- 12/03/2008, 08:12AM ET
DO_WORK_SON said 12/03, 08:12 AM
1. Oakland Raiders - What a surprise, huh? Honestly, why should this team hang around Oakland any longer? Not only do they not sell out games, but they have to share a stadium with an MLB team AND an MLS team. I bet you can't guess where I think they should move. No, not Santa Clara; that's where the 49ers are headed. Where else would you send the Raiders but back to Los Angeles? If Los Angeles can manage to support 2 NBA teams, 2 MLB teams, 1 MLS team, and 2 highly successful college athletic programs, I think they can make room for an NFL team. No renaming. Los Angeles Raiders.
2. Buffalo Bills - It's coming anyway. Everyone knows it. It's time to stop avoiding it. Why keep the Bills in Buffalo when they can be moved to a city that has 10 times the population? Toronto is the obvious place for them. Putting an NFL team in Canada would be a huge step for the NFL. Toronto Buffaloes - Sure it's cheesy, but it's a great way to honor the city where the team spent so many years.
3. Jacksonville Jaguars - Averaging 68,000 in a stadium that holds 77,000 just doesn't cut it. There's many places they could go, but I'd give San Antonio a shot. San Antonio Aztecs.
PackersLP21 said 12/03, 07:43 PM
1. AGREE. The Raiders just haven't played football since their division championship in 2002. Their best record from 2003-2007 was 5-11 (2004), and their worst was 2-14 (2006). They need to move, and Los Angeles would probably be the place.
2. AGREE. Buffalo is only the 68th biggest city in the USA. When Oakland moves out of California, then Cali will only have 1 team, the San Diego Chargers. So that leaves the door open for a team to move into California. But it won't be the Bills, because they will be moving into Canada. This is big, because football fans like Roberts are stuck watching the CFL.
3. Cincinnati Bengals. Ohio has 2 NFL teams, and their combined record is 5-18. One of the 2 teams have to leave that horrendus NFL state. Since the Bengals are at 1-10-1, I think they should leave. The Bengals haven't won a playoff game since 1990, and it I don't see the playoffs in the future. Their total record (excluding playoffs) is 262-334.. not so good. So, my point is that they are the worse team in the state, and they just haven't been performing. Now they should move to California and the Raiders' place. But not in Oakland... they would be the San Jose Wildcats or Indians.
DO_WORK_SON said 12/04, 12:37 AM
1. Oakland needing to leave has nothing to do with their horrid performances of late. The fact that they don't even have their own stadium, and there are an average of 5,000 empty seats every Sunday does give a reason for their move. Not to mention, they would no longer be competing with the 49ers, who are located only 20 minutes away, for fans.
2. I thought we agreed Oakland should go to LA. That is in California. Also, the 49ers play in a place known as San Francisco. Count 'em - 1, 2, 3 teams in California. If you agree the Bills should move to Canada, why even bring up the number of teams in California? Are you just trying to take up writing space?
3a. For as poorly as the Bengals have performed, they still manage to put butts in the seats. Cleveland does too, for that matterI'm not sure I understand your rationale. Ohio has 2 teams so one should be taken away? Cleveland and Cincinnati are 4 hours apart, and both have rather impressive fan bases. No reason to move them.
3b. Jacksonville, on the other hand, has shown that they have a lack of interest in the Jaguars by their habit of not showing up for games. Put them somewhere where they can get some support.
PackersLP21 said 12/04, 08:11 PM
1. All 3 of those reasons are why they should leave Oakland... so I'm not going to waste space.
2. I know... I forgot that we were putting the Raiders in Los Angeles. I KNOW that LA is in California. My point is that California has the largest population and 12% of the US population. If California would only have 1 team, that would be RIDICULOUS. It would even be bad if they only had 2 teams. So NO, I'm not taking up writing space. But you are taking up writing space by putting 5 lines of non-sense.
3a. Cleveland and Cincinnati aren't even the biggest cities in the state... Columbus, Ohio is much larger than both. Now, you keep saying that the Bengals manage to put butts in the seats... but they ranked 20th last year in average attendance. To me, that's not very good. If the Bengals move to California, they will still put people in the seats. And their record will get better, because it can't get much worse. Cincinnati So if they can move to California and get consistant attendance with a better record, that would be a good move by the NFL.
3b. Jacksonville hasn't had the best attendance, but they haven't won the division since 1999. They need to perform better.
DO_WORK_SON said 12/05, 04:47 AM
Actually, Cincinnati ranked 19th last season in average attendance. However that's not due to not being able to put butts in the seats. According to ESPN, last season's average was 65,790. Guess what? Paul Brown Stadium's capacity is listed at 65,535 on www.bengals.com. Looks to me as if they are selling out games. Currently, with a 1-10-1 record, they are still averaging 64,780. Not quite sellouts, but still over 98% capacity.
Last season, Jacksonville's average attendance was 65,301, good enough for 22nd in the NFL. This season, they're sitting at 19th with an average of 65,038. That's atrocious when you consider they're stadium holds 77,000! In fact, the Jaguar's stadium is top 5 as far as seating capacity in the NFL. If Jacksonville can't find a way to fill 12,000 empty seats, then they don't deserve the Jaguars.
San Antonio has a population of 1.3 million. Texas is a football crazed state, and a perfect place for an NFL team. Houston and Dallas have proven it by filling their stadiums to at least 97% capacity every Sunday. On average, there's never more than 1,500 empty seats in Texas Stadium or Reliant Stadium.
Cincinnati shows up. Jacksonville simply does not.
PackersLP21 said 12/05, 06:57 PM
Well actually from the article that I'm looking at, it says they are 20th. But either way... they don't have that good of attendance.
Now even if they put people in the seats in Cincinnati, they could be getting better attendance if they move to a bigger city like San Jose. San Jose has a population of 912,736 (11th largest in US), while Cincinnati has a population of 331,310 (57th largest in US). So as you can see, San Jose is MUCH larger than Cincinnati and then they can get better attendance. If they would move to San Jose, they could build a much larger stadium WITH BIGGER CAPACITY. And a bigger capacity means more tickets sold means more butts in the seats. Seems like a no-brainer to me.
With Jacksonville, I just don't see why you would move an average NFL team out of a city with a population of 787,735 (13th largest in US). I would much rather move a team out of a smaller city than a team out of a bigger city. Bigger population, means bigger attendance numbers.
San Antonio and Houston are too close. They are only about 190 miles away! Texas does have a heart for football, but that's too close.
- Awful Announcing
- Free Darko
- Pro Football Talk
- The Big Lead
- Joe Posnanski
- The Sporting Blog
- Big League Stew
- Bugs and Cranks
- Every day Should Be Saturday
- Mr. Irrelevant
- With Leather
- The Sports Hernia