Jump to content

CubsFanBudMan

Members
  • Posts

    4,389
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    1

Everything posted by CubsFanBudMan

  1. I am attending my first game at the Edward Jones Dome and I have to say I'm pleasantly surprised after all of the negative talk. It still looks new to me. Certainly not modern, but I'm up in the rafters ($15 doesn't buy what it used to) and I have a decent sightline and am much closer to the action than I was at Cowboys Stadium in the 2nd row of the top deck. Looking around, they have a mezz and the decks are divided in ways that I could see a renovation adding the necessary club/suite seats or whatever it is it lacks. Of course, I don't know what sacrifices would need to be made in attendance counts for that, but today it certainly wouldn't matter.
  2. I think it's been stated here that they're staying "San Francisco" as part of the deal.
  3. I think everyone needs to realize that there's an implied "IMO" at the end of almost every post on a message board. We have some insiders on the uniform side, but I don't recall anyone claiming to have inside knowledge of NFL franchise relocations. When they do, we'll see if their facts hold up. When in doubt, remember it's probably just an opinion, not a fact, rather than the other way around. I think the dots being connected since the Jacksonville ownership announcement are reasonable speculation, and I can't imagine the NFL didn't anticipate it. We'll see how it plays out, but it might be a few more pages into this thread before it does, so buckle up.
  4. Congrats on the Florida attendance title. I'm doing the math right now to figure out the Illinois champs. Bah, those Bears get all the breaks -- they don't even have another team in the state! Still, being SEC country, I'm surprised the Jaguars weren't voted into a BCS bowl for that accomplishment. I see a lot of excuses. Here's one you can save for later: That empty section in the 2011 opener was where "Garrard's Guardians" sat - or perhaps "David's Goliaths"?
  5. FWIW, Charley Casserly just said on the CBS pregame in response to a Jaguars question that the lease would be what keeps the team in Jacksonville. He said he talked to an NFL source that said the league feels that the Chargers, Raiders and Rams leases are the easiest to get out of. (I found the wording and the omission of the Vikings strange, considering that some leases expire.) He also said the league believes it will take two teams for the economics of the L.A. stadium to work.
  6. I'll say this about St. Louis: There's probably no place that honors its shared NFL history better than that city does with the Cardinals and Rams. Make room for that teal Brunell, Boselli, etc. in that ring of honor... On a side note, if this plays out, should a new team's colors be blue and gold while the Rams return to yellow? Or perhaps navy and teal would be a good fit... ah, so easy to speculate on the possibilities.
  7. All the scenarios that ran through my head when I saw this story have pretty much been covered here: Stallions, franchise swaps, etc. Plenty of spins to choose from: L.A. gets the Rams back, St. Louis gets the expansion team it should have had all along, or swap franchises and let the St. Louis Rams be "saved," or play it out the long way and use the Jags as bait for a stadium after the Rams leave (seems risky to me to not orchestrate something all at once for a 3rd-team city). Anyone who thinks strings aren't being pulled after seeing Khan's name pop up... And who knows, maybe the Broncos are still a factor. 3 team swap? And who says this isn't supposed to help push the Vikings as well. Interesting stuff. I don't pretend to know how things will play out, but I'd feel better as a St. Louis NFL fan than a Jax NFL fan, at least for today.
  8. In the scenario of the Vikings first moving to L.A., then the Rams moving to Minnesota later, a Cleveland deal would likely cost the NFL at least one historic name. It just doesn't make sense to me to move a team with the history of the Rams north and start calling it the Vikings and throw the Rams' 3-city history away while the real Vikings play in L.A. it could potentially be "righted" like the Tennessee Oilers (R.I.P. to that great identity) after a few years, but it all gets so messy when you don't move the name with the team. IMO, of course.
  9. If Minnesota is the team that goes, I think it saves the Rams. Maybe it would be too little, too late, but putting them in that historic division with Green Bay, Chicago and Detroit -- they wouldn't dare pull an NFC East with the Central, would they? -- with fans that travel will be the Brewers to the NL Central all over again, in my opinion. The owner would have to see the benefit in that and see that the value would only be going up in time, you'd think. Or, they could just become the first option for Minnesota...
  10. I might have said this before, but I really think the NFL might only be thinking one team in L.A., likely the Chargers. Once the stadium is a go and a team commits, there's no incentive to move a second until they can milk a stadium out of every other area they can. Look at MLB, Tampa Bay and Oakland have been the last two standing for a while, largely because they have nowhere to go since D.C. was filled. The NFL might be smart to leave a slot open in L.A. and try to get stadiums done for the Vikings, 49ers, Raiders, Rams, etc. Ultimately, they may end up with one team, which might be enough for a city that hasn't had even one for so long. Or they could move a 2nd in as a last resort.
  11. Yes. Just yes. Perfect picture and, of course, great headline. That image immediately came to mind when Hulsizer backed out, and I really have to wonder, if like a celebrity at an awards show, he got a Coyotes jersey and cap loaner that was later returned to the team store and sold as new. Trotting him out like that in the playoffs was lame.
  12. I wonder what this thread title will be changed to someday... "Quebec City appreciation station," perhaps. Maybe "Blues bought by Hulziser." Or "Hulsizer." Either one. EDIT: "Adventures in Babysitting 3." Of course. At least Mings' Tawny stamp will let those who venture in know that this was once a "Here We Go Again" Coyotes thread. I welcome it's return, and the unavoidable Whitesnake soundtrack that comes with it. On topic: Reinsdorf again? Really? Glendale does realize he's not going to take anything but an absolute gift. And then here we g--you get the point.
  13. I'm just as at fault for assuming two, but isn't it possible that L.A. just gets one team? It's amazing that they haven't had one for so long, but there's at least some evidence that it's as much of a "fair-weather" market as anywhere. Despite the corporate advantages, I'm thinking maybe they should just get one team. That seems to be a lock to work. But a whole generation has grown up without L.A. NFL football and seems content enough. I mean, there aren't any Sacramento Kings-like or Winnipeg Jets-like efforts to get a team back. Anyway, I'd been thinking two teams would get to start at the same time on equal footing in Farmers Field, but now I'm thinking maybe one team would be enough to start for a market who hasn't been in the game for so long.
  14. Agreed, I was mildly disappointed when I heard that news. I mean, it's good that they're recognizing it, but it just should've been a section in the yearbooks, the Wild Card isn't banner-worthy. In a sport that is, for now, the most difficult to make the playoffs, I am OK with such a banner. Maybe it would make more sense for, say, the Brewers, who have very few appearances compared to ATL. But in MLB, where getting in is the key, I am OK with this. What I cannot stand, however, is the phrase "Wild Card Champions." That is not a championship any more than "NBA Western Conference 7th Place Playoff Birth" is a championship. Agreed, I would just say "Wild Card" or "Wild Card Winner" I agree about the toughest playoff berths being recognized and omitting championship from the wild card commemmorations. It's an impressive display the Braves have there, but -- referencing the OP's point -- isn't every yellow flag celebrating a "second place finish" of one kind or another? If we're going to draw a line, might as well do it at the red flag, because some of those division titles were just token playoff appearances, too (says the Cubs fan whose home field has a very similar display of real flags on the roof, with only 2 that ultimately mean anything). And why no red flag for Milwaukee? A bit of a pet peeve of mine when teams don't carry over their history.
  15. I've been told repeatedly that Northwestern -- and only Northwestern -- is "Chicago's Big Ten team." Since that can really only be true in a realm such as the "Pointless Realignment Outpost," I thought I'd mention it here for posterity's sake. Carry on.
  16. "Browns" deals don't work unless an expansion team is guaranteed. If not, the possibility exists that team a team with its own history will relocate, and then what do you do? Seattle is in a bad spot with no expectation of NBA expansion. Seems silly to pretend the Kings or Hornets or whoever may move are the Sonics. Of course, I still consider the Ravens the descendant of the Browns, not the team they have in Cleveland now. To bring it back to the Rams, I think how St. Louis mixed the Cardinals and Rams histories and honored them both at their Dome should be the model. If a team leaves, let them go. They don't really take the memories, so celebrate those. Of course, losing an identity like the Oilers was a shame (or likely, the Sonics). I don't mind as much as some when a nickname doesn't match the location. Changing the name just seems like starting over. I love that the Atlanta Hawks made it from my hometown to 3 more towns with the name basically intact. Now to bring it back to Farmers Field, no matter what teams ultimately use it, they should find a way to honor the teams and players that played in L.A. previously.
  17. We went over that. If you look at the divisions it's easy to see geographically, but I won't repeat it here for fear of derailing into realignment territory as I did earlier. I don't think the NFL is as worried about NFC/AFC as, say, MLB is with their leagues. A question I do have for you based on your Rams theory: don't you think the NFL would like to return two teams at the same time, rather than give one the advantage over the other? I suppose if we're talking Rams or Raiders as the second team there might already be a fanbase, but it seems like whoever got there first would have the bandwagon fan advantage, season ticket sales advantage, etc. Who's going to jump from the Chargers to the Vikings after a couple years, or say, "I'll hold off and see if the second team we get is who I want to root for."?
  18. If it is the Rams, I don't think St. Louis is getting another shot anytime soon.
  19. Building the stadium with a 68-78,000 capacity is foolish just as it was in Soldier Field. The Bears could easily sell out 80,000 every week, but instead they have one of the smallest capacities in the NFL with no room to expand. The LA stadium should seat at least 75,000 for regular games. I agree. I've been thinking that since I first saw the 68,000 number. Incredibly short-sighted, as Chicago found out. I figured they could do temporary expansion like the Cowboys are doind this weekend, but it still seems small. And I agree with McCall that I don't think LA will be there waiting with an open slot in 2015. I think this will be done much sooner than that, maybe after the lockout. Now, that doesn't mean there won't be a threat to have a Minnesota Rams if things aren't resolved by then...
  20. I see what you're saying. I guess it's not like the west coast road trips of the NBA or MLB. Just a longer plane ride on the travel day. Guess I let the media convince me it mattered in the NFL a few (or 10) years back with that whole Jets-Oakland thing. Shame on me.
  21. In what way? Level of competition gets bumped in difficulty. (weakest division in the league exchanged for playing Peyton Manning twice a season) Their proximity to their opponents improves the likelihood said opponents will take over the stadium. (Good for the box office, bad for home field advantage) Yearly travel goes down, but this is the goddamn NFL, which means travel isn't too onerous to begin with. I think proximity builds better rivalries over time. Having the other fans in your housse can get the home crowd fired up, too, and make you not want to miss the next matchup. Travel didn't really enter my mind. I admit the NFC West has been a dream for 9-7 teams, but that can't last forever. And Manning's not playing forever, either. Yes, that's the theory. The practice is that as St. Louisans are physically and psychologically incapable of displaying strong emotion on a day to day basis, you just have the home team getting booed early and often. That was not my experience as a young Cubs fan visiting St. Louis - or as an adult, so I know they are capable. Maybe Seattle, San Fran and Arizona just don't get their juices flowing. And now that I think more of it, travel is a factor. Having to go two time zones west to play every road division game has to be a disadvantage.
  22. In what way? Level of competition gets bumped in difficulty. (weakest division in the league exchanged for playing Peyton Manning twice a season) Their proximity to their opponents improves the likelihood said opponents will take over the stadium. (Good for the box office, bad for home field advantage) Yearly travel goes down, but this is the goddamn NFL, which means travel isn't too onerous to begin with. I think proximity builds better rivalries over time. Having the other fans in your housse can get the home crowd fired up, too, and make you not want to miss the next matchup. Travel didn't really enter my mind. I admit the NFC West has been a dream for 9-7 teams, but that can't last forever. And Manning's not playing forever, either.
  23. Who would you kick out of the NFC north? If two AFC teams beat the Rams to LA, that means the Vikings stay put. Two separate thoughts. Sorry, that was unclear. It was a reference to the Vikings.
  24. If a second AFC team beats them there -- say, the Jaguars -- it could also send the Rams to the AFC South with Indy, Houston and Tennessee. Might be a better situation for them. Of course, joining the NFC North would be, too.
  25. I don't think the mayor's preference was the significant part of the story, but that he revealed the AEG group had a preference by mocking up Farmers Field for the Vikings and Chargers, or perhaps tipped their hand on who they had met with. Not that those two wouldn't be obvious, but as sure as some seem the Rams will be on the move, are we even sure L.A. will still be an option by the time their lease expires? The two teams they mocked up are very immediate choices.
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Terms of Use.