- 01/02/2011, 12:08AM ET
YanksBillsSabres said 01/02, 12:08 AM
Why is there no NFL team in LA? Honestly, the second largest metropolitan area in the country does not have an NFL team, yet they have 2 NBA teams, 2 MLB teams (if you count the Angels), an NHL team, a professional soccer team, and a football fanbase than is primarily owned by the two college teams in the area. Not to mention they have also hosted 2 olympics.
It is a perfect candidate for a football team to move there.
Jacksonville, however lacks the fanbase to really support an NFL.
If you believe another team should be moved please argue but don't jump in if you argue against Los Angeles getting a team.
YankeesFan said 01/02, 12:14 AM
The easy choices would be the Raiders and/or Chargers because both are relatively close by anyway. However, my pick is the Vikings.
The Metrodome collapsed and the Vikings were looking to build a new stadium anyway, but there is already a stadium in LA ready to use which would give them an immediate place to play and save millions of dollars repairing/building a new stadium.
The move from Minnesota to LA has already worked before when the Minneapolis Lakers packed up and headed out to Los Angeles. This shows that the fans will embrace their team regardless of their previous location.
Two Los Angeles groups have expressed interest multiple times to buy out the Vikings and move them to L.A.
Lastly, the Vikings make more sense in terms of division. It would be logical for the Vikings to switch divisions with the Rams should they move to LA, since St. Louis is more fit for the North (which has all Midwest teams) and L.A. for the West.
YanksBillsSabres said 01/02, 12:26 AM
Minneapolis-St.Paul has over 3 million people in the metro area and Jacksonville is on borderline 1 million. Wouldn't it only make sense that the market for a team would be a lot better in a city three times the population.
All four teams in the NFC north currently are in the extreme North-Central part of the country and St. Louis would be the furthest stadium to travel to in the entire division. Plus, the NFC north has kept the same 4 teams (Chicago, Detroit, Minnesota, and Green Bay) since 1967.
I can see your point with the LA Lakers, but realistically do you think Minneapolis or any part of Minnesota is really a basketball town. It's hours within Canada and basketball is for the most part non-existent in Canada.
The growth of Minneapolis will allow the Vikings to build a new stadium anyway. Look at the results of Target field and the Gophers new home field. They could easily sell the prime real estate the Metrodome sits on and be able to fund a new stadium elsewhere.
YankeesFan said 01/02, 12:37 AM
I don't think the point about being close to Canada is correct. Canada's interests don't really have an impact on Minnesota's. Canada, for one, likes hockey a lot. Minnesota got an NHL team less than 10 years ago.
The Rams still would be traveling the furthest, but what scenario makes more sense:
1. The Rams travelling to San Francisco, Arizona, and Seattle
2. Traveling to Chicago, Green Bay, and Detroit, with all the other NFC West teams instead traveling to LA rather than St. Louis.
The Vikings finished 28th in attendance this year, according to ESPN. If a team with Brett Favre and Adrian Peterson, and also a team less than a year removed from the NFC Conference Championship game, can't attract more fans from a city with 3 million people than the Jaguars, they deserve to move more.
Simply put, since you are claiming attendance:
Vikings 2010 home attendance: 972,784 (58,751 per game)
Jaguars 2010 home attendance: 990,580 (63,032)
YanksBillsSabres said 01/02, 12:48 AM
So your saying the move of the Vikings would make more sense for the Rams, but obviously the owners of the Vikings wouldn't be thinnking in the best interests of the Rams, but the Vikings.
Even if you wanted this to benefit the Rams then Jacksonville to LA and then putting the Rams in the AFC south would make even more sense. St. Louis would be right in the middle of that division!
A decision to move a team out of it's hometown would not be based off of one years data. Looking back to 2009 the Vikings sold out most if not all of their games, which determines if the home city will receive the game televised. The Jaguars had 7 of their 8 home games blacked out because they were unable to sell out and the one game that was televised was a Thursday Night game that didn't need to sell out to be televised to the area.
More money comes from the television viewership than live attendance. The Vikings in the past have gotten significantly more TV revenue than the Jaguars.
YankeesFan said 01/02, 01:03 AM
I wasn't saying it would make sense for only the Rams. It would makes sense for all of the NFC West, the Vikings (if they moved), and the Rams (if they switched divisions). Obviously they wouldn't move to Los Angeles just to make the divisions easier, but for the sake of this TD, it's assumed someone should move to Los Angeles, and the move by the Vikings would make sense for all the above teams. It would make less sense for the Rams and Jags to switch because they would be switching conferences and would rarely play against old rivals, and would have less material to prepare for going into games for the first few years after the switch.
TV might make more money, but attendance is more indicative of interest, all other things being equal (affordability and ease of traveling to stadium, for example). Why take away a Jaguars team that is on the rise in attendance, and is still alive in the playoff race behind a Peyton Manning-led Colts team?
The Vikings will be starting all over at QB, and possibly coach next season, so the near future makes perfect sense for a move to LA. The city can embrace a QB and coach unique to only their city.
|3||JimJ77 Can't make it up||130||53||26||68.4%|
- 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