NFL Merry-Go-Round: Relocation Roundelay

[Gothamite]

I don't know - then you have a situation like the Atlanta Braves, where "always close but falling short" leads to exactly the same disenchanted fanbase.

[The_Admiral]

Seems to me like the single red thread running through everything here is the South.

[TheOldRoman]

I just had a thought about the Buccaners. It seemed so long at the time, but their "renaissance" that suddenly ended with a Super Bowl only lasted six seasons. They got a few more playoff seasons in 05 and 07, but the team that looked (to my high school self) like it was on the verge of decade of dominance effectively ended on that field in San Diego. They went 7-9 the next year and were never again a team to be reckoned with. It seemed like it lasted so much longer than six seasons.

Other than Glazer being a turd, what the hell happened? Did Tampa support the team back when it was an annual doormat?

[dfwabel]

Culverhouse was worse as an owner and alienated the fan base with a threat to move three games to Orlando in 1989 when the team was 5-11, 4-11, 2-14 and 2-14 the previous four seasons. They were drawing about 45K/game during that time at old Tampa Stadium with all metal seating and a metal seat back added during that decade.

[TBGKon]

The Glazers bought Man U shortly after the Super Bowl...thats what happened.

[Cosmic]

All that said, I remain surprised it is not going well in Jacksonville. It's the biggest city in Florida and it has almost no other local sports to compete with.

"Biggest city in Florida" doesn't mean anything. It just means they annexed pretty much the whole county. The metro population is between that of Greensboro and Hartford, forming what I guess is a Whalers sandwich.

That stuck out at me when I scanned the list of most populous cities during our Anaheim/LA thread: Jacksonville is 750 square miles, which is crazy. New York is 300. Chicago is 230. San Francisco is just 40. Jacksonville is bigger than some entire counties near me.

[ninersdd]

I just had a thought about the Buccaners. It seemed so long at the time, but their "renaissance" that suddenly ended with a Super Bowl only lasted six seasons. They got a few more playoff seasons in 05 and 07, but the team that looked (to my high school self) like it was on the verge of decade of dominance effectively ended on that field in San Diego. They went 7-9 the next year and were never again a team to be reckoned with. It seemed like it lasted so much longer than six seasons.

Other than Glazer being a turd, what the hell happened? Did Tampa support the team back when it was an annual doormat?

Gruden wasn't an elite coach, but they seemed to have some stability with him(and Monte Kiffin as DC). Tampa was 9-3 in 2008, and had the 2 seed I believe. They fell apart and seemingly haven't recovered to this day. That started with getting demolished for 300 yards on the ground to the Panthers, and tough losses to the Chargers and Falcons, two playoff teams. The last game was the crusher though, with a playoff spot on the line, the Raiders(who obviously weren't good), Grude's old team beat them 31-24 with almost 200 yards rushing. They fired him a few weeks later and blew it up, and unfortunately are largely no better now then they were in 2009. They have some solid players in Martin, McCoy, Revis, Vincent Jackson, and Mike Williams, but Freeman struggled and the locker room seems toxic and the team has underperformed.

[leopard88]

Seems to me like the single red thread running through everything here is the South.

Carrying on that theme, many of the southern cities in question have high percentages of transplants in their populace. In my experience, many of the transplants maintain loyalty to their old hometown teams. That makes it harder for teams like the Bucs and Jags to establish allegiances.

[DaytonBlue]

if Memphis got a team would the oilers had moved to Nashvillle?

Nope. And if I remember, they played in Memphis for a season.

I think the Oilers would've gone to L.A. or maybe even some sort of deal with Cleveland?

Why did they keep the Oilers name/identity after moving? Was there a plan to keep it and then changed it; or was there a plan to change it all along?

Also, I wonder where the Grizzlies would have gone because Memphis does not have enough population/income to support two pro teams.

Maybe... New Orleans or OKC?

New Orleans for sure. They were a very close 2nd in landing the Grizzlies. OKC wasn't even a thought back then.

From what I've read Bud Adams wanted to keep the team's name as the Tennessee Oilers, but fans found that ridiculous. Tennessee Copperheads was thrown out as a possibility but Titans was ultimately chosen to pay homage to Nashville's nickname as the "Athens of the South".

Also, now that I think of it, Louisville was seriously considered for the Grizzlies also (this was pre Yum Center and U of L getting complete control of that building)...they were going to build a new arena called the KFC Bucket!

[Brian in Boston]

I think it takes sustained competitiveness in a market to really establish roots.

The Bucs have never done it. The Rams have never done it. Both came close, but followed it up with sustained awfulness. And we're seeing that the Jags never really even got close.

While the Jaguars never played in - or, won - a Super Bowl, let's remember that the franchise did enjoy success early in its existence. After going 4-12 in their inaugural season, the Jaguars' regular season record over the next four years was 45-19. During that run, the Jaguars made the playoffs four straight years, twice as a Wild Card entrant and twice as AFC Central champions (in 1999, with the best record - 14-2 - in the AFC). They twice advanced to the AFC Championship game.

That said, when the bottom fell out on the franchise, it plummeted. A 33-47 record over the next five years, with no trips to the post-season, certainly took the shine off of things.

[bosrs1]

http://www.nfl.com/news/story/0ap2000000259208/article/nfl-adds-third-london-game-in-2014-regular-season

So it looks like we can add the Raiders to the list of teams losing a home game so the NFL can play in London. This along with the Vikings, Rams, Jags, and Falcons in recent years. All teams looking for new stadiums and/or mentioned vis-a-vis LA of course. Oddly the Chargers have continued to avoid this particular predicament?

[OnWis97]

http://www.nfl.com/news/story/0ap2000000259208/article/nfl-adds-third-london-game-in-2014-regular-season

So it looks like we can add the Raiders to the list of teams losing a home game so the NFL can play in London. This along with the Vikings, Rams, Jags, and Falcons in recent years. All teams looking for new stadiums and/or mentioned vis-a-vis LA of course. Oddly the Chargers have continued to avoid this particular predicament?

As a Viking fan, I don't like having lost a home game (though we won so I guess it does not matter), but I would be absolutely livid if I were a season ticket holder. Getting 7 instead of 8 home games would be tolerable if not for the fact that they stick you with the pre-season games. Some people may not think it's a big thing, but getting stuck with 2 preseason would bug me more if I was losing a real game.

[Still MIGHTY]

For the love of Christ, Goodell... THREE LONDON GAMES!?!

You know what this is moving towards? And it's probably not having a London team (at least not at first, Goodell be damned), but having a game in London every week, or at least every week during the bye week portion of the schedule. Picking two teams that will follow with byes and have them play in London the week before.

It would be asinine, but it's not something I couldn't envision the NFL doing...

[OnWis97]

For the love of Christ, Goodell... THREE LONDON GAMES!?!

You know what this is moving towards? And it's probably not having a London team (at least not at first, Goodell be damned), but having a game in London every week, or at least every week during the bye week portion of the schedule. Picking two teams that will follow with byes and have them play in London the week before.

It would be asinine, but it's not something I couldn't envision the NFL doing...

Yeah, I feel like I've heard that "London every week" as a "consolation prize" to having a team based there before.

Maybe they can also throw in the "losing a home game" as a punishment to teams that don't have new, high-revenue-producing stadiums. If they are going to do three games there next year (and at least three the following year), I'll be VERY curious to see whether the Vikings will "host" one in 2015. They will have a low-revenue-producing stadium, but they also no longer need to be "punished" as the new one will be in construction.

[Magnus]

OITGDNFL?

[bosrs1]

Mighty, I disagree. London actually seems to be the new LA more than anything. The teams they keep sending are ones that have stadium and/or attendance issues that are pending or yet to be dealt with, save the Chargers

[dfwabel]

London wants the games a bad as the NFL does. The FA needs to pay the debt service on Wembley and are already going to miss their self-imposed deadline to turn a profit by 2014 by at least one year.

[Still MIGHTY]

Mighty, I disagree. London actually seems to be the new LA more than anything. The teams they keep sending are ones that have stadium and/or attendance issues that are pending or yet to be dealt with, save the Chargers

Then why aren't we having games (preseason or regular season) in Los Angeles?

Also, on twitter;

Ian Rapoport of NFL.com/NFL Network: "On Los Angeles, Goodell says, “We do not have that solution right now. … The stadium is a key component of that. We want a site that works” and "Goodell: “A lot would have to happen” for there to be a franchise in London. It’s about growth now, he said."

And Jim Thomas, Rams beat writer for the St. Louis Post-Dispatch: "I'm hearing absolutely nothing is going on with respect to stadium lease/new stadium talks in St. Louis. . .Crickets from NFL owners meetings: Right now, Stan Kroenke has nowhere to go if he wanted to move Rams."

[bosrs1]

Mighty, I disagree. London actually seems to be the new LA more than anything. The teams they keep sending are ones that have stadium and/or attendance issues that are pending or yet to be dealt with, save the Chargers

Then why aren't we having games (preseason or regular season) in Los Angeles?

Also, on twitter;

Ian Rapoport of NFL.com/NFL Network: "On Los Angeles, Goodell says, “We do not have that solution right now. … The stadium is a key component of that. We want a site that works” and "Goodell: “A lot would have to happen” for there to be a franchise in London. It’s about growth now, he said."

And Jim Thomas, Rams beat writer for the St. Louis Post-Dispatch: "I'm hearing absolutely nothing is going on with respect to stadium lease/new stadium talks in St. Louis. . .Crickets from NFL owners meetings: Right now, Stan Kroenke has nowhere to go if he wanted to move Rams."

Mighty, you kind of answered your own question, no stadium. Wembley is an NFL caliber stadium, something LA lacks.

[Gothamite]

Also I think they don't want to give any one team a leg up in claiming LA, for fear the other cities will think the pressure's off.