Los Angeles NFL Brands Discussion

[sky1324]

1 hour ago, SFGiants58 said:

 

No, it leaves Jacksonville out, which might not be a bad idea. Imagine adding Arizona and Carolina in 1995, with the later Cleveland and Houston expansions. 

Yeah, that's probably for the best. Maybe in that scenario Carolina doesn't end up in the NFC West!

 

I'd honestly rather see the London Chargers than the Los Angeles Chargers experiment continuing.

[Claystation360]

2 minutes ago, QCS said:

Yeah, that's probably for the best. Maybe in that scenario Carolina doesn't end up in the NFC West!

 

I'd honestly rather see the London Chargers than the Los Angeles Chargers experiment continuing.

That's interesting, since I remember reading somewhere years ago JR was requesting his team to be in the NFC. so makes you wonder if an Arizona expansion team would've changed that. 

[The_Admiral]

1 hour ago, QCS said:

Although if Arizona got an expansion team, wouldn't that leave Houston out? 

 

Presumably, if the Big Red stayed in St. Louis contra ownership's wishes, so do the Rams, Raiders, Browns, and Oilers, which means Phoenix, Baltimore, and Nashville get expansion teams, which means Jacksonville probably doesn't.

[sky1324]

12 minutes ago, Claystation360 said:

That's interesting, since I remember reading somewhere years ago JR was requesting his team to be in the NFC. so makes you wonder if an Arizona expansion team would've changed that. 

I honestly didn't know that. Maybe because he played for the Colts? They just slotted them into the divisions that were open (AFC Central and NFC West) but I will say that the Panthers in the Central and an Arizona team in the West would make more sense.

[The_Admiral]

The conference disparity was heavily slanted toward the NFC circa 1993 in terms of prestige and market size. Anyone would rather get in with San Francisco, Dallas, New York, Washington, and Chicago than with Cincinnati, Indianapolis, Seattle, and a then-quite-moribund Boston. Richardson, being a stubborn bully, managed to get what he wanted.

[Sport]

4 hours ago, duxrcool048 said:

Sorry, but I have to agree with this.

 

Thinking about this further - The 2000 logo’s horn is clearly informed by the horn they used  on the helmet. They just added some extra highlights to give it a little more visual interest.

[dont care]

5 hours ago, oldschoolvikings said:

 

Nike doesn't make helmets.

They design them though...

[oldschoolvikings]

41 minutes ago, dont care said:

They design them though...

 

Maybe, but I'm pretty sure @andrewharrington was describing the process a little differently.  At least I think it was him. 

[jws008]

4 hours ago, Gothamite said:

 

Courts in Missouri are, sure.

 

Interesting that they aren't claiming that the Rams violated the lease with St. Louis, because the Rams didn't.   St. Louis did.  They are claiming that the Rams violated NFL rules, which do not have the force of law and can of course be changed at any time by the league.  I understand why the city fathers, who bungled the entire affair and ended up with egg on their faces, would want to file the lawsuit.  Doesn't make it any less sour grapes, though. 

 

Worth also pointing out that the judges who have let the suit proceed are all up for re-election in the state of Missouri.  If St. Louis really has a claim, let them take it to binding arbitration with a neutral third-party arbiter selected by both parties.  But the city doesn't want that... wonder why?

Not just Missouri courts, unless the stays and rulings issued by the U.S. Supreme Court concerning this case, including one that denied the Rams request for arbitration instead of an open court case, were somehow not issued in Washington D.C. 

 

I haven’t been out much the past few weeks, did the State of Missouri annex the District of Columbia? 

[Gothamite]

1 hour ago, jws008 said:

Not just Missouri courts, unless the stays and rulings issued by the U.S. Supreme Court concerning this case, including one that denied the Rams request for arbitration instead of an open court case, were somehow not issued in Washington D.C. 

 

I haven’t been out much the past few weeks, did the State of Missouri annex the District of Columbia? 

SCOTUS will often defer to the state courts. Unless there is a compelling federal interest, and (with this court), sometimes not even then.

The city knows it has no chance in front of a neutral arbitrator; insisting the case can only be heard by people subject to election in Missouri. Why do you suppose that is?

[Claystation360]

6 hours ago, the admiral said:

 

Presumably, if the Big Red stayed in St. Louis contra ownership's wishes, so do the Rams, Raiders, Browns, and Oilers, which means Phoenix, Baltimore, and Nashville get expansion teams, which means Jacksonville probably doesn't.

I'm sorry, I just can't believe all of those teams would've stayed pat.  I still think Charlotte would've been 29th either-way. 

Even if we ( Jacksonville ) didn't get the expansion 30th in 93 i am fully curtain we would've gotten a relocated club as even Big red themselves looked at the Gator Bowl as did the Oilers, Saints and previously Colts. Frontiere was flirting with Balitmore as well before StL became final. Modell putting himself in the financial pickle he did he was bound to move or be forced to sell just Baltimore was desperate offered a sweet deal. Adams was a loose gun so I definitely could've seen him pull the trigger and coming here if options were getting slim. ( the irony ) 

So who knows how desperate COJ could've gotten by that point trying to lure a club here. 

[The_Admiral]

I said that if the league had been able to overturn the Bidwills' wishes to go from St. Louis to Phoenix, then they definitely would have been able to do the same in preventing even larger and more controversial relocations. But as I've said a thousand times, there shouldn't even be relocations under antitrust exemptions.

[jws008]

9 hours ago, Gothamite said:

SCOTUS will often defer to the state courts. Unless there is a compelling federal interest, and (with this court), sometimes not even then.

The city knows it has no chance in front of a neutral arbitrator; insisting the case can only be heard by people subject to election in Missouri. Why do you suppose that is?

(Seriously, this will be my last response on this; sorry again for dragging this off-topic)

 

Hmm...maybe because the lawsuit was filed by an entity of the local government in St. Louis and Missouri (or should they have initially filed in Alaska?). And clearly, their lawyers have argued and tried to position the case in their favor (which is basically their job).

 

However, SCOTUS, which again is NOT located in Missouri, ruled against sending the case to arbitration and also apparently has no issue with the case going ahead in Missouri in a courtroom. That seems to disagree with your opinion that the case can't get a fair ruling by a Missouri judge who is subject to election, at least in SCOTUS' opinion. They seem to trust that a judge will follow the law; not public opinion or the threat of being kicked out of office by the voters. They disagree with your assessment that such a judge cannot be a "neutral arbitrator" under the law.

 

I'm fine with you disagreeing with the lawsuit, you're entitled to your opinion. I'm not even saying my opinion disagrees with yours; however, the courts (even outside of Missouri) disagree with that opinion. [Heck, I disagree with some recent rulings by SCOTUS, but right now, those rulings are still the law of the land].

[BBTV]

7 hours ago, Claystation360 said:

Even if we ( Jacksonville ) didn't get the expansion 30th in 93 i am fully curtain we would've gotten a relocated club as even Big red themselves looked at the Gator Bowl as did the Oilers, Saints and previously Colts.

 

I was going to crap all over this statement, but then Google found this, which to my surprise, supports it - not just for the Football Cardinals, but for the Colts too.  Considering it's relatively tiny size and relative obscurity (let's be honest - many Americans had never heard of it until it was the surprise expansion winner) I may have underestimated its desire for NFL football, figuring it was more into SEC football and not much else.

 

5 hours ago, the admiral said:

I said that if the league had been able to overturn the Bidwills' wishes to go from St. Louis to Phoenix, then they definitely would have been able to do the same in preventing even larger and more controversial relocations. But as I've said a thousand times, there shouldn't even be relocations under antitrust exemptions.

 

I'm not sure I agree with the second part about there not even being relocations, and I'm not really too sure about the first point either.  It had only been 4 years since Baltimore moved, and 6 since Al Davis moved, so it's not like the Cardinals broke down some wall that had been sealed shut.  Phoenix was the single most attractive teamless area - hell, the Eagles were thisclose to being sold to Phoenix investors and moving.  Someone would have moved there.  Hell - while I remember the Cardinals move, I don't know about any team's financial situations at the time, but it could have been some beloved team like how Cleveland moved only 7 years later.

 

Expansion wasn't until 93, and I guarandamntee that some owner would have done anything possible to get his team into Phoenix before it was given an expansion team.

[IceCap]

58 minutes ago, jws008 said:

10 hours ago, Gothamite said:

suppose that is?

(Seriously, this will be my last response on this; sorry again for dragging this off-topic)

there is no "topic" at the moment because neither the Rams or Chargers have unveiled their unis. That's why I've opted to let this relocation discussion go on (and even partaken in it) because what else are we going to talk about if the unis aren't being released? So you and @Gothamite are fine to argue this until the cows come home (or at least one of LA's two teams unveils their new unis).

So with that said...

 

mod hat comes off

You're homerism is showing

 

58 minutes ago, jws008 said:

[Heck, I disagree with some recent rulings by SCOTUS, but right now, those rulings are still the law of the land]

Please don't expand on this. Not only do we have a "no politics" rule, but going off on a political rant via a LA uniform thread is pretty stupid.

 

[Claystation360]

50 minutes ago, BringBackTheVet said:

 

I was going to crap all over this statement, but then Google found this, which to my surprise, supports it - not just for the Football Cardinals, but for the Colts too.  Considering it's relatively tiny size and relative obscurity (let's be honest - many Americans had never heard of it until it was the surprise expansion winner) I may have underestimated its desire for NFL football, figuring it was more into SEC football and not much else.

 

 

I'm not sure I agree with the second part about there not even being relocations, and I'm not really too sure about the first point either.  It had only been 4 years since Baltimore moved, and 6 since Al Davis moved, so it's not like the Cardinals broke down some wall that had been sealed shut.  Phoenix was the single most attractive teamless area - hell, the Eagles were thisclose to being sold to Phoenix investors and moving.  Someone would have moved there.  Hell - while I remember the Cardinals move, I don't know about any team's financial situations at the time, but it could have been some beloved team like how Cleveland moved only 7 years later.

 

Expansion wasn't until 93, and I guarandamntee that some owner would have done anything possible to get his team into Phoenix before it was given an expansion team.

Yes, because I was going to contrive up some nonsensical  and post it, but I am glad you found that.   Also the attendance of the USFL Bulls was a huge help but i'll say if the Jaguars ever leave that's the end of pro football in Jacksonville. 

[MDGP]

1 hour ago, BringBackTheVet said:

 

I was going to crap all over this statement, but then Google found this, which to my surprise, supports it - not just for the Football Cardinals, but for the Colts too.  Considering it's relatively tiny size and relative obscurity (let's be honest - many Americans had never heard of it until it was the surprise expansion winner) I may have underestimated its desire for NFL football, figuring it was more into SEC football and not much else.

 

From a size standpoint, it made a ton of sense, Jacksonville was the 15th biggest city in the US at the time (12th now), BY FAR the largest city in Florida, and is top half in market size in the league. The way that other, smaller cities flocked to games, the logic was there assuming they'd be interested in showing up for pro games (which obviously hasn't necessarily been the case)

[guest23]

43 minutes ago, MDGP said:

 

From a size standpoint, it made a ton of sense, Jacksonville was the 15th biggest city in the US at the time (12th now), BY FAR the largest city in Florida, and is top half in market size in the league. The way that other, smaller cities flocked to games, the logic was there assuming they'd be interested in showing up for pro games (which obviously hasn't necessarily been the case)

 

Using city size is a completely flawed metric. Even back in '93 the nfl was a nationally televised sport. Using DMA or MSA is much more accurate. DMA would put Jax into the 40's. Aside from the ability to put cash into the legacy owners' pockets, jax was a bad strategic choice and I am sure the league regrets it now.

[gosioux76]

25 minutes ago, guest23 said:

 

Using city size is a completely flawed metric. Even back in '93 the nfl was a nationally televised sport. Using DMA or MSA is much more accurate. DMA would put Jax into the 40's. Aside from the ability to put cash into the legacy owners' pockets, jax was a bad strategic choice and I am sure the league regrets it now.

You're right about this, but I've got to say -- I had no idea Jacksonville was Florida's largest city, by population, and certainly not by that wide of a margin. That floors me. I know nothing about Florida. 

[MDGP]

1 hour ago, guest23 said:

 

Using city size is a completely flawed metric. Even back in '93 the nfl was a nationally televised sport. Using DMA or MSA is much more accurate. DMA would put Jax into the 40's. Aside from the ability to put cash into the legacy owners' pockets, jax was a bad strategic choice and I am sure the league regrets it now.

 

DMA and MSA honestly aren't the greatest metrics either, since the cutoffs are pretty arbitrary. Jacksonville's DMA and MSA don't take into account Gainesville, which is a single county over and about an hour drive away. That adds nearly 150,000 population that we know is obsessed with football. Sure, it doesn't make Jacksonville a MASSIVE market, but it puts it in the Cincinnati-Kansas City range, both of which are successful enough franchises.

 

Jacksonville was a perfectly acceptable location in theory. Obviously it hasn't worked out in practice, and probably shouldn't have been picked over Baltimore or Nashville.

 

(Off topic but interesting thing I found. According to Nielsen's DMA rankings, the San Diego market area is smaller than the population of San Diego by about 500,000)