|
The biggest issue with games in Europe isn't even the travel time, as long as you schedule the game right before or after a bye week. It's the time zones. EST is 5 hours different from GMT. If you want the stadium in London to be full of fans, you have to schedule the game at a reasonable hour, but any team based there would have a massive advantage over players who are all jetlagged halfway to gently caress. At least coming from the UK back to the US is in the favorable timezone direction (that is, you're up early and can handle a 10AM kickoff time as though it were an evening game for you). This is the same reason Hawaii isn't getting a team. Talking about companies expanding internationally is drat stupid, because when you travel to Germany for work, you're jetlagged to gently caress for a couple days but can gradually adjust (you're not having to practice scrimmage) and you probably stay for more than three days, so you can acclimate and then work OK for a week or however long you're there. Having said all that, the NFL does want to keep doing occasional games in London, if for no other reason than to court a new audience there to watch NFL games on pay-per-view or whatever. It's a fun gimmick but it's not going to go anywhere. I'd love to see the NFL expand. I'd be happy to see the divisional system scrapped for something more balanced (NFC > AFC to an embarrassing degree right now) and homologation would be interesting (a true minor league might allow a lot of cities/states with no team to build a more modest stadium and attract fans without having to pull an A-level team). Regarding the A's and the Raiders, I really do hope they can at least stay in the East Bay, if not Oakland. A big problem with moving to San Jose is that BART doesn't go to San Jose at all, which means fans in the East bay have to either BART to the peninsula and then transfer to CalTrain (which would be like a 2+ hour trip each way), or drive down 880/680 which sucks rear end. Maybe some city like Fremont or Walnut Creek could come to the rescue.
|
#
¿
Aug 4, 2014 07:05
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 10, 2024 05:48 |
|
|
People watch and care about college ball because they have no pro team nearby. There, I said it. 
|
|
#
¿
Aug 4, 2014 19:43
|
|
|
Chilichimp posted:College ball fandom is too entrenched at this point. The Falcons aren't even the most popular football team in their state. And yet! The Houston Texans and the Jacksonville Jaguars are both popular teams in their regions. I agree actually that college ball is well-entrenched, but I think the NFL can steal Sunday eyeballs anyway. It's very helpful that college ball is played on Saturday. There's room. I think you could put teams in oklahoma city, phoenix, salt lake city, raleigh, los angeles (maybe two teams there), portland, sacramento, maybe memphis or little rock, boston, columbus, and hell, let's also do toronto and montreal (canadian rules football is weird but there are fans of it in canada who would probably watch NFL style football). That'd be as many as 12 or so expansion teams potentially. Let's call it 8, add an additional division to each of the two conferences, or just break up the divisions and conferences and let's have 20 teams in a A-level and 20 teams in a B-level with homologation!
|
|
#
¿
Aug 4, 2014 20:08
|
|
|
ALL-PRO SEXMAN posted:I don't see a Sacramento team being able to attract and hold a fanbase. Everyone there is already either a Niners or a Raiders fan. Everyone everywhere is already a <x> fan. NFL is super-popular nationwide. I think there's this kind of tunnel vision (and not you particularly, I mean generally) that says that the only way a new NFL team can be successful is if there's somehow a bunch of football fans sitting around not watching any football, but desperately wanting to watch some football. That doesn't mean you aren't correct about Sacramento, but they do have their own basketball team despite the Warriors being here in the bay area. It's a big metropolitan area and it's a little too far from the bay area to conveniently drive to a game (you can do it, but it's inconvenient). I tend to think that you could get an NFL franchise going pretty much anywhere in the US where that's the case. Grittybeard posted:How did no one mention Las Vegas on the last page? I suggested Phoenix but LV would be another option. I don't have a good sense of how many people actually live there, as opposed to visit for gambling purposes, though. Phoenix is a huge sprawling metro area with no nearby NFL franchise as well, and presumably could attract people from all over New Mexico and beyond in terms of fandom. LV is kind of out in the middle of nowhere, so while maybe you get the LV TV market, you don't get the LA market so I'm not sure if there's enough broadcasting area for the NFL to be happy with it. Ribsauce posted:I thought you had to be a big city to have an NFL team. People are tossing around Mobile and Charleston. Neither even break 200k. Richmond barely does (if it even does, I don't know). Little Rock, are you serious? Raleigh is also more affluent, and I think that's a big factor. Football tickets are expensive. I don't think Charleston or Mobile have any remote shot given their populations and the populations of their nearby cities, but Raleigh/Durham seems like more of a potential market.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 5, 2014 02:38
|
|
|
ROSS MY SALAD posted:I know the Cardinals are a few years removed from the playoffs, but drat poo poo. Well I'm embarrassed! Yeah Arizona has a team, duh.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 5, 2014 06:02
|
|
|
Las Vegas is right next to a large body of water.  But you're right, it should be the LA Raiders and the Las Vegas Lakers.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 5, 2014 17:46
|
|
|
Wilford Cutlery posted:Could any other cities besides New York have a second football team? Taken as a whole, the San Francisco Bay Area is smaller (populationwise) than the New York metro area, and it supports two teams. Sort of. I mean, that's what this thread is about, how we sort of support two teams but Oakland can't manage to accomplish things so maybe we actually don't. The LA metro area could support two, I'd think. Maybe Chicago?
|
|
#
¿
Aug 5, 2014 21:21
|
|
|
Listen nobody but nobody panhandles like the bums in San Francisco. My home town homies have aggressive panhandling down to an art form (and an industry).
|
|
#
¿
Aug 6, 2014 19:16
|
|
|
Sacramento Raiders would actually make a lot of sense. Oakland fans can still get to games (it'll suck but it's straight up I-80), there's a big untapped market there, Sacramento has lots of room so I bet there's someplace you could plonk down a stadium, and it'd be thematically appropriate that our state's capital wears a pirate brand. e. for example looking at google maps, there's lots of unused open flat space next to Raley Field, which is on the river, right next to freeways, etc. Leperflesh fucked around with this message at 19:38 on Aug 7, 2014 |
|
#
¿
Aug 7, 2014 19:27
|
|
|
Concord? I live in Concord. There is no way we're building a billion dollar football stadium in loving Concord. Dublin I could sort of believe. e. oh they mean at the naval weapons station. Naw, I mean there's a ton of unused space out there, but A) it's basically a superfund site and B) the transportation out to there sucks rear end. e 2. LOL. Mark Davis thinks Santa Clara isn't part of the Bay Area - and neither is Dublin, which he liked more than Concord. Leperflesh fucked around with this message at 20:13 on Aug 7, 2014 |
|
#
¿
Aug 7, 2014 19:56
|
|
|
Chichevache posted:That would own but the traffic would be terrible. I always took 680 from San Jose to Sac and there are long stretches of winding two lane highway that would probably become a parking lot. The twists and turns of the highway are pretty gentle, but for some reason California drivers always come to a stop for a mild curve on the highway. 680 doesn't go to sacramento, it goes through concord and up to I-80. People in Oakland would just take I-80. The 680 corridor between Concord and I-80 is two lanes, as you said, so it's horrible for carrying a lot of traffic, which would make it harder for me personally to go up there. e. Oh you said from San Jose. Yeah that drive even on a saturday, sheesh. Going up the Sunol Grade everyone drops from 75 down to 50 even in the left lane. Lots of twisty areas of 3 lanes with slow fuckers hogging the left lane who then speed up to 85 on the straight downhill and get all pissed because you drove around them when they were doing 55 and now you're trying to stick to 75 and you're IN THEIR WAY HOW DARE YOU PASS, uggggh. I'd take 680 over 880 though. 880 on a weekday commute is a war zone. Or did you mean, putting the team in Concord? The Naval Weapons Station is closer to highway 4. It is right off North Concord BART, so supposedly there could be a BART linkup, but people want to tailgate and that means horrific traffic from Oakland - over 24 (there's a new bore in the caldecott tunnel, so that part isn't as terrible as it used to be), a little piece of 680 which is fine at that point (like 5 lanes each way), and then little bits of 242 (fine) and 4 (two-lane tiny highway). A lot of interchanges, a lot of merging, the traffic will suck and back up even on Sunday games, and on a Monday night or Thursday night game it would be a goddamn nightmare. Not that driving to sactown from the bay area would be any better, mind you. I-80 has way more capacity, but that capacity is generally pretty full, and it's a lot further to travel. Leperflesh fucked around with this message at 20:23 on Aug 7, 2014 |
|
#
¿
Aug 7, 2014 20:17
|
|
|
Chilichimp posted:Tailgating in an old naval weapons station sounds pretty badass. You'd think, but it's just acres of mounds where they buried all the little weapons huts that they used for storing ammunition and explosives. I think the actual build site would just be a corner of the area where there's some parking and a building or two. I'm not sure how much is left there that would be cool to look at though. The Navy had to strip the place down in order to do a very long elaborate cleanup of all the horrible toxic poo poo they leached into the ground for the last century.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 7, 2014 20:33
|
|
|
Yeah I mean I haven't seen a single place where anyone has suggested a move to Sacramento, so it's not likely. I just think it could possibly work. The Kings don't have a big following in Sacramento, that's true, but the Raiders come with a built-in audience in the bay area and it'd be a shame to lose them (I'm talking broadcast rights, not just physical game attendees). Adding the entire sacramento metro area for broadcast rights would help to reduce the sting of losing the stadium in the bay area. The Kings I think have a tough time competing for eyeballs with the Warriors, but apparently they were just sold last year for a record amount of money and apparently they're going to build a new stadium? Imagine a combo park similar to Oakland, with an indoor basketball arena and outdoor football stadium. That would be cool.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 7, 2014 20:54
|
|
|
Also, like the Raiders, the Kings were badly in need of a new facility. It's hard to convince people to pay money to go hang out at a shithole on sunday afternoon. Sucking up the place is of course bad for ticket sales too, but the raiders have a very hardcore fanbase that persisted even during the LA years. I think the Kings have a similar fanbase. It might make sense to build a smaller stadium, since more people these days watch games in their home theaters or in bars and stuff rather than going to the game. Go for a modest size, like maybe 50k to 60k seats, and you'll be more likely to sell out (and thus avoid blackouts).
|
|
#
¿
Aug 7, 2014 21:26
|
|
|
ALL-PRO SEXMAN posted:Didn't stop Niners fans all those years. Well it stopped me! The last time I went to a game (of any sport) at Candlestick was in the 1980s.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 11, 2014 08:08
|
|
|
Chilichimp posted:Also, gently caress Michael Crabtree  I like michael crabtree.Also come eat crab in San Francisco we got the dungoness crab out the wazoo and it's good.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 15, 2014 23:48
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 10, 2024 05:48 |
|
|
Well the land is already there, but land in the bay area is of course monumentally expensive. Infrastructure too. It'd be impossible to even guess without knowing what is already there, what needs to be put in, whether there's remediation or cleanup to be done, whether an EIR has to be done and how long and expensive that would be, and of course, the real question is whether the oakland taxpayers would want to do it or not. Oakland already has high property taxes, and the area around the Colosseum is mostly poor people who can legitimately complain about a lack of services and security. But it is a step forward.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 3, 2014 19:20
|
|