duma

NFL Merry-Go-Round: Relocation Roundelay

Recommended Posts

As far as conference switching goes, I'd think that market size has at least as much (probably more) to do with the decision as geographic location does (though the two are somewhat connected.) Since they sell packages to the networks based on conferences, if a team (Jags for example) went to the NFC, they'd have to find a team of similar market size to put in the AFC so as not to favor either of the networks.

Exactly, and that's why, the more I think about it, the more I realize Jacksonville would only replace the Rams if St. Louis lost their team. Most likely, it will be only one team that relocates. Plus, my previous claims were only assumptions on relocations prior to 2016. If the Jaguars moved to Los Angeles and didn't switch conferences, that would most likely move Kansas City to the AFC South, while they would enter the AFC West. If they did relocate and switch conferences - who would they switch conferences with, and what team would leave the NFC West and move to another division, that would certainly trigger a few divisional moves to keep rivalries and geography intact.

Are you basing this on the Jaguars being the ONLY team to move to LA? Cuz then no one would have to switch conferences. If it were the Chargers AND the Jaguars going to LA, one (most likely the Jags) would have to switch. They're not gonna have 2 teams in the same city in the same league (unless there were 3, which isn't gonna happen). At which point I and others say the Rams to the AFC South (which I do like) or the Panthers seem to be the other favorite swapping conferences with the Rams replacing them in the NFC South. If its the Vikings as the other LA team (no matter if the other is the Chargers or Jags) then the Rams would most likely go to the NFC North. With the Chiefs and Rams being the most eastern teams in the West divisions, if a division swap is necessary, its gonna end up being one of them.

I'm speaking on how, the longer I've thought about it, Jacksonville doesn't seem as conducive to being a team to relocate as the others are (Chargers, Rams, and Vikings). Like you mentioned in your post, Jacksonville moving to Los Angeles would cause a whole bunch of realignment, and I don't want this thread turning into a dick-measuring contest on which realignment plan is the best. Jacksonville is better suited to be a team to replace a San Diego/St. Louis/or even Minneapolis-St. Paul football team - not move out to the west coast.

I don't get at all what you're saying. How can you determine that? Wherever they move, that's what type of team they are. If they move out west, they'll either be the first team, which I'm sure LA would take just to finally get a team there, or they're the end, if LA so chooses to get another. Or if the spots are filled and they move wherever or nowhere. I think I explained it. Your point was kind of odd to figure out.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

"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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The Chargers are all but signed, sealed and delivered to Los Angeles. In fact, I wouldn't be surprised if an agreement in principle has already been entered into between the Spanos family and AEG. The Chargers were launched as a Los Angeles-based franchise. They still claim LA as a secondary television market. They utilize the LA-based Wasserman Media Group - headed-up by Casey Wasserman, a business associate of Time Leiweke and AEG - to market luxury suites and season-tickets to patrons in Greater Los Angeles. They held training camp at the Home Depot Center in Carson, California - just outside Los Angeles - as recently as 2003 and 2004.

After the Chargers, I see the Jaguars being the next best bet. I'd slot the Rams in as the third-best candidate if the Jags don't relocate.

* The collapse of the Metrodome roof may have been the best thing to ever happen to the Vikings as it appears to have not only jump-started serious discussion of what to do about a facility for the team, but could well give Minnesota politicians "cover" if they should come out in support of some public-financing for a new facility - i.e. "Who could have foreseen this happening to their facility? We simply have to give this business some help."

* The Bills aren't going anywhere until Ralph Wilson passes away. Further, I see more likelihood of the franchise being snapped-up by a local buyer who will keep the franchise in Western New York (billionaire Thomas Golisano will have some extra time on his hands - and an additional $189 million to play with - now that he's sold the NHL's Sabres), or someone interested in setting-up shop in nearby Toronto.

* Roger Goodell, NFL executives and -truth be told - most of the league's owners have no interest in letting Al Davis and the Raiders anywhere near Los Angeles again.

* The 49ers' Jed York seems confident that his team will be able to finalize their plan to build a new stadium in Santa Clara, California.

J. Wayne Weaver may be trying to do all that he can to secure the Jaguars' future in Jacksonville, but I believe that both he and the NFL's leadership recognize that having the Jaguars operating in Los Angeles (#2 Metro Area Population / #2 TV Market) - even if they're sharing the market with another team - makes them a much more profitable franchise than doing business in Jacksonville (# 40 Metro Area / #49 TV Market). Given Jacksonville's Metro Area and TV Market rankings, I also feel that the NFL would be more amenable to abandoning it than they would St. Louis (# 18 Metro Area / # 21 TV Market).

So, I envision...

1) San Diego Chargers become the Los Angeles Chargers without any need for conference or divisional realignment.

2) Jacksonville Jaguars become the Los Angeles Jaguars (or, Los Angeles Condors... or, Los Angeles Guardians... or...) and move to the NFC West.

3) St. Louis Rams move to the NFC South to make way for the relocating Jaguars.

4) Carolina Panthers move to the AFC South to make way for the Rams.

Jerry Richardson - owner of the Panthers - is a former NFL player and league loyalist who strikes me as being open to embracing a conference/division swap in the best interests of the NFL.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The Chargers are all but signed, sealed and delivered to Los Angeles. In fact, I wouldn't be surprised if an agreement in principle has already been entered into between the Spanos family and AEG. The Chargers were launched as a Los Angeles-based franchise. They still claim LA as a secondary television market. They utilize the LA-based Wasserman Media Group - headed-up by Casey Wasserman, a business associate of Time Leiweke and AEG - to market luxury suites and season-tickets to patrons in Greater Los Angeles. They held training camp at the Home Depot Center in Carson, California - just outside Los Angeles - as recently as 2003 and 2004.

After the Chargers, I see the Jaguars being the next best bet. I'd slot the Rams in as the third-best candidate if the Jags don't relocate.

* The collapse of the Metrodome roof may have been the best thing to ever happen to the Vikings as it appears to have not only jump-started serious discussion of what to do about a facility for the team, but could well give Minnesota politicians "cover" if they should come out in support of some public-financing for a new facility - i.e. "Who could have foreseen this happening to their facility? We simply have to give this business some help."

* The Bills aren't going anywhere until Ralph Wilson passes away. Further, I see more likelihood of the franchise being snapped-up by a local buyer who will keep the franchise in Western New York (billionaire Thomas Golisano will have some extra time on his hands - and an additional $189 million to play with - now that he's sold the NHL's Sabres), or someone interested in setting-up shop in nearby Toronto.

* Roger Goodell, NFL executives and -truth be told - most of the league's owners have no interest in letting Al Davis and the Raiders anywhere near Los Angeles again.

* The 49ers' Jed York seems confident that his team will be able to finalize their plan to build a new stadium in Santa Clara, California.

J. Wayne Weaver may be trying to do all that he can to secure the Jaguars' future in Jacksonville, but I believe that both he and the NFL's leadership recognize that having the Jaguars operating in Los Angeles (#2 Metro Area Population / #2 TV Market) - even if they're sharing the market with another team - makes them a much more profitable franchise than doing business in Jacksonville (# 40 Metro Area / #49 TV Market). Given Jacksonville's Metro Area and TV Market rankings, I also feel that the NFL would be more amenable to abandoning it than they would St. Louis (# 18 Metro Area / # 21 TV Market).

So, I envision...

1) San Diego Chargers become the Los Angeles Chargers without any need for conference or divisional realignment.

2) Jacksonville Jaguars become the Los Angeles Jaguars (or, Los Angeles Condors... or, Los Angeles Guardians... or...) and move to the NFC West.

3) St. Louis Rams move to the NFC South to make way for the relocating Jaguars.

4) Carolina Panthers move to the AFC South to make way for the Rams.

Jerry Richardson - owner of the Panthers - is a former NFL player and league loyalist who strikes me as being open to embracing a conference/division swap in the best interests of the NFL.

Hopefully that happens, because I'd rather not see Minnesota lose their team... too much tradition and a good rivalry there.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So, I envision...

1) San Diego Chargers become the Los Angeles Chargers without any need for conference or divisional realignment.

2) Jacksonville Jaguars become the Los Angeles Jaguars (or, Los Angeles Condors... or, Los Angeles Guardians... or...) and move to the NFC West.

3) St. Louis Rams move to the NFC South to make way for the relocating Jaguars.

4) Carolina Panthers move to the AFC South to make way for the Rams.

I'm admittedly ignorant about all this, so I enjoy reading the posts of those in the know. That said, I have this one question of curiosity: I know the Rams have a deeply entranched history of being an NFC team, but if this does in fact play out, would it not make more sense to keep Carolina in the division and then switch the Rams into the AFC South? If nothing else, at least two other division teams (Colts and Titans) would all basically be right in the same region. (Actually, if they do that, the may as well rename the AFC South the AFC Central. :P )

I'm sure whenever the NFL looks at realignment (and I believe it is coming, if the Jags do move), they'll want to "preserve as much history as possible". Me personally, I really wouldn't care if they blow it all up and start over. They already almost did it once with the eight-division format. But that's just me.

I and my ignorance will now return to spectator mode...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Fox certainly can make the NFL switch teams. If not by strongarming them during the current agreement, by lowering their bid during the next one. IIRC, the AFC and NFC packages cost the same (I could be wrong though, correct me if I am.) All of a sudden, the AFC package is worth a lot more, so why would Fox pay the same as CBS for a less valuable package? I'm not sure if the NFL sets the price and the networks buy it, or if it's a bidding system, but either way, the NFL would either have to make concessions to lower the price of the NFC package (or at least not raise it like the AFC one would have to be raised) or be ready to accept a lower bid for it.

When we're talking about billion-dollar packages, the networks certainly do (and should) have a ton of power. Hell - they can move game times already. So the league would either have to cater to them, or change it's rights structure a bit.

As others have stated, Fox pays a lot more. They pay $90 million a year more than CBS does. Although Fox would probably whine and posture, it wouldn't be about losing the St. Louis market. Replacing that with a middling AFC market would make no difference to their bottom line. What Fox would undoubtedly complain about is that there needs to be an NFC team in LA, also.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Farmer's field? That's almost as bad as San Jose's Cow Palace.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Farmer's field? That's almost as bad as San Jose's Cow Palace.

.. if only the Cow Palace was anywhere near San Jose... :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Farmer's field? That's almost as bad as San Jose's Cow Palace.

Cow Palace isn't in San Jose, it's in Daly City about a 1/4 mile from the San Francisco city line (the Arena in San Jose is called the HP Pavilion currently). Second, the Cow Palace is named such because it was and is literally a palace for cows hosting the Grand National Rodeo and California Horse and Stock Show since 1941.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Farmer's field? That's almost as bad as San Jose's Cow Palace.

.. if only the Cow Palace was anywhere near San Jose... :)

I meant the team San Jose, not the City. :P

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

* The collapse of the Metrodome roof may have been the best thing to ever happen to the Vikings as it appears to have not only jump-started serious discussion of what to do about a facility for the team, but could well give Minnesota politicians "cover" if they should come out in support of some public-financing for a new facility - i.e. "Who could have foreseen this happening to their facility? We simply have to give this business some help."

It also helps the Vikings' case that there's already a well-established precedent of public financing of Minnesota teams' stadiums - see also Target Field, TCF Bank Stadium and Xcel Energy Center.

That said, a new Vikings stadium is still a long, long way from being a done deal, so they are still very much in play for Los Angeles. From the league's perspective it might make more sense for them to move to LA next year than the Rams*, because even if Minnesota gets their new stadium too late to save the Vikings, the Rams could at least move north to become Vikings v2.0. If, on the other hand, if the Rams move back to LA and the Vikings stadium effort stalls yet again, does anyone seriously expect the Vikings to end up in St. Louis? There is no new stadium drive there to speak of. Where else would the Vikings go, if the Minnesota stadium situation doesn't improve and LA is no longer an option?

* Note: My comment presumes the NFL would not have any team switch conferences to accommodate a move except as a last resort, which is why the Chargers, Jaguars etc. aren't mentioned.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

* The collapse of the Metrodome roof may have been the best thing to ever happen to the Vikings as it appears to have not only jump-started serious discussion of what to do about a facility for the team, but could well give Minnesota politicians "cover" if they should come out in support of some public-financing for a new facility - i.e. "Who could have foreseen this happening to their facility? We simply have to give this business some help."

It also helps the Vikings' case that there's already a well-established precedent of public financing of Minnesota teams' stadiums - see also Target Field, TCF Bank Stadium and Xcel Energy Center.

That said, a new Vikings stadium is still a long, long way from being a done deal, so they are still very much in play for Los Angeles. From the league's perspective it might make more sense for them to move to LA next year than the Rams*, because even if Minnesota gets their new stadium too late to save the Vikings, the Rams could at least move north to become Vikings v2.0. If, on the other hand, if the Rams move back to LA and the Vikings stadium effort stalls yet again, does anyone seriously expect the Vikings to end up in St. Louis? There is no new stadium drive there to speak of. Where else would the Vikings go, if the Minnesota stadium situation doesn't improve and LA is no longer an option?

* Note: My comment presumes the NFL would not have any team switch conferences to accommodate a move except as a last resort, which is why the Chargers, Jaguars etc. aren't mentioned.

It is less about the specific financing, buy more that every team STILL has their hands out in some form or another. There are also other areas of the state which want money for facilities too.

Twin Cities sport facility glut

From the article:

The individual requests are piling up: St. Paul wants help retiring the Xcel Center's debt; the St. Paul Saints want money for a new ballpark; Target Center has asked for a $150 million face-lift and the Vikings want a new home that would cost at least $700 million.

"Would it be complicated? Yeah. Anything you do, it's always complicated," said Bill Huepenbecker, senior director of planning and public affairs for the St. Paul Arena Co., a subsidiary of the Minnesota Wild hockey team, which plays at the Xcel Center. "[but] if they're looking at a global solution, we want to be part of that discussion."

An array of public officials view the proposal with caution and skepticism, but some are already firmly on board.

"I think that's a good idea," said Minneapolis City Council President Barb Johnson. The city is struggling with a costly renovation plan for the aging and dowdy Target Center, which it owns. "You get to the point that these facilities compete against each other."

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

NFL flexing its muscle on the opposition to Farmers Field.

At the request of the NFL, planners of a proposed football stadium are no longer using the City of Industry when referring to the location of their 75,000-seat venue. The $800-million project is now being referred to as "Grand Crossing," said John Semcken, vice president of developer Majestic Realty Co.

?I was specifically asked if I could change the name of the city by the National Football League, and I said yes and I did it,? Semcken told the Associated Press. ?It's an impression that they have, which was a negative impression, and there's no reason to have it. You just get rid of it.?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I still associate "City of Industry" with Barry Zuckerkorn cruising for tranny hookers.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Exactly.

Changing the name of the project doesn't change the fact that it's still being proposed for the freaking City of Industry.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Doesn't really matter, though.

This indicates that the NFL still sees it as a viable location, despite the downtown naming rights deal (which is only smart).

Otherwise, why would they bother?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I guess it's nice that AEG made Downtown a bit safer, but the LA Live complex is a big disappointment. There's just nothing to do. It's barely even worth hanging around after a game let alone being a destination in and of itself.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I guess it's nice that AEG made Downtown a bit safer, but the LA Live complex is a big disappointment. There's just nothing to do. It's barely even worth hanging around after a game let alone being a destination in and of itself.

But on the other hand L.A. Live has allowed better hotels outside of the Westin Bonaventure was built and thus during the week of the Grammys, conventions which major players were used that their hotels are used. The ability to stay at the JW Marriott and the Ritz-Carlton is a part of the professional sport scheme since teams do stay a those Marriott properties. In fact, the the NBA has a contract with Ritz-Carlton and JW Marriott.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I guess it's nice that AEG made Downtown a bit safer, but the LA Live complex is a big disappointment. There's just nothing to do. It's barely even worth hanging around after a game let alone being a destination in and of itself.

I have to agree...it's nice that they have the numerous restaurants, the night clubs, and the theaters (the Regal cinema and the Nokia), but I thought they would add a few retail shops, and that might happen in due time if they can acquire more land. I have a friend originally from Oakland, and she lives just blocks away from L.A. Live, and she came off disappointed with the area as well. However, it's no mistaking that Staples/L.A. Live have done a lot to transform what was a dead Downtown L.A. prior to this past decade. It's not just the newer businesses popping up in the surrounding neighborhood, but tons of people are moving into Downtown (on the northern and western parts; the eastern and southern portions are mostly industrial).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I guess it's nice that AEG made Downtown a bit safer, but the LA Live complex is a big disappointment. There's just nothing to do. It's barely even worth hanging around after a game let alone being a destination in and of itself.

I have to agree...it's nice that they have the numerous restaurants, the night clubs, and the theaters (the Regal cinema and the Nokia), but I thought they would add a few retail shops, and that might happen in due time if they can acquire more land. I have a friend originally from Oakland, and she lives just blocks away from L.A. Live, and she came off disappointed with the area as well. However, it's no mistaking that Staples/L.A. Live have done a lot to transform what was a dead Downtown L.A. prior to this past decade. It's not just the newer businesses popping up in the surrounding neighborhood, but tons of people are moving into Downtown (on the northern and western parts; the eastern and southern portions are mostly industrial).

It still takes time for smaller investors to gain capital go allow themselves to get space close to LA Live at a reasonable price to something near that zone which can be profitable. If smaller businesses are priced out of the area now, then even with a "no tailagate" downtown area like LA can a small business owner think they can survive.

Victory Plaza in Dallas has the same issue as they small businesses have sustainably issues near the AmericanAirilnes Center. The W seems to be doing fine, but during the business day, they have issues. The 120+ event nights, the business are able to survive.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.