kw11333

Teams In The Wrong Stadium

Recommended Posts

1 hour ago, SilverBullet1929 said:

The team actually changed their city name because of temporary relocation due to Katrina? Is that what happened? I'm no NBA expert so I'm really not sure. 

The aftermath of Katrina forced the Hornets to move temporarily. Who would come to the games? How would they sell enough seats and still be able to make money? They had to move the team, and Oklahoma City was a city that had always been fiending for an NBA team. It was also an experiment for the NBA to see how the city would react to acquiring a team, and if the market there proved to be successful, there could be a future opportunity of an NBA team coming to Oklahoma City (which became true two years later).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 hours ago, SilverBullet1929 said:

But the actually changed their jerseys to say Oklahoma city for the season? That's amazing. Hell of a commitment from both the city and the team there. In a way it's a slap to New Orleans to not still represent that city on the jersey after what they went through but I'm impressed that a temporary move like that was so boldly done. 

They DID wear a NOLA patch on their jerseys though...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If the Raiders are going to move to vegas I think they should do it immediately and play at Sam Boyd Stadium. The coliseum holds 55,000 with the tarps and Sam Boyd holds 40,000. If they were to add removable seating they could easily add 10-15 thousand seats in the empty end zone instead of playing 2-3 lame duck seasons.

Sam_Boyd_Stadium_from_the_air_July_2014.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I always wanted the NFL to start doing all Preseason games at Neutral Sites.. I want to see Raiders backups vs Cardinals backups in :censored:ing Melbourne Cricket Ground or the Bears play a home game at Wrigley. Would add a lot of content to this thread.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 1/2/2017 at 10:14 PM, Dabbaby17 said:

the most memorable example of this occurring was the Oklahoma City Hornets after Hurricane Katrina hit New Orleans. (not sure if this one has been done already, but I thought I'd contribute anyway.)

Image result for oklahoma city hornets

0462441001447861894_filepicker.jpg

 

 

On 1/4/2017 at 6:20 PM, SilverBullet1929 said:

The team actually changed their city name because of temporary relocation due to Katrina? Is that what happened? I'm no NBA expert so I'm really not sure. 

 

On 1/4/2017 at 6:27 PM, SilverBullet1929 said:

But the actually changed their jerseys to say Oklahoma city for the season? That's amazing. Hell of a commitment from both the city and the team there. In a way it's a slap to New Orleans to not still represent that city on the jersey after what they went through but I'm impressed that a temporary move like that was so boldly done. 

 

On 1/5/2017 at 8:36 AM, Ben in LA said:

They DID wear a NOLA patch on their jerseys though...

 

The franchise is a little unusual in that the city name has always been on both the away AND home jerseys, even while in Charlotte.

 

Just to clarify, the red jerseys shown above were worn ONCE (as a Valentines' Day special) and the white "Oklahoma City" ones (IIRC) only 3 times - during their final  2005-06 season "home" game, the 2006-07 "home" opener and the 2006-07 final game in OKC.  .  During the rest of the two-year sojourn that the franchise was formally known as the New Orleans-Oklahoma City Hornets, they wore a white jersey that had the name HORNETS on it at "home" (OKC)  and away they wore the traditional teal jerseys that had "New Orleans" on them, but both jerseys featured a "OKC" hexagonal patch on them, similar to the NOLA patches on the "Oklahoma City" Jerseys:

 

 

 

Hornets.jpg

New Orleans.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16 hours ago, FlyEaglesFly76 said:

I always wanted the NFL to start doing all Preseason games at Neutral Sites.. I want to see Raiders backups vs Cardinals backups in :censored:ing Melbourne Cricket Ground or the Bears play a home game at Wrigley. Would add a lot of content to this thread.

 

I agree. I think they should eliminate one preseason game (making the preseason three games) and add one to the regular season (to make 17). Then play one home, one road and one neutral within the states or Canada and then play the 17th game neutrally Internationally. That way you could play some 8 games in London, Mexico City, etc. and sell season tickets to those local fans.

 

Anyways, my two cents.

Share this post


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

 

I agree. I think they should eliminate one preseason game (making the preseason three games) and add one to the regular season (to make 17). Then play one home, one road and one neutral within the states or Canada and then play the 17th game neutrally Internationally. That way you could play some 8 games in London, Mexico City, etc. and sell season tickets to those local fans.

 

Anyways, my two cents.

The problem with that is that it's almost always a disadvantage to the teams in the games, and the games typically are bad games anyway. Has there ever been a good game in London?

 

If an individual team wants to partner with another city to do international games, that's one thing. I know the Jaguars have an agreement to play a few games in London. A southwestern team might want to make a play for the Mexican market, and Buffalo, Seattle, or Detroit could try to win over Canada, but why on earth would Kansas City or Philadelphia want to play in London or Tokyo? It shouldn't be up to the teams, not the league.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, Matito said:

The problem with that is that it's almost always a disadvantage to the teams in the games, and the games typically are bad games anyway. Has there ever been a good game in London?

 

If an individual team wants to partner with another city to do international games, that's one thing. I know the Jaguars have an agreement to play a few games in London. A southwestern team might want to make a play for the Mexican market, and Buffalo, Seattle, or Detroit could try to win over Canada, but why on earth would Kansas City or Philadelphia want to play in London or Tokyo? It shouldn't be up to the teams, not the league.

That's why I said Preseason Games, those are typically bad anyway.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, FlyEaglesFly76 said:

That's why I said Preseason Games, those are typically bad anyway.

I think that would be even worse. Preseason games are when teams are trying to cut down rosters, which is why your big-name stars rarely play more than a quarter or so. You'd have guys literally playing for their careers while trying to navigate the spectacle of an international game, and the NFL would be trying to market their sport to people who have no idea who they're watching. London or Mexico City may not be rabid fans, but they do get excited to see the stars of the NFL, and I can't imagine they'd pay good money to see a practice squad matchup.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The idea of

1 hour ago, kimball said:

I think they should eliminate one preseason game (making the preseason three games) and add one to the regular season (to make 17). Then play one home, one road and one neutral within the states or Canada and then play the 17th game neutrally Internationally. That way you could play some 8 games in London, Mexico City, etc. and sell season tickets to those local fans.

 

Anyways, my two cents.

 

Elminating any pre-season games is a bit problematic, isn't it?  The point of pre-season is to set the roster.  The results don't really matter (well, unless you're Allie Sherman).  Is three games enough to do this?

When I was a kid, the pre-season was six games!  One year the Giants went 6-0 in pre-season -- and then won only two or three games in the entire 14-game regular season.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
21 hours ago, ltjets21 said:

If the Raiders are going to move to vegas I think they should do it immediately and play at Sam Boyd Stadium. The coliseum holds 55,000 with the tarps and Sam Boyd holds 40,000. If they were to add removable seating they could easily add 10-15 thousand seats in the empty end zone instead of playing 2-3 lame duck seasons.

Sam_Boyd_Stadium_from_the_air_July_2014.jpg

I believe the NFL minimum is that 55,000 seat configuration that Oakland has. If they were to move to Vegas it would probably mean 2 to 3 years of playing Oakland until the stadium is finished. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Would have to add several more but it's been done and I'm sure with vegas cash they could make it happen because 2-3 years in Oakland while waiting for a stadium in vegas would destroy this team and they have a great young team. It would waste their youth. Think Oilers  Rams browns(ravens). 

IMG_3708.JPG

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, MJWalker45 said:

I believe the NFL minimum is that 55,000 seat configuration that Oakland has. If they were to move to Vegas it would probably mean 2 to 3 years of playing Oakland until the stadium is finished. 

 

I believe the min. is 50,000 which was established at the time of the merger in 1970. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The NFL let the Oilers play in 41,000-seat Vanderbilt Stadium in Nashville after having crappy attendance at the bigger Liberty Bowl in Memphis. If they plan on having two lame-duck seasons in Oakland and the first is a disaster, I'd imagine the NFL would have no problem letting them play at Sam Boyd. Though we are getting ahead of ourselves here.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, MJWalker45 said:

I believe the NFL minimum is that 55,000 seat configuration that Oakland has. If they were to move to Vegas it would probably mean 2 to 3 years of playing Oakland until the stadium is finished. 

 

If it's a temp situation the NFL has allowed teams to play in smaller venues. Hell they were exploring putting a team in the Stub Hub Center in LA which has a stated capacity of 27,000. Boyd in Vegas would work fine. Even better if they put temp seating in the open end zone. And frankly if they're moving it makes a hell of a lot more sense to just get it over with rather than play two lame duck years in Oakland.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Lame Duck Years are bad for everyone involved. Just look at the Oilers last year in Houston. The NFL would let the Raiders play at a small stadium for a few years because lame duck leads to poor attendance which leads to losing money. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 1/6/2017 at 0:25 PM, MJWalker45 said:

I believe the NFL minimum is that 55,000 seat configuration that Oakland has. If they were to move to Vegas it would probably mean 2 to 3 years of playing Oakland until the stadium is finished. 

 

As of right now, the Raiders are playing in Oakland until 2019. They're locked into the Oakland Coliseum lease.

 

I can't see an NFL team playing at Sam Boyd Stadium. Infact, the idea of relocaiton for the Raiders right now is very bad idea. This is a Super Bowl contender team and moving somewhere else would screw up the momentum.

 

I already had to watch Derek Carr go down with an injury on Christmas Eve and crush my Playoff hopes. The last thing I want is confirmation of a relocation.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Old School Fool said:

 

As of right now, the Raiders are playing in Oakland until 2019. They're locked into the Oakland Coliseum lease.

 

I can't see an NFL team playing at Sam Boyd Stadium. Infact, the idea of relocaiton for the Raiders right now is very bad idea. This is a Super Bowl contender team and moving somewhere else would screw up the momentum.

 

I already had to watch Derek Carr go down with an injury on Christmas Eve and crush my Playoff hopes. The last thing I want is confirmation of a relocation.

- There'$ an ea$y way to get out of a lea$e.

 

- The fact the Raiders are a Super Bowl contender doesn't matter in this equation or for the franchise's long-term outlook. They aren't turning down a guaranteed shining new stadium for a small chance at a Super Bowl run in a stadium they don't think is viable in a city they want to leave . And, as stated above, if StubHub Center can be a temporary home, so can Sam Boyd. Heck, the Oilers played at Vanderbilt for a year and that stadium holds around 40,000.

 

- Unless you're able to pony up $1 billion for a new stadium, the NFL doesn't care you don't want a move. Sorry.

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.