Giant step taken in the return of the NFL to LA...

Well, they're about to finish a new shared stadium that won't have the Giants name.

 

What is JDV's role in this (other than banging Raiderettes)

 

Will the NFL allow a team like Jacksonville move to LA and have an immediate increase in value of the hundreds of millions as well as a massive spike in revenue streams or will the league take portions of the TV money as payment for the right to move?

 

I still haven't figured out the math on this.

Roski or some other robber barron spends $800 million on a stadium. Yet doesn't have a team. Jacksonville or SD leaves their city.... Are they selling the team to Roski? I don't get it.

 

If I am the NFL, I am very, very careful about who I allow to move to the LA market -- and Jacksonville is not on the list.

LA has proven it's just fine without an NFL team. If you are going to move a team there it better be one people have some interest in seeing, and Jacksonville ain't it. People aren't going to get excited just because it's the NFL. The biggest mistake they could make is to bring in a team no one cares about and deal with TV blackouts. The Chargers would work. The Vikings would probably work. The Jaguars won't work.

The smartest thing to do is probably an expansion team, so it's not a hand-me-down.

 

Only problem with moving a team there, it better be one people have some interest in seeing? Chances are any team people have some interest in seeing would never be in danger of moving. I know the Chargers and Vikings have stadium issues, but with ESPN's "30 in 30" piece on the Baltimore/Indy Colts, which also gave us reminders of the Browns' move from Cleveland to Baltimore, I don't think it would be wise to move a team with as much history as the Chargers or Vikings. Yeah, San Diego's close, but it's not like San Diego fans like L.A. sports teams and visa versa. You move the Chargers and you might lose the San Diego market, which is still significant at 28th in the country.

Jacksonville, on the other hand, ranks 47th among TV markets and has seen season ticket sales plummet to 25,000 this season. Among NFL markets, only New Orleans (51st) and Buffalo (52nd) are smaller. The Jaguars would be an ideal team to move. Not the Chargers or Vikings, who have a history in stronger TV markets, not to mention better fan support.

 

If you are going to move Jacksonville (and I will believe this stadium is built when I see it... Roski's a notorious tire-kicker), you terminate the J-Ville franchise in every way, shape and form. No records move, different name, everything.

 

The Bicycle Club is in the City of Industry. Go at your own risk, but it's definitely worth going to if you like to gamble.

 

I don't disagree with the top part at all. I'm not saying move the Patriots, nor do I think it necessarily serves the league well to let a team like the Chargers or Vikings well.

I'm saying, the league better not assume fans in LA will show up just because it's the NFL. They won't, and that creates bigger problems than the current void in LA. They are better off with no local team and a full TV schedule than they are with a local team no one cares about and games blacked out. A team no one cares about in Jacksonville is a much, much smaller problem than a team no one cares about in Los Angeles.

 

No way in holy flying hell. The Super Bowl is a bauble the NFL uses to reward and punish franchises. They're not putting that bauble on the shelf for years at a time.

They'd give a new stadium in LA a Super Bowl pretty soon after opening, but not a bunch of them.

 

Agreed. I'm not sure there's a real need to have the NFL in Los Angeles, where people are going to watch the games regardless. Are people there really clamoring for a team? Or is this all business? Any talk of the NFL in Los Angeles simply comes across as business to me, not something done for the fans.

 

That whole concept of ``keeping'' the records with the city never made sense to me. It's a franchise record. It's the same franchise. If Maurice Jones-Drew scores 30 touchdowns this season and the Jaguars move to LA next season, does he suddenly not own the team record? That's silly. Should Norm Van Brocklin's 551 yards passing not be the Rams record? Why not? He played for the Rams. If a new team comes to LA, should its passing record belong to Van Brocklin? No. It's the franchise record, the team record. If you want to say Van Brocklin owns LA's city passing record, feel free. But the team record? It belongs to the team, wherever it plays.