random_ax

LA Condors

Recommended Posts

Adding four new teams is simply not an option.

I respectfully disagree with your immediate dismissal of the notion.

Birmingham has the market and simply needs the infrastructure - Legion Field is not an NFL caliber facility but could be upgraded or replaced.

Ditto for San Antonio.

I'm not convinced the league is giving up on Toronto.

And if OKC misses out on an NBA franchise, they'll be ready to commit to the notion of an NFL franchise, lock, stock and publicly funded stadium. No joke. They've got the land; they've got the money and they've got a sustainable fan base, not to mention the insane desire to have a major league team of their own. They put over 16,000 fans in the Ford Center for 30 or 32 dates last year for the N.O. Hornets. They'll easily put 60,000 fans in seats for 8 Sundays for a team of their own, especially if they take on an "Oklahoma" moniker thus drawing in the Tulsa market as well.

The league has imposed no timetable for returning to LA, so they have the luxury of time in order to evaluate whether in fact they can bring four prepackaged expansion bids to the table that will result in four solid franchises being admitted. This may not happen next year or the year after, but I refuse to believe that the league is going to stand pat at 32 teams in five years time. They'll go to 36 - it's just a matter of when.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

People in certain regions (Alabama, Nebraska, and Oklahoma, especially) are way too committed to the college game for the NFL to really take off in a small, low-cash market. That's my take.

And while we're at it, why would you want to water down the league so much anyway? Sure, there are a lot of good football players out there, but the big leagues are always better when there are fewer teams and fewer minor-league-calibre guys playing on Sundays.

Edited by hecticbro

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I am surprised no one has said this yet, but the team in LA will be called the Chargers.

As far as expansion goes, I could envision Vegas (you wouldnt need a home fan base, all the home games would have rival fans flying in, ultimate guys weekend!) getting a team regardless of the gambling. San Antonio has shown it can support a team, and with a renovation to Alomo Dome, this could happen. With Chicago trying for the 2016 Olympics and Soldier Field not equipped for Track and Field or big enough for Opening and Closing Ceremonies, the city is floating the idea of a second team. If no team moves to LA, then You have LA. If a team does relocate to LA, you can look to the traditional college markets for an additional city. The reason most college markets are such is that there never was a pro team, so the "pro" team was the college team. It may take a long time to turn the markets attention to the pro team (like Atlanta) but with a succesful team (like in Nashville) it can happen a lot sooner. A four team expansion within the next 10 years is not that far out of the question.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

wait, did some1 actually suggest naming them the LA condoms? Now dont you think, they would name the team after something that the public school kids would have actually heard of? Sorry i had to say that, but despite the falacy that LA fans dont care, no 1 can deny 10 million people of a pro team for more than 20 years. I would prefer an expansion team, over some other city's sloppy seconds. In fact we should get 2 teams to keep the league even.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Bring back the USFL. :flagcanada:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You raise many points - I think they deserve being addressed one by one, if you don't mind a quote-fest.

Adding four new teams is simply not an option.

I respectfully disagree with your immediate dismissal of the notion.

It's nothing personal. It's just business.

Birmingham has the market and simply needs the infrastructure - Legion Field is not an NFL caliber facility but could be upgraded or replaced.

No, they don't.

Birmingham does not have the corporate support required to buy the boxes. Birmingham does not have the population base, or the television market to support an NFL team.

Ditto for San Antonio.

Yep, ditto. No evidence whatsoever that they could support an NFL franchise.

I'm not convinced the league is giving up on Toronto.

I am.

I don't see how a Canadian franchise could survive, given the automatic handicap of the exchange rate. That's a huge obstacle to overcome.

And if OKC misses out on an NBA franchise, they'll be ready to commit to the notion of an NFL franchise, lock, stock and publicly funded stadium.  No joke.  They've got the land; they've got the money and they've got a sustainable fan base, not to mention the insane desire to have a major league team of their own.  They put over 16,000 fans in the Ford Center for 30 or 32 dates last year for the N.O. Hornets.  They'll easily put 60,000 fans in seats for 8 Sundays for a team of their own, especially if they take on an "Oklahoma" moniker thus drawing in the Tulsa market as well.

I'm afraid it is a joke.

The demographics for marketing football and basketball are entirely different. I agree that they could support a basketball team, but they don't have any of the resources necessary to support a football team. Even if we grant attendance (and given the fact that the average NFL ticket is higher than the average NBA ticket does, that's a leap), they don't have the corporate support. They don't have the television market. Why should the NFL put a team there?

I see the NBA there, because the NBA works better in smaller markets. The NFL? No way.

The league has imposed no timetable for returning to LA, so they have the luxury of time in order to evaluate whether in fact they can bring four prepackaged expansion bids to the table that will result in four solid franchises being admitted.  This may not happen next year or the year after, but I refuse to believe that the league is going to stand pat at 32 teams in five years time.  They'll go to 36 - it's just a matter of when.

An assertion that is very easy to make, but very hard to justify. An NFL city needs to have certain infrastructure, and that includes a population base, a corporate base, public financing for the stadium, and other factors. You haven't demonstrated that any of your proposed locations could supply that.

Heck, not even LA can supply all that. So to then reach and say that, in the absense of a single viable relocation site, miraculously four total will materialize out of thin air is interesting, but little more than science fiction.

As I said before, it's just business. It has nothing to do with whether or not I like a city, or region, or whatever. I love Portland, Oregon, but they couldn't support an NFL team. The numbers don't add up.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Bring back the USFL. :flagcanada:

That's actually not such a bad idea.

There's reason to believe that cities like San Antonio, Oklahoma City and Birmingham would be very capable of supporting a minor league franchise.

But then again, that's kind of what college football is. So maybe not.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Bring back the USFL.  :flagcanada:

That's actually not such a bad idea.

There's reason to believe that cities like San Antonio, Oklahoma City and Birmingham would be very capable of supporting a minor league franchise.

But then again, that's kind of what college football is. So maybe not.

Heh. The USFL thing was a joke. :P

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
:therock: . . . yeah whatever . . . Here's the REAL "LA Condors" deal, kids. No group has to date used "Condors" for a proposed LA NFL team. Unfortunately no potential owner group has put forward a possible name EXCEPT for . . . Larry Ellison, the criminal I mean mogul who runs Oracle. He mentioned a possible LA NFL team name "Stars" about a year ago, while taking a break from counting his $. When Mr. Samueli of the NHL Ducks began their name change process, a couple possible alternative Anaheim NHL teams were mentioned by the team. One was "Anaheim Bears"; another which I really like for an Anaheim NBA team was "Anaheim Condors". I have no idea if Samueli or the Ducks have licensed the name "Condors" at all. And speaking of LA NFL, it would be nice to see someone as filthy rich as Mr. Samueli come forward as an LA/Anaheim NFL owner. That it'll take at least a BILLION dollars to start an NFL team is the current main reason the League is dragging its feet and also why they'd like TWO teams to play in one LA or Anaheim football stadium, to generate enough $ to cover the MASSIVE costs. So now you all know about LA NFL and "Condors". You may now return to your SO typical "LA sports sux!" rants. Thank you. :P

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You think Birmingham(pop.242,820) a city smaller than Buffalo (pop. 282,864) could support a NFL franchise. Memphis possibly could but the state of Tennessee just got a new franchise 10 years ago. Why would LA need 2 teams they could not support two teams before. Give them one then see how that goes and mabye add another a decade later. New York 3 teams? They are having trouble now getting new stadiums for the Jets and Giants. They don't need a third team.

I dont think expasion to four makes any sense. that said, i dont think birminghams size means they wouldnt draw. folks travel from all over the state for two college teams, why wouldnt the combined total travel for pro football?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3. Traffic is already unbearable on the 405 and the 10, especially when the two intersect. And Memorial Coliseum is right off the 10.

Off topic: Why do Californians refer to their highways with the word "the" in front of the number? "The 405." "The 10."

Do people in other places do this as well? This practice seems odd and unnecessary.

"Driving on 405..." sounds worse.

It's like when Brits say, "I'm going to hospital."

It just doesn't sound right.

You don't say, "I'm petting cat right now."

Or, "I'm painting house right now."

Or, "Did you wash car?"

You say "the cat" and "the house" and "the car."

It's a noun, you put "the" in front of it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Frankly, L.A. doesn't want or need a team.

Hell, when the Raiders and Rams were there, no one cared anyway.

Yes, we do want a team.

Be sure and whipe the poop off your mouth when you pull your head out of your ass.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
"Driving on 405..." sounds worse.

It's like when Brits say, "I'm going to hospital."

It just doesn't sound right.

You don't say, "I'm petting cat right now."

Or, "I'm painting house right now."

Or, "Did you wash car?"

You say "the cat" and "the house" and "the car."

It's a noun, you put "the" in front of it.

If I was driving to New York City and said "I'm on the 280 right now" I'd probably be fed to the wolves by whomever I was talking to.

You can say "I'm on THE turnpike, or I'm on THE parkway, but saying "I'm driving on the 287" doesn't do it for me. Maybe it's east coast bias. :P

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
"Driving on 405..." sounds worse.

It's like when Brits say, "I'm going to hospital."

It just doesn't sound right.

You don't say, "I'm petting cat right now."

Or, "I'm painting house right now."

Or, "Did you wash car?"

You say "the cat" and "the house" and "the car."

It's a noun, you put "the" in front of it.

If I was driving to New York City and said "I'm on the 280 right now" I'd probably be fed to the wolves by whomever I was talking to.

You can say "I'm on THE turnpike, or I'm on THE parkway, but saying "I'm driving on the 287" doesn't do it for me. Maybe it's east coast bias. :P

Agreed. I drive on 83, 95 and 695 all the time, but I have yet to drive on "the 83", "the 95" or "the 695".

In the hospital/car/house examples, the "the" is necessary to specify the precise house to which you refer. The "the" is superfluous in the highway situation because the route number already specifies the highway in question. There is no other I-95, so you don't need to differentiate it from another highway.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Good point.

Do Angelinos say "I'm driving on the Sunset Boulevard" or "turn left on to the North Figueroa"? :P

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Frankly, L.A. doesn't want or need a team. 

Hell, when the Raiders and Rams were there, no one cared anyway.

Yes, we do want a team.

Be sure and whipe the poop off your mouth when you pull your head out of your ass.

Boy, you're just determined to make friends here, aren't you?

When somebody says something with which you don't agree (even something as ignorant as leedsunited's comment), answer them with facts and not personal attacks.

Personal attacks are the hallmark of a weak argument. You don't need to use them.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
"Driving on 405..." sounds worse.

It's like when Brits say, "I'm going to hospital."

It just doesn't sound right.

You don't say, "I'm petting cat right now."

Or, "I'm painting house right now."

Or, "Did you wash car?"

You say "the cat" and "the house" and "the car."

It's a noun, you put "the" in front of it.

If I was driving to New York City and said "I'm on the 280 right now" I'd probably be fed to the wolves by whomever I was talking to.

You can say "I'm on THE turnpike, or I'm on THE parkway, but saying "I'm driving on the 287" doesn't do it for me. Maybe it's east coast bias. :P

Hey, I'm a Californian and I say "take 80" and not "take the 80" when giving directions, it's those weird LA types which think their freeway is the only one in the world.

To the person who brought up the example of "I'm petting cat", you're right that it sounds weird, but "the cat" isn't right either. Imagine you're on the phone, and someone says, "What are you doing right now?" You would say, "I'm petting the cat" if both you and the other person only knew of this one cat, "my cat" if you claimed ownership, but otherwise you are petting "a cat", one of many in the world. Likewise, if you're driving on a freeway, and someone calls you and says, "Hey, what are you doing?" the proper response is, "I'm driving on a freeway". They might ask, "What freeway" to which the answer is "80" as freeways in the US are numbered. Thus by substitution, "I'm driving on 80".

The problem with LA however is that they love their freeways so much they've named them, so the Harbor Freeway is interchangeable with 110, the Santa Ana Freeway with 5 , etc. There is only one Santa Ana Freeway but I assure you they have highway 5 in Sacramento, Oregon, and many other exciting places. So you can never be on "the" 5, because technically there's more than one.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The problem with LA however is that they love their freeways so much they've named them, so the Harbor Freeway is interchangeable with 110, the Santa Ana Freeway with 5 , etc.

FWIW, the freeways in Chicago are almost all named, as well (except that the local parlance is "expressways" or "tollways", depending on whether it's free or not) - The Kennedy, The Eisenhower, The Dan Ryan, The Bishop Ford, etc.

Then there's 53, which isn't named, and the Elgin-O'Hare, whose name is a misnomer, since it doesn't go particularly close to either Elgin or O'Hare Airport.

Edited by eriqjaffe

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.