RealGM

My unbiased opinion: Oklahoma. Their college football programs have a massive following, and theyve treated teh THunder very well since that move.

Cactus Jack wrote:Are the Raiders headed to Vegas?

http://www.espn.com/nfl/story/_/id/17555854/committee-recommends-750-million-public-money-las-vegas-stadium-raiders

LAS VEGAS -- A plan to build an NFL stadium in Las Vegas and lure the Raiders from Oakland cleared a major hurdle Thursday when a Nevada oversight committee voted unanimously to recommend $750 million in public funding for the project.

"We are excited and thanks to the committee," Raiders owner Mark Davis said in a text message to USA TODAY Sports.

Interesting, I had not heard that latest news. I've been of the opinion for a while now that it's very likely the Raiders move.

What's going to happen in Vegas though, is that at every home game there are going to be as many fans of the away team as there are of the Raiders. I have a very hard time seeing Vegas as a city that just wraps its arms around and embraces an NFL franchise. That won't stop them from making buckets full of money though.

trevm37 wrote:My unbiased opinion: Oklahoma. Their college football programs have a massive following, and theyve treated teh THunder very well since that move.

Okc isn't a bad choice it's a city that's super close to a college town and there's tons of people from okc that take the 20-30 minute drive from okc to tailgate there sometimes even without gong to the games...I think it wold easily be embraced (may also just be me wishing because I have A BUNCH of friends that work for an oil company in okc so I could easily go visit and go to games)


I still think Las Vegas is next. I think Toronto would be better, though


I say we see if St. Louis can handle a team, it's a pretty good city, right? (Give me a break on the bad joke, the coogs just made the dumbest turnover at the end of the half)

how about london?

hermes wrote:how about london?

Are you posing this because you actually think they should, or just for conversation?

I really hope that the NFL never expands to London. I have no doubt that London would be a great host city for them, the fans would show up in hoards, they would be very profitable, and it would help football dramatically as far as becoming an international sport is concerned. But a team in London would be at a major, major disadvantage.

Think about how much teams whine and complain right now when they have to play in London just once every several years. Jetlag and long flights already have an impact when a team like San Diego has to travel to New York or Boston, imagine them flying to London. And for the poor players who have to play for that team, they have to make 8+ hour flights each way every week.

I like the thought of it, just not the logistics.

Before any thought of expansion I'd like to see them play games at neutral sites. Since we are likely going to see the NFL go to 18 games, how about have two of those games take place in other cities?

For the Texans I'd want to see one in Austin and one in Mexico City each year.

Mr. E wrote:Before any thought of expansion I'd like to see them play games at neutral sites. Since we are likely going to see the NFL go to 18 games, how about have two of those games take place in other cities?

For the Texans I'd want to see one in Austin and one in Mexico City each year.

I hate that idea. Preseason maybe. But, regular season games that count, absolutely not. It takes away meaningful games to fans in that city. I think its stupid that they schedule games over in London. I certainly don't want the league to take a home game away from the Hawks.

Cactus Jack wrote:

Mr. E wrote:Before any thought of expansion I'd like to see them play games at neutral sites. Since we are likely going to see the NFL go to 18 games, how about have two of those games take place in other cities?

For the Texans I'd want to see one in Austin and one in Mexico City each year.

I hate that idea. Preseason maybe. But, regular season games that count, absolutely not. It takes away meaningful games to fans in that city. I think its stupid that they schedule games over in London. I certainly don't want the league to take a home game away from the Hawks.

I'm not talking about taking away games. My suggestion would only happen if the NFL does go to 18 games. Every team keeps 8 home games and then they have two where they split the pot with the other team (or be the neutral "home" or "away" team). The NFL really would love to spread it's product out to as many live markets as possible.

Now, obviously the neutral cities would need the proper facilities to host an NFL game.

The largest metro areas without a NFL franchise is St. Louis and Portland. Portland has a great fan base, I think that would be a good fit. St. Louis with good ownership as they had 15 years ago, there is support for a team there.

*bump*

Toronto currently remains the largest north-american city without an NFL franchise. With the Buffalo Bills relocation off the roadmap, and league expansion apparently off the menu, long-shot relocation candidates are now reportedly the Jaguars and the Buccaneers for their lower home game attendances. We could add the Las Vegas Raiders to the conversation if their experience doesn't pan out.

These teams' owners are nevertheless likely to play out their current arrangements in smaller and less expandable markets than risking a northern adventure.

Pains me to say it, but Toronto is likely to have to wait for at least another decade.

Yeah it's crazy! I am going to see the Raiders vs the Packers in August at Winnipeg, pretty stoked to say the least.

Yeah I can't imagine Toronto will get a NFL team any time soon.

fbalmeida wrote:Pains me to say it, but Toronto is likely to have to wait for at least another decade.

Mexico City & London will both get consideration long before Toronto ever does. Which I think is a mistake fwiw.

trevm37 wrote:My unbiased opinion: Oklahoma. Their college football programs have a massive following, and theyve treated teh THunder very well since that move.

This makes a lot of sense. I can't help but wonder if the college programs are SO strong that it's like in Toronto, where the CFL has enough support to deter the cities from allowing competitors.

anatomicbomb wrote:

trevm37 wrote:My unbiased opinion: Oklahoma. Their college football programs have a massive following, and theyve treated teh THunder very well since that move.

This makes a lot of sense. I can't help but wonder if the college programs are SO strong that it's like in Toronto, where the CFL has enough support to deter the cities from allowing competitors.

Yeah, and from what I know, most people in Oklahoma, besides being huge Sooners (or OKSt Cowboys) fans, are also Dallas Cowboys fans.

When San Diego was transferring, I thought San Antonio might be good briefly but everyone there is a Cowboys fan too. I think they air Dallas Cowboys games as the local type games even in Oklahoma.

Oklahoma should not be allowed to have an NFL team unless they agree to give Seattle back the Sonics in exchange...

RaoulDuke79 wrote:Oklahoma should not be allowed to have an NFL team unless they agree to give Seattle back the Sonics in exchange...

NFL? We'll give them the Baseball team instead.

St. Louis. No brainer.