Just Me]

Oct 11, 2014 4:54:07 GMT -6 Reignman said:

Here's how I'd do it. With Los Angeles, London, Mexico City, and Toronto each getting an expansion team. The NFC and AFC South divisions would be dropped with the teams finding new homes in the other divisions. No teams would have to switch conference.

NFC EAST
Dallas
N.Y. Giants
Philadelphia
Washington
Atlanta - realigned
London - expansion

NFC CENTRAL
Chicago
Detroit
Green Bay
Minnesota
Carolina - realigned
Tampa Bay - realigned

NFC WEST
Arizona
St. Louis
San Francisco
St. Louis
New Orleans - realigned
Mexico City - expansion

AFC EAST
Buffalo
Miami
New England
N.Y. Jets
Jacksonville - realigned
Toronto - expansion

AFC CENTRAL
Baltimore
Cincinnati
Cleveland
Pittsburgh
Indianapolis - realigned
Tennessee - realigned

AFC WEST
Denver
Kansas City
Oakland
San Diego
Houston - realigned
Los Angeles - expansion

Look, everybody hates the Seahawks, but you can't just expel them from the league!   (You have St. Louis twice - I assume you meant for Seattle to be one of those.  Quack! - I 'm just being a duck!)

[Reignman]

Oct 11, 2014 6:40:36 GMT -6 Just Me said:

Look, everybody hates the Seahawks, but you can't just expel them from the league!   (You have St. Louis twice - I assume you meant for Seattle to be one of those.  Quack! - I 'm just being a duck!)

Ahhh blimey, me and my silly errors. *oops* <---- this smiley was installed just for me. I make all these mistakes just so I have more chances to use it, yeah that's it, that's what I'm doing.

[PotGoblin]

While that would be funny to see happen a team in London is a logistical nightmare - only feasible way to do it is the London team would have to have home / away games in at least 4 week chunks - like 4 away - 4 at home repeat just due to the travel abroad

[Minniman]

Oct 11, 2014 6:40:36 GMT -6 Just Me said:

Oct 11, 2014 4:54:07 GMT -6 Reignman said:

Here's how I'd do it. With Los Angeles, London, Mexico City, and Toronto each getting an expansion team. The NFC and AFC South divisions would be dropped with the teams finding new homes in the other divisions. No teams would have to switch conference.

Look, everybody hates the Seahawks, but you can't just expel them from the league!   (You have St. Louis twice - I assume you meant for Seattle to be one of those.  Quack! - I 'm just being a duck!)

NO ... he just assumes the Seahawks will move to St. Louis when half of the city is underwater from global warming. 

Miami will be the first to have problems though, so I wonder why he didn't move them, and why even consider London when much of the city is on Thames Estuary which will be a lake if the sea level rises as predicted and the Thames Barrier fails.

[Minniman]

Oct 11, 2014 8:01:26 GMT -6 PotGoblin said:

While that would be funny to see happen a team in London is a logistical nightmare - only feasible way to do it is the London team would have to have home / away games in at least 4 week chunks - like 4 away - 4 at home repeat just due to the travel abroad

It wouldn't be so bad for northeast teams, but it would be a horror for everyone else.

It is a bad idea, and the NFL should not even consider it.

[Reignman]

Oct 11, 2014 11:05:54 GMT -6 Minniman said:

Miami will be the first to have problems though, so I wonder why he didn't move them, and why even consider London when much of the city is on Thames Estuary which will be a lake if the sea level rises as predicted and the Thames Barrier fails.

Ahh yes, I left them in Miami because by then, they'll have real dolphins on the team. (rofl)

[Deleted]

I don't believe they will put a team in London before Los Angeles. And why would they? One of the things under consideration is building a new stadium in Los Angeles and having two teams play there. It would make economic sense for the city and the League. The two most likely tenants are the Raiders and the Chargers. Both teams have been there before and both places have major stadium issues that apparently won't be resolved. Los Angeles already does this in the NBA with both the Clippers and Lakers playing there. It would also allow another possible Super Bowl site to come into play. There are a lot of possibilities with this scenario. It would keep interest in the existing teams and the marketing and it would still open up a spot or two for expansion. San Antonio, Portland, Salt Lake City are possibilities. (I would like the league to finally consider the Las Vegas and Oklahoma City markets). The metro areas of these cities are much larger than they were 15 or 20 years ago. Jacksonville and Miami are having problems with attendence and forces are at work to name the Rams stadium one of the worst in professional sports. There are all kinds of possible scenarios I would consider before placing a team in London. I think that would be better served in a new league with international teams. Just my two cents anyway...

[Reignman]

Oct 12, 2014 7:51:54 GMT -6 @boonedaniel said:

I don't believe they will put a team in London before Los Angeles. And why would they? One of the things under consideration is building a new stadium in Los Angeles and having two teams play there. It would make economic sense for the city and the League. The two most likely tenants are the Raiders and the Chargers. Both teams have been there before and both places have major stadium issues that apparently won't be resolved. Los Angeles already does this in the NBA with both the Clippers and Lakers playing there. It would also allow another possible Super Bowl site to come into play. There are a lot of possibilities with this scenario. It would keep interest in the existing teams and the marketing and it would still open up a spot or two for expansion. San Antonio, Portland, Salt Lake City are possibilities. (I would like the league to finally consider the Las Vegas and Oklahoma City markets). The metro areas of these cities are much larger than they were 15 or 20 years ago. Jacksonville and Miami are having problems with attendence and forces are at work to name the Rams stadium one of the worst in professional sports. There are all kinds of possible scenarios I would consider before placing a team in London. I think that would be better served in a new league with international teams. Just my two cents anyway...

I couldn't agree more, about London. I think having a team there is going to be a logistical nightmare for the league. Players who get drafted by a team in London would have to move to another country. And I wouldn't even want to be a west coast team that has to play there. I don't even like how they're taking home games away from existing teams and making them play there.



I don't like the idea of Los Angeles getting 2 teams though lol. That city has had 3 teams, if you don't include the 1926 Los Angeles Buccaneers. I hope Oakland moves back. The Bay area doesn't need 2 teams. I'd like to see the Chargers stay in San Diego.

[Minniman]

Oct 12, 2014 20:32:53 GMT -6 Reignman said:

Oct 12, 2014 7:51:54 GMT -6 @boonedaniel said:

I don't believe they will put a team in London before Los Angeles. And why would they? One of the things under consideration is building a new stadium in Los Angeles and having two teams play there. It would make economic sense for the city and the League. The two most likely tenants are the Raiders and the Chargers. Both teams have been there before and both places have major stadium issues that apparently won't be resolved.

I couldn't agree more, about London. I think having a team there is going to be a logistical nightmare for the league. Players who get drafted by a team in London would have to move to another country. And I wouldn't even want to be a west coast team that has to play there. I don't even like how they're taking home games away from existing teams and making them play there.

Taxes are higher in the United Kingdom as well, but healthcare would be covered.

I hope Oakland moves back. The Bay area doesn't need 2 teams. I'd like to see the Chargers stay in San Diego.

About half of the Chargers' revenue comes from Los Angeles.  That would be harmed if another team moved there. 

In every poll or study I have seen, the Los Angeles fan base is primarily comprised of Raiders fans.  There is a movement to get the Rams back, but Raiders fans dominate.

[Deleted]

I couldn't agree with you more. I was just stating what I have been reading and hearing. The Vikings playing in London is not a "home" game under any circumstances as far as I'm concerned.The Raiders would be the logical choice to move. It doesn't look good for a new stadium. The Bay area doesn't really have two teams now. The new location for the 49ers stadium is 40 miles away from downtown San Francisco. (I guess that may be considered the Bay area). The metro area is huge and that's why they located two teams there in the first place. By the way, the Chargers are my favorite AFC team. I have been in love with their jersey's since I was a kid. I don't want them to move away from San Diego either but it's not looking good for a stadium...

[Deleted]

I don't place much credence in polls not even when it comes to politics. The talk at the time was the Chargers moving back to LA with another team. Revenue is important and that's why the League wants at least one more team in the country's second largest media market. It's going to come down to who builds a new stadium and where it's going to go.