That's the beauty of it, NFL doesn't need to go David Stern on many things. Small markets like Pittsburgh and Green Bay hold up.
LA and San Antonio are the obivious ones, and London is a wild card. Toronto would be interesting too - the CFL has done pretty well there.
LA had a way to explain the stadium. That's why they got the team. You're saying that the presentation was bad because after the fact they couldn't deliver. That's not really what presentation means. LA could not get followthrough on their presentation (which was chosen) and Bob Mcnair came back to the NFL with a stadium and 700 million dollars. That isn't presentation. It's a stadium and... 700 million dollars. That's why the NFL took away the 32nd team from Los Angeles and awarded it to Houston.
I am throwing out there Toronto. (other than LA obviously) Its the 2nd largest city among cities/metro areas in the Canadian/US region and is the largest market in Canada. I think it would be smart to tap into that CFL market some and try expanding there before London honestly.
Since 1995, LA had plenty of time to get their sheet together. Lost both their teams and was earmarked to get one before Bud Adams even knew he was leaving Houston.
I think the NFL considers Toronto be strong enough Bills country that they really wouldn't be gaining that many more fans/viewers by giving that region another team to watch. If the NFL really wanted a team in Toronto, they would have helped facilitate the Bills moving there... rather than helping facilitate the Bills staying in Buffalo. The only new place the NFL wants a team is LA... and would expand just to get a team there if needed. Every other city would likely need a team to move.
What does this have to do with them deserving a team or not? The state of California is having problems privately funding a NFL stadium. Houston couldn't do that either. You're also wrong. The 32nd team was granted years after Adams left. Bids were sent from LA and from McNair and LA won. Houston was told to stay patient in case LA didn't work out. You've completely gone off topic. What happened to "presentation." You're just making a random argument that doesn't have to do with what I said about your last post.
If the Chargers can't get a stadium deal in San Diego, they'll probably move to Los Angeles. It's not far and the NFL already blacks out games in LA if the Chargers don't sell out, so the media market is waiting.
LA is stuck right in between "Do they really want a NFL team," or "Do writers assume we should have a football team." In the past, LA had not one, but two NFL franchises with San Diego being an odd 60 miles away. I'm not sure everyone is considering that such a team would sell out games, simply because they are in town. People aren't going to magically start showing up for football games to watch a substandard football team, like the Jaguars, regardless of their geographic location. On the contrary, the NFL and few local private hands in Los Angeles are the one WHO IS HEAVILY pushing for a team to be in LA, because it means colossal TV dollars/sponsorship.
Where are you guys getting Toronto's metro population from? There are 5.6M people there. That's less than Houston's metro area.
They're likely counting the entire Golden Horseshoe which would be my guess. That has around 8.7 million.
I don't think there should be more teams than 32 Move the Raiders to LA (natural) Bills to Toronto (if they get a stadium and it's "their" team it will work) Jags to London (has stadium) Possible team relocation spots then [Rams only candidate] 1) San Antonio 2) Portland 3) Las Vegas Don't think any of those cities could support MLB but definitely NBA/NFL
According to the map I think Idaho should have one. It might take the whole state to fill the stadium, but how bad ass would the Idaho Harvesters be?
Bills agreed to renovate RWS and sign a lease for at least the next 10 years. Eventually, that market will either sink or swim.... but given the TV money being upped every year, you could conceivably put a team in the sahara desert, and they'd still make money.
Football is king to basketball, so that wouldn't be surprising. OKC has big groups of OU, OKST, & Cowboys fans.
I wasn't disputing that. Look at the top games viewed in Houston during 2013; nearly all of them are football. What I was trying to say about Oklahoma City is that for most of its history, it was a one-horse town and that horse was Sooner football. The Thunder have had a good run, but the fan base hasn't been tested with true losing. They were bad the first couple of years, but there was a newness to them. It'll be interesting when the Thunder do have losing seasons to see how OKC reacts in terms of attendance and ratings. There's no doubt that people live and breathe Sooner football, even when they lose. Will they do the same for the Thunder?
