random_ax Posted January 6, 2007 Author Share Posted January 6, 2007 I think I could come up with a great name for an NFL franchise in Los Angeles, but I'm just not motivated to do so. If only I had a pretend $200,000 to provide inspiration...Looks like we'll never be treated to the output of your creative genius.What about the Coyotes?The NFL has no canines, right?Not since the Packers got rid of their cheerleader squad.Now THAT'S comedy!!!!!!! LOLIf I had things my way,my selection would be...The LOS ANGELES LOBOS!!!!I understand the Lobos are property of N.Mex.,but the possibilities are endless.It's a fearsome creature,yet PC friendly.Besides,the name sounds Hispanic to me.Here are the uniform concept for the Los Angeles Lobos.HELMET-a black shell with blk. face mask+a red tapered stripe trimmed in white with lobo's head.JERSEY-a black top with white nos.trimmed on a red shadow with wht./red sleeve stripe+red side panels.PANTS-white with red tapered striped trimmed in black.SOCKS-black with red trim on top+bottom.the shoes are going to be black.LOS ANGELES LOBOS..I really like that!!!!!!! I still like Condors the best but Lobos just went straight to number two and I would not be disappointed if the LA franchise went with Lobos. New Mexico can't own the name, right? Just the logo...or can they?The Osmonds.Yeah!I'm thinking that might work better for a Salt Lake City NFL franchise but okay, Osmonds is certainly one they would take a long look at... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
doctorpeligro Posted January 6, 2007 Share Posted January 6, 2007 It is VERY unlikely that the NFL will allow the Saints to leave New Orleans. It would be a public relations disaster the likes of which the league has never seen.I don't know about that. If the Colts left Baltimore, the Rams left LA, and especially if the Browns left Cleveland then what's to stop the Saints from leaving New Orleans under the right circumstances? All of the above moves were "public relations" nightmares and the NFL just kept on chugging along and is more popular than it has EVER been. Don't kid yourself. The NFL is a business, and if makes business sense for the Saints to leave, trust me, they will leave.The Rams leaving Los Angeles (Anaheim, really) barely made a blip on the media's radar. Even a surprisingly large number of folks in Orange County didn't care, perhaps because the Raiders were the more popular (and less vilified) of the L.A. teams when they were both in Southern California.True, the anger over the Browns leaving Cleveland rivals the anger that would manifest if the Saints left New Orleans. However, the ill will was quickly tempered by the announcement that Cleveland would be getting a new Browns' franchise.Truthfully, I'm not old enough to remember how the media reacted when the Colts left Baltimore. It should be remembered, however, that the league's legal losses to Al Davis and the Raiders left them impotent to stop any franchise from moving in the early 80's. That is why most of the criticism from the Colts move seems to fall upon the Irsays and not the league.If a Saints move were akin to the Raiders move (i.e., Benson moves the team in opposition to the league's wishes), it is possible that the NFL could come out of that situation relatively unscathed. However, with all of the resources at the league's disposal, it could be argued that the league could come up with a financial model to keep the Saints in New Orleans, even with the city's economic recovery going as slowly as it is (even so, the Saints home games were all sold out this year).Because of Katrina, the Saints situation in New Orleans is not comparable to any of the cases you have mentioned. Never can I remember a sports team being as important to a city's morale as the Saints currently are in New Orleans - and that is something that the media and politicians would repeatedly harp on if the franchise left. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
doctorpeligro Posted January 6, 2007 Share Posted January 6, 2007 Is the Rose Bowl still a possibility, or have they dropped out?As far as I know Rose Bowl officials and the citizens of Pasadena vehemently oppose an NFL franchise located in the Rose Bowl.That opposition is going to dissipate when the city of Pasadena gets the price tag for the modernization of the Rose Bowl, which, according to the L.A. Times, will run between $200 million- $300 million. Having followed the issue pretty closely, I think this is how it will play out:1) A new privately-financed stadium will likely only be supported by the NFL if the City of Los Angeles allows it to be constructed at Chavez Ravine; however, as evidenced by the new stadium in the Meadowlands, it will be nearly impossible to build a new stadium privately in today's economic climate if only one team is financing construction.2) That said, it may be possible for one team to finance a new stadium on its own by building an adjacent residential and commercial development and using the profits from the ancillary development to pay off stadium debt (a la the 49ers proposal at Santa Clara). With the parking requirements at Dodger Stadium (and lack of mass transit), it is unlikely that such a development could take place at Chavez Ravine. No legitimate site is currently on the table in L.A. County that could house such a large development (the league had the option to build such a development in Anaheim, but had understandable concerns about an OC team's ability to appeal to the rest of the region - "Anaheim is not L.A." - anonymous NFL owner).3) Therefore, a new stadium will only be built if the site is in Los Angeles County and if two teams agree to finance it; however, given the number of alternative entertainment options in the region, and also given the fact that region already has two major college football teams, it is unlikely that a second NFL team would take the risks involved in moving to such a saturated market.4) If only one team is moving to Los Angeles, the most likely scenario is a "modest" $300 million - $400 million renovation of the Rose Bowl (the Coliseum will be out of play because the management of the stadium will have already been handed over to USC).5) In any case, the success of a NFL team in Los Angeles is far from assured, and that, ultimately, may be why Los Angeles will be without a NFL team for the forseeable future. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
random_ax Posted January 6, 2007 Author Share Posted January 6, 2007 [ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DG_ThenNowForever Posted January 6, 2007 Share Posted January 6, 2007 Because of Katrina, the Saints situation in New Orleans is not comparable to any of the cases you have mentioned. Never can I remember a sports team being as important to a city's morale as the Saints currently are in New Orleans - and that is something that the media and politicians would repeatedly harp on if the franchise left.I'm just not sure how accurate that is. Perhaps this season, yes, when the team is winning. Last season, the Saints weren't very good and that all didn't seem to matter. When the Saints revert back to losing, I don't think any of this "morale" business will matter very much.To your point, I think that if Katrina hadn't happened, the Saints would be on their way to LA by now. I think Tagliabue would have pushed harder for that. But in the long-term, New Orleans (based solely on conjecture; I have nothing to back this up with) has much larger problems to deal with than worrying about whether a football team stays or goes. I personally can't see the Saints in New Orleans much past the end of this decade.Football-wise, they would still be able to use the Superdome to host NCAA games, plus the occasional Final Four in basketball. I'm assuming that Super Bowls would be out because they're only hosted in NFL cities now, so that would be bad. But New Orleans would still remain a convention city and I don't think the city would collapse entirely. 1 hour ago, ShutUpLutz! said: and the drunken doodoobags jumping off the tops of SUV's/vans/RV's onto tables because, oh yeah, they are drunken drug abusing doodoobags Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
doctorpeligro Posted January 6, 2007 Share Posted January 6, 2007 When the Saints revert back to losing, I don't think any of this "morale" business will matter very much.Perhaps, but keep in mind that the Saints sold out their season before it started; and this was a team that went 3-13 last year and was in rebuilding mode with new head coach this season. So, even though the Saints were a losing team and didn't have the best hopes of making the playoffs to start the season, the region still showed its support.To your point, I think that if Katrina hadn't happened, the Saints would be on their way to LA by now. I think Tagliabue would have pushed harder for that. But in the long-term, New Orleans (based solely on conjecture; I have nothing to back this up with) has much larger problems to deal with than worrying about whether a football team stays or goes. I personally can't see the Saints in New Orleans much past the end of this decade.I question whether Tom Benson was ever going to plunk down half a billion dollars to build a stadium anywhere, much less Los Angeles. Like I said before, in spite of the market's size, Los Angeles has been notoriously inconsistent in its support of the local NFL team and would have been a much riskier proposition for an owner than most people have acknowledged. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gothamite Posted January 7, 2007 Share Posted January 7, 2007 True, although I think the NFL made a serious error in letting both teams move at the same time. They should have tried LA as a one-team city first. The Green Bay Packers Uniform Database! Now in a handy blog. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
neo_prankster Posted January 7, 2007 Share Posted January 7, 2007 True, although I think the NFL made a serious error in letting both teams move at the same time. They should have tried LA as a one-team city first.They already tried when the Rams played in the middle of South Central. The Fictional Story of Austus Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
doctorpeligro Posted January 7, 2007 Share Posted January 7, 2007 True, although I think the NFL made a serious error in letting both teams move at the same time. They should have tried LA as a one-team city first.They already tried when the Rams played in the middle of South Central.Playing "in the middle of South Central" hasn't hurt USC. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
random_ax Posted January 7, 2007 Author Share Posted January 7, 2007 Is one ugly-ass bird.Yes, yes it is!I like the name also, i think LA would be better then California. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DrBear Posted January 7, 2007 Share Posted January 7, 2007 Is one ugly-ass bird.Yes, yes it is!I like the name also, i think LA would be better then California.Why are you running a picture of Al Davis? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gothamite Posted January 8, 2007 Share Posted January 8, 2007 True, although I think the NFL made a serious error in letting both teams move at the same time. They should have tried LA as a one-team city first.They already tried when the Rams played in the middle of South Central.As someone who saw the Rams play there, they drew pretty well.Regardless, LA should have been a one-team market, rather than letting both teams leave at the same time. The Green Bay Packers Uniform Database! Now in a handy blog. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Krona Posted January 8, 2007 Share Posted January 8, 2007 As someone who saw the Rams play there, they drew pretty well.Regardless, LA should have been a one-team market, rather than letting both teams leave at the same time.I think the Rams still hold some single game and season attendance records Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.