Jaguars considering playing some games in Orlando

[illwauk]

If the Chargers move to LA, I can certainly see the NFL going back to SD if the stadium situation is taken care of. Of course, it'd probably be a relocation rather than expansion.

Honestly, (and I'm not just trying to ruffle Fanatic's feathers here), I think that St. Louis is often times really not looked at objectively in terms of its size, affluence, and other factors that are necessary to support something on the level of an NFL team. Being generous, the area is the 16th largest metro area in the country (and that's including counties that may or may not truly be part of "greater St. Louis"), has at most 2.8 M people (and is shrinking - at least re-distributing), and just doesn't have the type of business climate as many of the cities that are typically looked at as atractive places for top-level teams. They're able to support the Cardinals well, because they are such a local institution, but I just can't see it being on the "wish list" of the league to come back to, unless it's a case of "well, Jacksonville is failing and there's no where else to put them, so throw them in St. Louis." It's certainly a more viable solution than some of the other cities mentioned in this thread (San Antonio for example), but it's not one of those cities that the league has to be in.

I disagree... the only way the NFL doesn't need a team in St. Louis is if they're willing to contract. Other than (possibly) San Diego, anywhere else the NFL could go would pose the same problems as Jacksonville (significantly smaller market, competing with major college teams, etc.) St. Louis, for the most part, guarantees a respectable number of fans.

Wasn't calling you out, illwauk, just the idea as it's been thrown out there before. Also didn't mean to come off cranky about it.

It's cool man.

[rams80]

St. Louis has only had the Rams about 15 years. They lost their first NFL team less than a decade before the Rams came. Losing two teams would look bad on the surface, but in both cases it was a stadium issue, and specifically in the Rams case, fan support is not an issue.

I'm going to dissent here on two points.

1. Stadia haven't been St. Louis' biggest problem. Horrendous ownership has been St. Louis' problem. Between Dollar Bill Bidwell and Georgia Frontiere, the city hasn't exactly experienced ownership that is committed to marketing the team, building a frachise/fanbase, or putting out a successful on field product.

2. The attendance (which I assume is your reason for saying they have fan support) is somewhat artificially inflated because St. Louis is close enough to turn into a de facto 9th home game for seemingly a quarter to a third of the league.

[rams80]

Why do you suppose this is? Downstate is known as being split betwixt Cubs and Cardinals fans, but it's solidly Bears. My thought was that so many people have grown up with the Bears being either the closest team around or the quality alternative to the lousy old Gridbirds. One would think that the Rams' success would've converted a lot of people, but I think once you start following the stupid Bears, you're in for life. The bad seasons are almost more fandom-affirming than the good ones. That's one tough gas tank to siphon. Unfortunately, unlike gas tanks, Bears fans don't explode when you set them on fire, but I'm working on it. Anyway, short of winning the Super Bowl since that didn't appear to work anyway, how do you think the Rams can exploit untapped markets beyond St. Louis?

The problem is that I don't think the Rams really tried to exploit that opening during the GSOT days. I've met more Packer fans than you would think possible downstate, so there is something of an anti-Bear feeling in that part of the world to work with. I would suggest the Rams attempt to position themselves as being another "not Chicago" option and use that opening.

That said, they may have blown their chance. Both the Bears and Packers were in a relative nadir during that period from 99 to the early 2000s. It is difficult to anticipate such a fortuitous coincidence again.

My other suggestion involves sabotaging the Vikings stadium efforts until they move out of the Midwest, and then realign into the NFC North. Perhaps if they played the Bears more often it would help their efforts. Shoot...it was a Rams-Bears game in '95 that first got me on the Rams bandwagon.

[Gothamite]

St. Louis has only had the Rams about 15 years. They lost their first NFL team less than a decade before the Rams came. Losing two teams would look bad on the surface, but in both cases it was a stadium issue, and specifically in the Rams case, fan support is not an issue.

I'm going to dissent here on two points.

1. Stadia haven't been St. Louis' biggest problem. Horrendous ownership has been St. Louis' problem. Between Dollar Bill Bidwell and Georgia Frontiere, the city hasn't exactly experienced ownership that is committed to marketing the team, building a frachise/fanbase, or putting out a successful on field product.

2. The attendance (which I assume is your reason for saying they have fan support) is somewhat artificially inflated because St. Louis is close enough to turn into a de facto 9th home game for seemingly a quarter to a third of the league.

I'll take your word that stadium issues haven't been the problem in the past, but it's certainly about to become a problem.

[leopard88]

The Worldwide Leader has now elected to chime in on the subject. Again offered without comment.

ESPN.com -- Small crowds, blackouts cloud future

[Wasatch]

I?m pretty new to this topic, so forgive my ignorance. Is this the first year ticket sales have been a problem for the Jags?

[ZapRowsdower8]

The Worldwide Leader has now elected to chime in on the subject. Again offered without comment.

ESPN.com -- Small crowds, blackouts cloud future

Sorry to take this off topic, but in that article it states that the Jags got approved to enter the league in '95 by a vote of 10-2. The Giants and Eagles were the two teams voting against them, instead voting for Baltimore. Did they do this because they wanted to piss off the Redskins? Did they want Baltimore to join their divison and bump the Cardinals off to the west were they belonged? Or did they simply see the fact that Baltimore is a superior market to Jacksonville?

Anybody know the true reason?

[BBTV]

The Worldwide Leader has now elected to chime in on the subject. Again offered without comment.

ESPN.com -- Small crowds, blackouts cloud future

Sorry to take this off topic, but in that article it states that the Jags got approved to enter the league in '95 by a vote of 10-2. The Giants and Eagles were the two teams voting against them, instead voting for Baltimore. Did they do this because they wanted to piss off the Redskins? Did they want Baltimore to join their divison and bump the Cardinals off to the west were they belonged? Or did they simply see the fact that Baltimore is a superior market to Jacksonville?

Anybody know the true reason?

I highly doubt that any of those were the reason.

My guess is that in the then-new world of revenue sharing, those teams realized that putting a team in a market like Jacksonville instead of one like Baltimore would ultimately hurt everybody's bottom line. I realize that the Baltimore bid had some issues that would have had to be overcome, but obviously the Phila. and NYG owners realized that Jacksonville was a mistake. As for why they were the only two, probably because many of the owners just blindly go along with the will of the commissioner and trust his judgment.

[ZapRowsdower8]

The Worldwide Leader has now elected to chime in on the subject. Again offered without comment.

ESPN.com -- Small crowds, blackouts cloud future

Sorry to take this off topic, but in that article it states that the Jags got approved to enter the league in '95 by a vote of 10-2. The Giants and Eagles were the two teams voting against them, instead voting for Baltimore. Did they do this because they wanted to piss off the Redskins? Did they want Baltimore to join their divison and bump the Cardinals off to the west were they belonged? Or did they simply see the fact that Baltimore is a superior market to Jacksonville?

Anybody know the true reason?

I highly doubt that any of those were the reason.

My guess is that in the then-new world of revenue sharing, those teams realized that putting a team in a market like Jacksonville instead of one like Baltimore would ultimately hurt everybody's bottom line. I realize that the Baltimore bid had some issues that would have had to be overcome, but obviously the Phila. and NYG owners realized that Jacksonville was a mistake. As for why they were the only two, probably because many of the owners just blindly go along with the will of the commissioner and trust his judgment.

So they saw Baltimore as the superior market, correct? Thats what I assumed, but the sinister part of me wanted them to be out to hurt Washington.

[The_Admiral]

I think another part is that they wanted to keep Baltimore on the table as a relocation option. "Jacksonville's calling" wouldn't instill the same fear.

[dfwabel]

I?m pretty new to this topic, so forgive my ignorance. Is this the first year ticket sales have been a problem for the Jags?

Not at all. The Jags and the city expanded (then) Alltel Stadium to 84,000 seats for just one annual game, Florida/Georgia, as the super Bowl they. From then on, the Jags covered the additional seats as they could not sell them, an the NFL allowed them to have a capacity of about 72k. They also lost 15-17k season ticket holders between 2007-09.

[BBTV]

The Worldwide Leader has now elected to chime in on the subject. Again offered without comment.

ESPN.com -- Small crowds, blackouts cloud future

Sorry to take this off topic, but in that article it states that the Jags got approved to enter the league in '95 by a vote of 10-2. The Giants and Eagles were the two teams voting against them, instead voting for Baltimore. Did they do this because they wanted to piss off the Redskins? Did they want Baltimore to join their divison and bump the Cardinals off to the west were they belonged? Or did they simply see the fact that Baltimore is a superior market to Jacksonville?

Anybody know the true reason?

I highly doubt that any of those were the reason.

My guess is that in the then-new world of revenue sharing, those teams realized that putting a team in a market like Jacksonville instead of one like Baltimore would ultimately hurt everybody's bottom line. I realize that the Baltimore bid had some issues that would have had to be overcome, but obviously the Phila. and NYG owners realized that Jacksonville was a mistake. As for why they were the only two, probably because many of the owners just blindly go along with the will of the commissioner and trust his judgment.

So they saw Baltimore as the superior market, correct? Thats what I assumed, but the sinister part of me wanted them to be out to hurt Washington.

I just can't believe that they would take a decision as important as expansion and use it as a way to take a stab at a rival. The decision of what market to go to has such a direct impact on them, that I don't think they would do that. I also don't think it'd be a huge blow to the Redskins. They seem to be doing OK along with the Ravens now.

I think another part is that they wanted to keep Baltimore on the table as a relocation option. "Jacksonville's calling" wouldn't instill the same fear.

That's a valid opinion, but again, Jacksonville? I'm not sure in what universe that ever seemed like a good idea. It seems silly to pass up putting another team in the Balt / Wash metro area just to have it as a bartering chip in order to go to a market like Jacksonville. I could maybe buy that notion if the eventual market chosen was something a little bit bigger / better.

[Gothamite]

Look, we've seen virtually every league look at developing markets, states with booming populations, and get suckered into it.

The NHL has weathered a decade and a half of staggering losses with its team in Phoenix, not to mention ongoing attendance problems in South Florida. MLB put two teams in Florida in rapid succession that the market has largely ignored.

I think we can excuse the NFL, being a copycat league, thinking it too had to get in on a little of this old Sun Belt action.

At this point, I think the more important issue for these leagues is cutting losses and getting out of markets they never should have entered in the first place.

[dfwabel]

The Worldwide Leader has now elected to chime in on the subject. Again offered without comment.

ESPN.com -- Small crowds, blackouts cloud future

Sorry to take this off topic, but in that article it states that the Jags got approved to enter the league in '95 by a vote of 10-2. The Giants and Eagles were the two teams voting against them, instead voting for Baltimore. Did they do this because they wanted to piss off the Redskins? Did they want Baltimore to join their divison and bump the Cardinals off to the west were they belonged? Or did they simply see the fact that Baltimore is a superior market to Jacksonville?

Anybody know the true reason?

I highly doubt that any of those were the reason.

My guess is that in the then-new world of revenue sharing, those teams realized that putting a team in a market like Jacksonville instead of one like Baltimore would ultimately hurt everybody's bottom line. I realize that the Baltimore bid had some issues that would have had to be overcome, but obviously the Phila. and NYG owners realized that Jacksonville was a mistake. As for why they were the only two, probably because many of the owners just blindly go along with the will of the commissioner and trust his judgment.

So they saw Baltimore as the superior market, correct? Thats what I assumed, but the sinister part of me wanted them to be out to hurt Washington.

I just can't believe that they would take a decision as important as expansion and use it as a way to take a stab at a rival. The decision of what market to go to has such a direct impact on them, that I don't think they would do that. I also don't think it'd be a huge blow to the Redskins. They seem to be doing OK along with the Ravens now.

I think another part is that they wanted to keep Baltimore on the table as a relocation option. "Jacksonville's calling" wouldn't instill the same fear.

That's a valid opinion, but again, Jacksonville? I'm not sure in what universe that ever seemed like a good idea. It seems silly to pass up putting another team in the Balt / Wash metro area just to have it as a bartering chip in order to go to a market like Jacksonville. I could maybe buy that notion if the eventual market chosen was something a little bit bigger / better.

Remember that in the early 1990's, adults were relocating to Florida at a rate of 1,000/day. The NFL thought that they could have a southern version of Green Bay...a one team town. The city gave the largest visiting gate guarantee at the time as well as the then the thought of club seats, was basically non-existent in the NFL. While the population of Florida and Duval County has increased, the jobs were not as high paying as they need. Or, the disposable income went to other sources. The issue was there as soon as they added seats for the Super Bowl, then during Super Bowl week, nationally known sports personalities, namely Tony Kornheiser and Steve Czaban ripped the city.

[BBTV]

The Worldwide Leader has now elected to chime in on the subject. Again offered without comment.

ESPN.com -- Small crowds, blackouts cloud future

Sorry to take this off topic, but in that article it states that the Jags got approved to enter the league in '95 by a vote of 10-2. The Giants and Eagles were the two teams voting against them, instead voting for Baltimore. Did they do this because they wanted to piss off the Redskins? Did they want Baltimore to join their divison and bump the Cardinals off to the west were they belonged? Or did they simply see the fact that Baltimore is a superior market to Jacksonville?

Anybody know the true reason?

I highly doubt that any of those were the reason.

My guess is that in the then-new world of revenue sharing, those teams realized that putting a team in a market like Jacksonville instead of one like Baltimore would ultimately hurt everybody's bottom line. I realize that the Baltimore bid had some issues that would have had to be overcome, but obviously the Phila. and NYG owners realized that Jacksonville was a mistake. As for why they were the only two, probably because many of the owners just blindly go along with the will of the commissioner and trust his judgment.

So they saw Baltimore as the superior market, correct? Thats what I assumed, but the sinister part of me wanted them to be out to hurt Washington.

I just can't believe that they would take a decision as important as expansion and use it as a way to take a stab at a rival. The decision of what market to go to has such a direct impact on them, that I don't think they would do that. I also don't think it'd be a huge blow to the Redskins. They seem to be doing OK along with the Ravens now.

I think another part is that they wanted to keep Baltimore on the table as a relocation option. "Jacksonville's calling" wouldn't instill the same fear.

That's a valid opinion, but again, Jacksonville? I'm not sure in what universe that ever seemed like a good idea. It seems silly to pass up putting another team in the Balt / Wash metro area just to have it as a bartering chip in order to go to a market like Jacksonville. I could maybe buy that notion if the eventual market chosen was something a little bit bigger / better.

Remember that in the early 1990's, adults were relocating to Florida at a rate of 1,000/day. The NFL thought that they could have a southern version of Green Bay...a one team town. The city gave the largest visiting gate guarantee at the time as well as the then the thought of club seats, was basically non-existent in the NFL. While the population of Florida and Duval County has increased, the jobs were not as high paying as they need. Or, the disposable income went to other sources. The issue was there as soon as they added seats for the Super Bowl, then during Super Bowl week, nationally known sports personalities, namely Tony Kornheiser and Steve Czaban ripped the city.

Wasn't just the nationally known personalities - I think everyone who made the trip down there - local media, fans, etc., was incredibly disappointed with the city and it's ability to host such an event. I hope nobody thinks I'm knocking Jacksonville (I've never even been there), but we're talking about it as compared to bona fide "major league" cities.

[DustDevil61]

I don't know if it's been posted here before, but the Chiefs-Jags game's attendance again hit somewhere between 45k-50k, according to ESPN.

[Gothamite]

And that's with a couple thousand Chiefs fans boosting the numbers.

[BrySmalls]

Look, we've seen virtually every league look at developing markets, states with booming populations, and get suckered into it.

The NHL has weathered a decade and a half of staggering losses with its team in Phoenix, not to mention ongoing attendance problems in South Florida. MLB put two teams in Florida in rapid succession that the market has largely ignored.

I think we can excuse the NFL, being a copycat league, thinking it too had to get in on a little of this old Sun Belt action.

At this point, I think the more important issue for these leagues is cutting losses and getting out of markets they never should have entered in the first place.

For what it's worth, MLS had and folded two clubs in Florida (Tampa Bay and Miami) back in 2002:

The deciding factor for not continuing operations of the Tampa Bay Mutiny is the fact that the team has not had an investor-operator since it began play in 1996. The Mutiny have been operated and funded by the League Office since its inception. In Miami, the MLS Board of Governors, along with Investor-Operator Ken Horowitz, who founded the Miami Fusion as an expansion team in 1998, have determined that the local market is not capable at this time of providing the support necessary to effectively sustain a Major League Soccer team.

My link

[DustDevil61]

Well, according to ESPN and Field of Schemes, the stadium group in charge of building the City of Industry stadium has said that the Bills and Jaguars are most likely to come to Southern California soon. Thoughts? I still think that the Rams are in a good position to return, though there is a long ways to go, even now.

[rams80]

Well, according to ESPN and Field of Schemes, the stadium group in charge of building the City of Industry stadium has said that the Bills and Jaguars are most likely to come to Southern California soon. Thoughts? I still think that the Rams are in a good position to return, though there is a long ways to go, even now.

Damnit Chip! Sell the flipping team already!