New Orleans, Louisiana on the Gulf Coast Saints

[In 5..4..3..2..1]

From a Louisiana newspaper

Any permanent move would require the approval of 24 of the league's 32 owners.

"I would be very shocked if the Saints permanently relocated to San Antonio," said Gary Roberts, the director of the sports law program at Tulane. "San Antonio, for all kinds of reasons, is not a good place for relocation.

"It's not a big market. It's a market that already has allegiances to two other NFL teams (the Cowboys and Houston Texans). And it's a city with a huge Hispanic population that likes soccer better than American football.

"There's no way that 24 teams in the National Football League are going to vote for any team to move to San Antonio. It's just not a market worth going to."

[NYnative]

I have one:

Washington Well Not Really, We Don't Even PLAY in DC,  More Like Laurel Maryland Redskins.

Actually the part of Landover they play in is inside the Beltway while Laurel is 40% of the way to Baltimore.

You're right, you're right....I MEANT to say Landover (yeah, that's it!).

Oh well, better than Raljon!

[Cyclopsis Joe]

From a Louisiana newspaper

Any permanent move would require the approval of 24 of the league's 32 owners.

"I would be very shocked if the Saints permanently relocated to San Antonio," said Gary Roberts, the director of the sports law program at Tulane. "San Antonio, for all kinds of reasons, is not a good place for relocation.

"It's not a big market. It's a market that already has allegiances to two other NFL teams (the Cowboys and Houston Texans). And it's a city with a huge Hispanic population that likes soccer better than American football.

"There's no way that 24 teams in the National Football League are going to vote for any team to move to San Antonio. It's just not a market worth going to."

If memory serves, I saw an article with about the same statements around here when the Browns were talking of moving to Baltimore.

[CubsFanBudMan]

If memory serves, I saw an article with about the same statements around here when the Browns were talking of moving to Baltimore.

Didn't realize this board had been going since 1995. Congrats on 10 years, CC!

[leopard88]

Best case scenario: Saints stay put but rename themselves Gulf Coast Saints but I know many of you hate that so let's just say they rename tehmselves the Louisiana Saints , The Chargers move to LA. No expansion.

I don't think Louisiana Saints works b/c the Cowboys are the team in the part around Shreveport.

My feelings on state or regional names were explained at length earlier in this thread. Even though it seems illogical to me that the presence of a Cowboy following in Shreveport would preclude the naming of another team for the whole state of Louisiana, this seems to support my earlier opinion.

I said before that it was presumptuous for a team to adopt the state name when there are other teams in the state. If, for the sake of argument, the Cowboy presence in Shreveport would prevent the team from being the called the Louisiana Saints (because I am not sure I accept that proposition-- more on this later), then even fewer teams would be allowed to adopt a state or regional name. For example, even though there are no other football teams in Arizona, it is obvious that the Cardinals cannot lay claim to the allegiance of many/most state residents. In addition, I am also willing to bet that Gary, Indiana has a large contingency of Chicago Bulls fans, as opposed to Indiana Pacers fans.

On the other hand, if the Cowboys have some sort of naming veto rights over a portion of Louisiana, then we are left with the sort of anarchy that someone else noted in hilarious fashion. We would need to conduct surveys in the border regions to see what was acceptable, then name teams accordingly. (Most of Indiana Pacers, North Jersey Devils, Bergen/Passaic County Nets (because they get less love than the Devils -- any NJ resident can correct me on the counties around the Meadowlands)).

In the end, the city names generally work very well. Everyone knows that all teams draw from large areas around the actual named jurisdiction. Therefore, unless you are specifically trying to avoid offending some segment of the population (using Minnesota to avoid offending the residents of St. Paul by using Minneapolis, for example, or Tampa Bay to avoid offending the residents of St. Petersburg), there is no particular need to gum things up by trying to be completely geographically accurate.

[bigdub81]

I think when all of this is said and done, Tom Benson, will keep the naming rights and such to the Saints, just to spite the whole city. Taking into consideration how

he has basically "pimped" us every year since he first bought the team through so

many various schemes just to get more and more money. We pay this to

keep this team here and no matter how bad they loose, every year we come back

despite what's put in the media about the dome not "selling out"!

When he raises the prices - we buy tickets. When he raises the price on food and drinks - we buy even more. When he say's this year we're going to the god

damn Super Bowl (lol) we believe him even though we know it ain't happening! I

mean how much more do you want from a city? We are there when the Saints,

are playing without the use of the multi-colored seats to decieve the TV audience.

Just because the game doesn't sell-out the day before doesn't mean it didn't happen. That's just what they put out there to get a rush of last minute ticket sales

and it doesn't have to be because their sponsor's step up and buy the remaining tickets that are left and give them away! Why the hell not it's a tax right-off!

[swilson160]

The bottom line is that the team will have to move--there's no way the New Orleans market will be able to support a team for at least a decade. It's already been said by the mayor that it would be 3-5 years before the population can be expected to return to pre-Katrina levels; even then, the city's affluence (and it wasn't Beverly Hills to begin with) will be much lower because of the rebuilding. There won't be nearly as may people who can afford tickets to a football game. Then there's the problem of "What if it happens again?" Hurricanes have been getting worse the last few years--whether or not it is global warming or just natural weather cycles, it's a good bet we haven't seem the last of these mega-hurricanes, and New Orleans, unlike Miami, Tampa, etc., is extra-susceptible to a storm like that because it's a city in a bowl. For these reasons, major league pro sports in New Orleans are downright unfeasible for the forseeable future. The only reason this is being discussed is political correctness--nobody (except Tom Benson) wants to be seen as abandoning the city, but let's face it--in the scheme of things, with all the problems this city has, how ridiculous is it that we're even discussing pro sports as though they matter? There's enough that the city needs to focus on; this is only an unnecessary distraction from the task at hand, which is helping those whose lives have been destroyed, and rebuilding the city so that people can have jobs, homes, food, water, etc. Keep the name, logo and colors with the city, like Cleveland, so that if the city even revovers enough to support a team, they can be the Saints. But let's be realistic here--for now and a long time, this city does not need and cannot support a sports franchise, and has much bigger things to worrk about.

(Exhale)

[The_Admiral]

Well done, but I think the Jags might not take too kindly to your inclusion of the Florida Panhandle.

Why? There are more Saints fans in Pensacola, Panama City, or Destin than Jags fans.

Titans might resent some of that northern Alabama/Mississippi, I dunno. And it looks weird having just a little nubbin of Florida in there. But seriously, can't it just be implied and understood that the New Orleans Saints represent the Gulf Coast region? Are we a nation of four-year-olds?

[powersurge]

If you look at how other NFL teams support their teams (attendance)  Arizona, Oakland, Indianapolis were all below average the NFL average of about 60,000+ fans a game. (Arizona was below 40,000!!!)

http://sports.espn.go.com/nfl/attendance?year=2004

By no means do I want to defend the Indianapolis Irsays, but that site notes that they played to 94.7% of capacity in 2004. The reason their attendance was so low is that they play in a crappy, boring, SMALL stadium (with a replacement on the way). Using the same statistics, Pittsburgh was 26th in the league in home attendance and I don't think anyone would suggest that the Steelers are not well supported.

Okay, now I can exhale. I was starting to hyperventilate from being too nice to the Mayflowers and Stillers.

Exactly! which is a stadium is so important. If they built a state of the art stadium it would change everything in Los Angeles. It is just alot more lucrative. The NFL is in a much different place now than when there were TWO teams in the LA area (more TV exposure, more popularity, etc). The NFL NEEDS a team in LA.

[bigdub81]

swilson, I agree that the city won't be able to support a franchise for some time and God, knows how long it will be before New Orleans, would ever be able to at

least be the city that it once was in certain aspects. All I'm saying is that it would

be a sign of "good faith" of Tom Benson, let alone the NFL, to give the city of New

Orleans, at least that much to say that we can keep everything except the actual

players themselves. I wouldn't mind seeing Deuce McAllister or Joe Horn, playing

in different thread's other than black and gold because I'm am a business man so

I can relate to the financial strain that it put's on some players not making nearly

as much as the marquee players they co-exist with.

I know that every man has to provide for his family and needless to say there won't be anything to draw from New Orleans, money wise for a long time to even

try support a player's salary because there are people there now trying to rebuild

and support themselves I'm one of them! Nobody knows what will happen in the

future and maybe in some twisted fate New Orleans, might grow back to a city the

likes of maybe Houston or Atlanta that would be able to support a franchise that

would even rival that of the team we (once) had! Who knows?

[Gothamite]

The NFL NEEDS a team in LA.

Needs? Nonsense.

They'd like a team in LA, but the NFL is doing just fine right now. They've been out of LA ten years, and those ten have been the best the NFL's ever seen.

I think viewership might actually go down in the LA television market if they got a team. Right now, they get the best matchups - no blackouts, no need to show terrible or meaningless local games.

[schlim]

But seriously, can't it just be implied and understood that the New Orleans Saints represent the Gulf Coast region? Are we a nation of four-year-olds?

I think this is the best quote I've seen on these boards in a long, long time.

[RickV]

From a Louisiana newspaper

Any permanent move would require the approval of 24 of the league's 32 owners.

"It's not a big market. It's a market that already has allegiances to two other NFL teams (the Cowboys and Houston Texans). And it's a city with a huge Hispanic population that likes soccer better than American football.

While he may have a point on his other arguments, the statement that "San Antonio has a huge Hispanic population and likes soccer more than American Football" is laughable and frankly down right RACIST. This is San Antonio TEXAS, not San Antonio, Mexico. Football is KING here, why do you think there are so many Cowboy fans. The more I think about this, the angrier I get. It is a BLATANTLY racist comment.

[powersurge]

The NFL NEEDS a team in LA.

Needs? Nonsense.

They'd like a team in LA, but the NFL is doing just fine right now. They've been out of LA ten years, and those ten have been the best the NFL's ever seen.

I think viewership might actually go down in the LA television market if they got a team. Right now, they get the best matchups - no blackouts, no need to show terrible or meaningless local games.

What evidence supports your argument that television viewership would go DOWN?

I would argue that the NFL would get smart this time around if they had an LA team when it come to TV markets in that area. They would structure it differently. How can you blackout an ENTIRE city huge metropolis like LA and its suburbs because of one team?

Paul Tag. has stated time and time again that the NFL BELONGS in LA and that it WILL go back. He knows its ridiculous to not have an NFL team in that area. In my opinion it is going to happen, the reason why it hasn't yet is because of two reasons:

#1 The groups that competed for an expansion team in LA were very disorganized. If you remember, LA was a virtual LOCK to get a team, but Houston got it because the potential ownership got their plop together while the LA group just blew it.

#2 The NFL does not want to be like the NHL and grow so big that the talent drops and teams start to lose money.

This New Orleans thing is an opportunity that Paul Tag. knows he can't drop. He is just making the PR statements about keeping the team in Louisiana because if he just up an moved the team there would be a PR backlash. The Media would accuse the NFL of abandoning the area. The time is not right now, but it will be soon. Just my opinion.

[powersurge]

[quote name=

While he may have a point on his other arguments' date=' the statement that "San Antonio has a huge Hispanic population and likes soccer more than American Football" is laughable and frankly down right RACIST. This is San Antonio TEXAS, not San Antonio, Mexico. Football is KING here, why do you think there are so many Cowboy fans. The more I think about this, the angrier I get. It is a BLATANTLY racist comment.

How is this RACIST?

If I said that soccer is more popular in Cameroon than baseball, would that be RACIST or an observation that allows me to come to a possible logical conclusion?

Getting back to the quote about San Antonio and make a logical observation...

...Soccer is huge around the world (FACT), the most commonly played/most popular sport in Latin American countries is soccer (FACT) SAn Antonio has a HUGE Latin American population (FACT). There are no American Football leagues in Latin American countries, therefore it is not a popular sport (FACT) Therefore...through observations of FACTS we can come up with a Hypothesis that is logical: San Antonio has a huge Hispanic population and likes soccer more than American Football

this is not RACIST

A RACIST comment would be:

The only way you can make football work in San Antonio is if there were no Latinos living there.

[Cyclopsis Joe]

If memory serves, I saw an article with about the same statements around here when the Browns were talking of moving to Baltimore.

Didn't realize this board had been going since 1995. Congrats on 10 years, CC!

Around here=South Indiana, not CCSLC.

Nice try though.

[RickV]

[quote name=

While he may have a point on his other arguments' date=' the statement that "San Antonio has a huge Hispanic population and likes soccer more than American Football" is laughable and frankly down right RACIST. This is San Antonio TEXAS, not San Antonio, Mexico. Football is KING here, why do you think there are so many Cowboy fans. The more I think about this, the angrier I get. It is a BLATANTLY racist comment.

How is this RACIST?

If I said that soccer is more popular in Cameroon than baseball, would that be RACIST or an observation that allows me to come to a possible logical conclusion?

Getting back to the quote about San Antonio and make a logical observation...

...Soccer is huge around the world (FACT), the most commonly played/most popular sport in Latin American countries is soccer (FACT) SAn Antonio has a HUGE Latin American population (FACT). There are no American Football leagues in Latin American countries, therefore it is not a popular sport (FACT) Therefore...through observations of FACTS we can come up with a Hypothesis that is logical: San Antonio has a huge Hispanic population and likes soccer more than American Football

this is not RACIST

A RACIST comment would be:

The only way you can make football work in San Antonio is if there were no Latinos living there.

Beg to differ....If he had said that "Mexicans or Venezuelans or Italians" prefer soccer, I would agree. But he dumped all Hispanics (not nationalities) in San Antonio together, disregarding the fact that they live in the United States, where Soccer is NOT popular at all. In fact the former San Antonio mayor tried to bring MLS to San Antonio and was soundly criticized and had zero local report. I dont see any difference between what he said and a statement like "Well it's well known that African Americans prefer fried chicken to steak, so serving them steak would be a mistake".

[leopard88]

[quote name=

While he may have a point on his other arguments' date=' the statement that "San Antonio has a huge Hispanic population and likes soccer more than American Football" is laughable and frankly down right RACIST. This is San Antonio TEXAS, not San Antonio, Mexico. Football is KING here, why do you think there are so many Cowboy fans. The more I think about this, the angrier I get. It is a BLATANTLY racist comment.

How is this RACIST?

If I said that soccer is more popular in Cameroon than baseball, would that be RACIST or an observation that allows me to come to a possible logical conclusion?

Getting back to the quote about San Antonio and make a logical observation...

...Soccer is huge around the world (FACT), the most commonly played/most popular sport in Latin American countries is soccer (FACT) SAn Antonio has a HUGE Latin American population (FACT). There are no American Football leagues in Latin American countries, therefore it is not a popular sport (FACT) Therefore...through observations of FACTS we can come up with a Hypothesis that is logical: San Antonio has a huge Hispanic population and likes soccer more than American Football

this is not RACIST

A RACIST comment would be:

The only way you can make football work in San Antonio is if there were no Latinos living there.

________________________________

I have no dog in this fight, powersurge, but I think you are overstating your position somewhat.

Specifically, you are making a very large logical leap to conclude that soccer must be popular in San Antonio simply because it has a large Hispanic community. All of your other observations of fact are correct, however it does not necessarily follow that the Hispanic population of San Antonio likes soccer more than football. You have failed to account for any measure of cultural assimilation that has occurred as the result of exposure to American culture (including football), some of which has been taking place over several decades with regard to long term residents of the area. Irish Hurling and Gaelic Football may be huge on the Emerald Isle, but I don't think you would suggest that they are, therefore, more popular than football in Boston because of its "HUGE" Irish population.

The bottom line is that your conclusion MAY be correct (i.e., that soccer is more popular than football in San Antonio -- and I have no basis to disprove that), but it is not inevitable as you conclude.

[Gothamite]

The NFL NEEDS a team in LA.

Needs? Nonsense.

They'd like a team in LA, but the NFL is doing just fine right now. They've been out of LA ten years, and those ten have been the best the NFL's ever seen.

I think viewership might actually go down in the LA television market if they got a team. Right now, they get the best matchups - no blackouts, no need to show terrible or meaningless local games.

What evidence supports your argument that television viewership would go DOWN?.

Relax - I said "might actually go down." Not would go down.

Right now, LA gets all the premium games. The best matchups, all the time. If LA gets a team, it'll be stuck with some lousy games that won't draw the same numbers. Especially if the team isn't a contender.

I would argue that the NFL would get smart this time around if they had an LA team when it come to TV markets in that area. They would structure it differently. How can you blackout an ENTIRE city huge metropolis like LA and its suburbs because of one team?

They've done it before. They do it in New York, so why not LA?

It's not about blackouts (if it is, that would mean they couldn't sell all the tickets, which I don't think would be the case). It's about showing the local team instead of the premium matchups, which LA gets now.

Paul Tag. has stated time and time again that the NFL BELONGS in LA and that it WILL go back. He knows its ridiculous to not have an NFL team in that area. In my opinion it is going to happen, the reason why it hasn't yet is because of two reasons:

#1 The groups that competed for an expansion team in LA were very disorganized. If you remember, LA was a virtual LOCK to get a team, but Houston got it because the potential ownership got their plop together while the LA group just blew it.

I agree with you that LA should have had a team. But you're leaving off one key factor - the city doesn't have a great interest in having a team. If they did, there would have been a groundswell of support for a stadium deal that would have guaranteed the promised team.

Even now, there's no great interest in a team. There just isn't. I don't know why that is, personally, but you can't blame the lack of a team solely on the prospective ownership groups.

Even if you could, are you telling me that in the whole LA metroplex, there isn't one single prospective owner that can get his act together and raise the funds for it?

As for Tagliabue, for him to admit that the NFL doesn't need LA, he'd lose all stadium deal leverage. I'd argue that the NFL needs LA to remain without a team - without LA, there's no easy relocation threat. LA is to the NFL what Washington was to MLB - and now that Washington has a baseball team, clubs like Oakland have no teeth behind their relocation theats and therefore don't get the sweetheart stadium deals that they could broker ten years ago.

I've long said that LA got unfairly tagged with the "can't support a team" label when the Raiders and Rams left. The Raiders left because Al Davis is a scumbag who only wants to line his pockets, and LA should have been given an opportunity to have just one team again and see how the city supported it.

That having been said, the NFL isn't hurting since the clubs left LA. And LA as a whole doesn't seem to care all that much about not having a team of its own.

[RickV]

[quote name=

While he may have a point on his other arguments' date=' the statement that "San Antonio has a huge Hispanic population and likes soccer more than American Football" is laughable and frankly down right RACIST. This is San Antonio TEXAS, not San Antonio, Mexico. Football is KING here, why do you think there are so many Cowboy fans. The more I think about this, the angrier I get. It is a BLATANTLY racist comment.

How is this RACIST?

If I said that soccer is more popular in Cameroon than baseball, would that be RACIST or an observation that allows me to come to a possible logical conclusion?

Getting back to the quote about San Antonio and make a logical observation...

...Soccer is huge around the world (FACT), the most commonly played/most popular sport in Latin American countries is soccer (FACT) SAn Antonio has a HUGE Latin American population (FACT). There are no American Football leagues in Latin American countries, therefore it is not a popular sport (FACT) Therefore...through observations of FACTS we can come up with a Hypothesis that is logical: San Antonio has a huge Hispanic population and likes soccer more than American Football

this is not RACIST

A RACIST comment would be:

The only way you can make football work in San Antonio is if there were no Latinos living there.

________________________________

I have no dog in this fight, powersurge, but I think you are overstating your position somewhat.

Specifically, you are making a very large logical leap to conclude that soccer must be popular in San Antonio simply because it has a large Hispanic community. All of your other observations of fact are correct, however it does not necessarily follow that the Hispanic population of San Antonio likes soccer more than football. You have failed to account for any measure of cultural assimilation that has occurred as the result of exposure to American culture (including football), some of which has been taking place over several decades with regard to long term residents of the area. Irish Hurling and Gaelic Football may be huge on the Emerald Isle, but I don't think you would suggest that they are, therefore, more popular than football in Boston because of its "HUGE" Irish population.

The bottom line is that your conclusion MAY be correct (i.e., that soccer is more popular than football in San Antonio -- and I have no basis to disprove that), but it is not inevitable as you conclude.

Your points are well taken, and you bring out important points. Let me expand a little.

While it is true that soccer is wildly popular in Latin countries, that doesnt translate to being wildly popular simply because of a person's Race (and most people consider Hispanics to be a race, even though its never clearly defined as to how) But as you said, people are assimilated into cultures, and American culture definitely does not hold soccer in high regard. Also fail to take into consideration that most Hispanics in San Antonio are not fresh out of the Rio Grande. Most are several generations deep in Texas. If someone made an argument that 500,000 Pananamians or Columbians or Cubans fell out the sky into San Antonio and someone rushed up to them and asked what do you like better Football or soccer, the overwhelming response would be soccer, but to automatically assume that soccer is more popular to a Hispanic San Antonian simply because of his genetic make up is ridiculous and I dont think can be considered anything except racist.