duma

NFL Merry-Go-Round: Relocation Roundelay

Recommended Posts

11 minutes ago, Red Comet said:

You're right about the price probably being much cheaper but even if it was more like $5,000 per ticket...

You don't know how much it would cost. I don't know much it would cost either but at least I'm not pulling numbers out of my butt. 

 

13 minutes ago, Red Comet said:

Optimistically? I'm thinking that it won't be until 2050 until the tech necessary to make expansion to Europe feasible will be widely available.

Try 2120.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
20 minutes ago, Ice_Cap said:

You don't know how much it would cost. I don't know much it would cost either but at least I'm not pulling numbers out of my butt. 

 

Says right in this article from 2018 that $5000/ticket is the expected price.

 

So no, I'm not pulling numbers out of my ass. 

 

EDIT for relevant quote:

 

"Boom's approach to supersonic travel is to create a 55-seater commercial airliner, which will fly at Mach 2.2 and have seats priced around $5,000 for transatlantic flights (in 1981, a round-trip ticket to London or Paris from New York, about a three-and-a-half hour flight at 1,350 miles an hour, cost about $3,000). Scholl's gamble is simple: he believes Boom can always fill a 55-seater plane, as opposed to Concorde, which had to fill more than 100 seats per flight."

 

 

Edited by Red Comet

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
34 minutes ago, Ice_Cap said:

And yeah the space plane is cool, but it's probably a century off from being feasible at a commercial level. So it's a mute point. 

 

from Dictionary.com, for the future reference of all on the board:

 

You may have heard coworkers or acquaintances refer to an inconsequential or irrelevant point as a moot point, or maybe you’ve heard mute point instead.  Fans of the TV show "Friends" may have heard a third variation: moo point (because, according to Joey, a cow’s opinion doesn’t matter).

 

But which expression is correct, and what exactly does it mean?

 

The correct phrase is moot point.  A moot point can be either an issue open for debate, or a matter of no practical value or importance because it’s hypothetical.  The latter is more common in modern American English.  The term comes from British law where it describes a hypothetical point of discussion used as teaching exercise for law students.  This finds its roots in an early noun sense of moot: “an assembly of the people in early England exercising political, administrative, and judicial powers.”

 

The word mute means “silent; refraining from speech or utterance,” and the pairing mute point has no canonized meaning in standard English. However, it’s easy to imagine how this mistake might make sense in some contexts, and perhaps that’s why it’s so frequently confused with moot point.  In a book of wordplay called "Wordbirds: An Irreverent Lexicon for the 21st Century", Liesl Schillinger humorously defines a mute point as follows:

 

“When somebody in a group makes a good suggestion, but somehow nobody hears it.” 

 

In a similar vein, Urban Dictionary defines it as “addressing the participants of a conference call while your phone is on mute.”

 

As for moo point, Joey may be waiting until the cows come home for this creative coinage to catch on.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
48 minutes ago, GDAWG said:

I am sure that super fast air travel is somewhere in the back of the mind of Elon Musk and that he'll put it on the forefront as soon as his goal of people on Mars is complete.

Melon Husk hasn't even worked all the kinks out of his car tube yet.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 minutes ago, Red Comet said:

 

Says right in this article from 2018 that $5000/ticket is the expected price.

 

So no, I'm not pulling numbers out of my ass. 

It doesn't actually. The article you linked says there are multiple attempts in the works at modern supersonic flight. The $5,000/ticket line is from a single potential business model, based on projections for a project that is nowhere near ready to be launched. 

 

Regardless? $5,000/ticket is less than half of the $17,000/ticket price you claimed earlier. And as a technology becomes more widespread? Prices go down. 

We're a century away from commercial space travel (the "space plane") from being viable, but assuming supersonic flight with modern tech is launched within a decade? Its price tag per ticket could shrink considerably to the point of being viable for NFL teams long before they'd have to rely on space flight. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, Red Comet said:

I'm going based off of historical precedent. When rail travel was the most prevalent form of transportation in the US, there wasn't any established major league team in any league west of St. Louis (or Minneapolis if you count the NBA as a major league in the 40s/50s). 

 

Once jet travel became a thing, sports leagues started expanding/relocating to the West Coast as now you could have teams routinely travel there in a few hours rather than a few days and that's where we are now. 

 

That's why I came to the conclusion I came to.

 

The NFL was traveling by plane (and had two California teams) a full decade before the Douglas DC-9 and Boeing 707 ushered in jet passenger commercial service in the late 1950s.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, Red Comet said:

Of course expansion to Europe is unfeasible right now. That's why I used the precedent of jet technology with continentwide expansion following a decade/two decades afterwards as the precedent. 

 

Optimistically? I'm thinking that it won't be until 2050 until the tech necessary to make expansion to Europe feasible will be widely available. And that's assuming no major political/social obstacles interfere. And they will.

 

Even assuming instantaneous teleportation across the globe, you still won’t get past jet lag.  You’d be asking California and Seattle-based players to get used to playing at odd times.  That’s bound to create a competitive advantage.  

 

So long as the Earth insists on being round, having European teams in the NFL is a profoundly dumb idea. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, Gothamite said:

 

Even assuming instantaneous teleportation across the globe, you still won’t get past jet lag.  You’d be asking California and Seattle-based players to get used to playing at odd times.  That’s bound to create a competitive advantage.  

 

So long as the Earth insists on being round, having European teams in the NFL is a profoundly dumb idea. 

Easy fix. Goodell becomes a flat-earther. Then that problem is gone! :P

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

🤣

 

Look, if it comes down to “acknowledging reality” versus “make an extra five dollars”, I’ve no doubt that the NFL would be glad to tell you that up is down, the sky is green, and the Earth is actually a dodecahedron.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

As bad as they seem to want a London team, I'm surprised the NFL itself isn't investing money into rocket research or matter dematerialization/rematerialization.  They could patent the technology and make money off of both ends.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

They'll do that around the same time they start paying for their own minor league and stadiums. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, BringBackTheVet said:

As bad as they seem to want a London team, I'm surprised the NFL itself isn't investing money into rocket research or matter dematerialization/rematerialization.  They could patent the technology and make money off of both ends.

I'd argue that they don't want a London team, they want a location to leverage against other locations for new stadia. This is especially the case now that LA is no longer an option.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Sec19Row53 said:

I'd argue that they don't want a London team, they want a location to leverage against other locations for new stadia. This is especially the case now that LA is no longer an option.

 

 

The open Seattle market led to new arenas in Milwaukee, Sacramento and potentially Inglewood.


Now that the LA market is no longer open, the NFL needs a new boogeyman. I think you're right.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Re: San Antonio, the Alamodome is 26 years old and was built on spec, so its more than a little long in the tooth now, also there is not enough money to really finance a new NFL palace.

 

Re: Toronto: The Bills couldn't really make it work with their international series, and they're the ones who would have the pre-existing fanbase in Toronto.  Also the Rogers Centre is even older than the Alamodome and BMO Field is too small.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So if an NFL team wants a new stadium, they might actually have to pony up some money themselves? The absolute horror.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The problem with using London as leverage is that nobody actually believes that they could put a team in London.  Had to leverage a bad joke. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, DG_Now said:

 

The open Seattle market led to new arenas in Milwaukee, Sacramento and potentially Inglewood.


Now that the LA market is no longer open, the NFL needs a new boogeyman. I think you're right.

 

Any chance that's a market that nobody has even considered?  I don't think anyone even thought that Jacksonville, Nashville, Charlotte or Las Vegas would be NFL cities 30 years ago.  A city that isn't London, Toronto, San Antonio, San Diego, St. Louis?

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, GDAWG said:

 

Any chance that's a market that nobody has even considered?  I don't think anyone even thought that Jacksonville, Nashville, Charlotte or Las Vegas would be NFL cities 30 years ago.  A city that isn't London, Toronto, San Antonio, San Diego, St. Louis?

 

You're wrong there, homey.  Charlotte's banking boom started back in 1978 which along with major zoning changes, a liquor law change, and as a result its population growth and wealth began.  Then, US Airways put a hub in Charlotte in '87 after taking over Piedmont.

 

And 30 years ago, people were still smart enough to realize that there was a declining population within Rust Belt states which continues today. Charlotte was clearly getting less blue collar/industrial with textiles, and more white collar/financial with banking.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Good to know that Charlotte was on the rise 30 years ago, pre Panthers instead of after Panthers. 

 

Still though, I wonder what the chances are of an NFL team moving to a market nobody has mentioned. 

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.