Teams Las Vegas Raiders - The Black Hole

Remove this Banner Ad

Re: Raiders back to LA?

JeffDunne said:
The NFL have already said San Antonio have zero chance of getting a franchise.
Click to expand...

In terms of corporate support, it doesn't make a lot of sense. West Texas is in pretty bad shape in a lot of ways. Major industries are oil fields that are becoming obsolete and farming that is being affected by a prolonged drought, that is only projected to get worse due to global warming. It really isn't a good spot for major franchise.

But they do have a stadium and if there was a team there people would come and pack the place out.
 
Re: Raiders back to LA?

It is an intersting topic, and with the growth of all games all cities, and all teams, there is that sense of inevitability about teams moving to the 2nd or 3rd largest city in the Country, as for Canada and Mexico, i'm not sure about Mexica, but Canada already have their Canadian Football League, and Im not sure if they could sustain it. One, only one could survive, the CFL (or whatever it is, or an NFL team. To me, a team in San Antonio, or an Area like Las Vegas or Salt Lake City couold be the go.
 

Log in to remove this ad.

Re: Raiders back to LA?

Mexico would be a disaster. It's fine to drag 100,000 people in for an exhibition match, but if you watch any footage of that they just cheer like trained seals with no idea what's actually going on. Try committing them to a regular schedule.

Las Vegas is for gimmick leagues like the XFL, and given that the CFL teams seem to go in and out of business fairly often I can't see too many people lining up to throw a fortune at relocating or expanding to there.

Portland usually comes up in these discussions. College football not withstanding I'd have Oklahoma City or Tulsa in front of Salt Lake City.
 
Re: Raiders back to LA?

The LATimes has regular coverage of the NFL in LA - in short, the NFL needs LA more than LA needs the NFL. Here's one of the best discussion thus far: http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/la-op-dustup22jan22,0,2014452.story

NFL in L.A.

Should Los Angeles be spending public money to attract an NFL franchise? Should a pro team play at the Coliseum? Isn’t professional football (unlike, arguably, baseball) usually a net loss for municipalities? All week, Barry A. Sanders and Scott Olin Schmidt debate pro football’s future in Los Angeles.

January 22, 2008


Today, Schmidt and Sanders debate whether luring the NFL to Los Angeles is worth the money. Later in the week, they'll discuss the local politics surrounding the NFL, USC's future at the Coliseum and more.


L.A. does fine without football
By Scott Olin Schmidt

Shortly after I moved to Los Angeles to begin graduate school at the University of Southern California, both the Raiders and the Rams left town. Ever since, Los Angeles' elected officials have been courting the National Football League — but in more than a decade, our city has found no takers.

The first question L.A. needs to ask itself is whether it wants a professional football team to begin with. After 12 years and counting of being NFL-free, our fair city seems to have survived quite nicely.

On any given Sunday between August and January, Angelenos get their pick of the best pro football games broadcast into their homes. Fans of various teams get together across the city to root for their home teams — well, at least the home team of wherever they're from. Los Angeles does not have a single "home team." Instead, we have 32 — we take our pick of NFL franchises, reflecting a diversity that is truly Los Angeles'.

Government, when at its best, should exist to provide those goods and services that the private sector does not. Although I might need a bridge, a freeway or an airport, I am in no position to build any of these, so I rely on the government to provide these public benefits. Those who advocate spending public money on bringing the NFL to Los Angeles, therefore, need to show that a professional football franchise constitutes a public benefit — and that its funding should take priority over, say, a subway to the sea.

On its face, that proposition sounds absurd. The NFL is a private business that does quite well, thank you very much. With its fistfuls of cash, the NFL could easily pay for a nice new stadium in Los Angeles. But it's cheaper to do that in Jacksonville, Charlotte or Houston, so the NFL took its business elsewhere.

Since we're talking about the bottom line, by far the least expensive option for bringing the NFL to Los Angeles would be to use an existing stadium. Southern California has two great venues in the Los Angeles Memorial Coliseum and the Rose Bowl, and could possibly even expand the Home Depot Center — but each of these comes with drawbacks.

The Coliseum must share its parking and facilities with its neighbors in Exposition Park, and an NFL team would have to share the facility with USC — whether or not the university gets a "master lease" to operate the stadium. Bringing in an NFL team would restrict public access to the Science Center and Museum of Natural History on game days. Capacity reductions from stadium enhancements would leave about 20,000 Trojan fans out in the cold — metaphorically, at least.

The Rose Bowl is a nightmare whenever a game draws more than 50,000 people — which usually means that USC is playing there. I doubt NFL Commissioner Roger S. Goodell has to park on the 10th hole of the Brookside golf course when he visits the Rose Bowl.

According to a Federal Reserve study, the NFL generates value for communities because people pay more to live in a city with a pro football franchise. If you're talking about the difference between Kansas City and Oklahoma City, or Omaha and Denver, this makes sense. Green Bay is on the map because of the Packers. Somehow I think Los Angeles wouldn't benefit so much — people already know we're here and they keep coming, with or without an NFL team.

Scott Olin Schmidt covers Pac-10 football for AOL Sports' FanHouse and politics at Spot-on.com. Schmidt is a transportation commissioner for the city of West Hollywood, where he operates his New Media Outreach consulting firm RSC Partners.

Private money, public effort
By Barry A. Sanders

Yes, Scott, our great city can live without an NFL team. We have done so for more than a decade. If the NFL requires our tax money as a condition to coming here, we should continue to do without an NFL team. However, the NFL understands it needs L.A. more than L.A. needs the NFL. I believe we can get a team here without spending dollars from our government coffers, and we should continue that effort.

This town boasts some of the world's finest cultural, entertainment and sports attractions. We offer our residents and visitors the nation's finest orchestra in the finest hall, a superb opera company, scores of legitimate theaters, countless movie screens, the world's best and most famous theme parks, hundreds of museums, and fabulous parks and beaches. We have storied baseball and basketball teams on the professional and collegiate levels, and top-quality hockey, soccer, water polo, horse racing and almost any other professional or amateur sport you can name. We enjoy two of the best college football teams in the nation and a professional indoor football team. Why, then, should the vast number of sports-savvy Angelenos who follow professional football be denied the chance to attend NFL games?

Since at least the 1984 Olympics, our city's method of attracting sports franchises and events has been to rely on the private sector. At the same time, we have turned to effective political leadership to champion the ideas and facilitate the projects. Former L.A. Mayor Tom Bradley was a leader in our privately financed Olympics, just as Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa was a leader in our recent privately financed effort to attract the 2016 Olympics. Imaginative city planning and regulations boosted the private financing necessary to make Staples Center a reality. The Music Center is a Los Angeles County facility, as are the Los Angeles County Museum of Art and the Museum of Natural History. The Science Center in Exposition Park is a state facility in a state park.

Government is deeply involved in enriching our cultural and recreational lives, and it should be so as long as it is done without raiding the budgets for our other priorities. Therefore, it is necessary and appropriate that the mayor, several county supervisors, several City Council members and the members of the Los Angeles Memorial Coliseum Commission have been actively involved in trying to attract an NFL team to Los Angeles. Furthermore, if government can find ways to make the NFL proposal more financially attractive without spending taxpayers' money — through such devices as tax increment financing and regulatory changes — it should do so.

As to where the NFL team should play, I am a devout admirer of our historic Coliseum. It is an icon of our city for people all over the world. However, we have to face the facts. After many years of discussion, the NFL has expressed its reluctance to return to the Coliseum. As the Coliseum's long-term tenant, USC would have to consent to sharing it with an NFL team. To mix athletic metaphors, these are high hurdles.

What is important is that the NFL returns to Los Angeles. Let the NFL team pitch its tent in a place that is convenient for fans and a boost to the surrounding community. Both the private sector and government officials of this city can and should approach this challenge with the energy and inventiveness of exciting NFL games.

Barry A. Sanders is an international corporate lawyer, member of the Coliseum Commission, president of the L.A. City Recreation and Parks Commission, chairman of the Southern California Committee for the Olympic Games, and an adjunct professor of communications studies at UCLA.


Politics is only part of luring the NFL
By Barry A. Sanders

I don't know. I am only a neophyte when it comes to politics. Furthermore, even though I like both state Sen. Mark Ridley-Thomas and Los Angeles City Councilman Bernard Parks, I am not the guy to endorse candidates, and this is not the place to do so.

All three of the officials about whom we are speaking have been and continue to be supporters of bringing the National Football League back to Los Angeles. For the last several years, the most active of them has been Parks, who not only represents the 8th City Council District, which includes the Coliseum, but is also president of the Los Angeles Memorial Coliseum Commission. His commitment to bringing pro football to our town has made him a well-known and respected figure in the halls of the NFL. He knows all of the ins and outs of this complicated matter. His devotion to L.A.'s football cause is palpable.

Whichever man succeeds Yvonne B. Burke on the Los Angeles County Board of Supervisors will represent a district that includes the Coliseum and will likely be one of the board's representatives on the Coliseum Commission. We can expect no diminution in the fervor that either Ridley-Thomas or Parks have expressed in bringing the NFL and its resultant economic opportunities to Los Angeles. Whether that means focusing on the Coliseum or some other location remains to be seen, considering both the NFL's views of the Coliseum and the University of Southern California's rights with respect to the stadium.

The wild card in this game of musical chairs is who will inherit Parks' seat on the City Council should Parks move to the Board of Supervisors. We do not know who that person will be or what position on the NFL that person will take.

However, looking for something that would "affect the dynamics of football in the city" is not just about elections. The way we do things in L.A., an NFL team is a private investment. As I said yesterday, government's role is to provide leadership and help make the investment attractive with a good regulatory and tax climate. But government should not spend our tax money on this. Investors with deep pockets who are acceptable to the NFL must step forward and take the financial risk to make this happen. The emergence of such a person or persons is what will have the most effect on the dynamics of bringing the NFL to Los Angeles.



No matter who wins, the future isn't bright
By Scott Olin Schmidt

Barry, you are too humble. I have to agree with your prediction that regardless of the outcome, Parks will continue in his role on the Coliseum Commission and continue to pursue his dream of bringing the NFL back to the stadium — even at the expense of relations with the Coliseum's most-prized tenant, USC.

Unfortunately, Parks has tried to pit USC against the neighborhood and build a coalition of Coliseum Commission members to join him in holding out hope for bringing an NFL franchise to his district.

But as we're seeing with the presidential election, minority communities, like those surrounding USC's campus, are not monolithic, nor should they be. There are no warm and fuzzy feelings between Parks and Ridley-Thomas, and things will get only more acrimonious over the course of a contested election. If the senator prevails and joins Parks on the Coliseum Commission, you may just see a crack in the body's unanimity of late.

The wild card — as you points out, Barry — is what happens to the City Council seat and who might replace Parks if he wins the supervisor race or faces term limits. The demographics of the 8th District are changing, both from a rising Latino population and the gentrification of South Park spreading south into the Figueroa Corridor neighborhood just south of downtown L.A. At some point, these changes will be reflected in the region's elected officials — and with gentrification usually comes NIMBYism, so it is no longer a given that the area's councilman would want to bring the traffic and other negative impacts of the NFL into the neighborhood.

It's been 12 years since the NFL left Los Angeles, and it feels like it could be another 12 before it comes back. In that time, Los Angeles has had three mayors, the 8th District has had two council members, and the state Assembly and Senate seats have turned over several times — yet the only things that have changed the dynamic of football in Los Angeles have been the arrivals of USC football Coach Pete Carroll and David Beckham to Southern California. I seriously doubt that yet another election will change a thing.


Walking away from $100 million
By Scott Olin Schmidt

What do the Dodgers, Chargers, Raiders, Rams and Bruins have in common with the USC Trojans? They all are former tenants of the Los Angeles Memorial Coliseum.

For now, there is a new hope that the University of Southern California and the Coliseum Commission will come to terms on a deal to let the Men of Troy stay in their venerable home stadium, but it should never have come to this.

In exchange for a $100-million investment in the stadium and untold millions more dedicated to the surrounding community, USC wanted the Coliseum Commission to grant it a long-term "master lease" for the stadium, establishing the university as the main tenant and operator of the facility. The commission rejected this generous offer, and the university started exploring its options — including playing at the Rose Bowl on days other than Jan. 1.

Why on Earth a government body would turn down a $100-million private investment for the public benefit, we may never know. Officially, Los Angeles City Councilman Bernard Parks — one of the biggest critics of reaching a deal with USC — says that we shouldn't turn over the keys of a public facility like the Coliseum to a private institution like USC.

That makes for a good sound bite, but Parks' credibility falls apart when you consider that handing over the Coliseum's keys to the National Football League has been a pipe dream of his for years. The NFL is simply not coming to the Coliseum. Anyone even casually watching the situation knows it.

I give L.A. Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa credit for having the courage to say as much last November. And the sooner the Coliseum Commission and other local leaders accept that reality, the sooner we can forge a legitimate effort to bring an NFL team to an acceptable Los Angeles venue.

Let's be clear: The need to update the Coliseum is sobering. Ever since USC President Steven Sample cut off the tap in 2005 and banned alcohol sales at the stadium during football games, USC students and alumni have become acutely aware of the facility's shortcomings. Like the Rose Bowl, the Coliseum's parking, concessions and restrooms can accommodate a team that regularly draws two-thirds capacity. Now that even the game against the University of Idaho sells out, the facility's capabilities are woefully inadequate.

As a cynic, I must fight the urge to believe that this is all about power. If USC had a master lease on the stadium, what role would there be for the Coliseum Commission? Not much — but there is one that can meet the expressed concerns of some members of the commission.

First, the Coliseum Commission should gratefully take the university's money and hold USC to a tight timetable for making improvements to the stadium, much as USC had asked from the commission. In the deal, USC should be committed to keeping the stadium available for public use when it is not being used for its primary purpose. The university should sweeten the pot by committing to a generous community benefit package that would include the hiring of locals, job training, after-school programs for the surrounding neighborhoods, street and traffic improvements and so on.

At a time when the state is suffering from a $14-billion deficit and the city of Los Angeles could face a $340- million shortfall, it would be totally irresponsible for elected leaders to walk away from an offer of millions in private investment for the public benefit.

The commission could make sure that USC lives up to its end of the deal, and if the university is found to be in breach of its contract, the commission could take the back control of the stadium.

The problem with this idea, however, is that it meets everyone's needs — which means it ignores anyone's secret motivations to, for example, lure an NFL team to the Coliseum, and would never be accepted.


We're working on a deal
By Barry A. Sanders

As the newspapers have reported, USC and the Coliseum Commission are engaged in friendly and productive discussions toward a new 47-year lease in which USC will play its home football games at the Coliseum as it always has and the Coliseum Commission will commit to important renovations of the stadium over the next few years. In fact, some of those renovations have already happened, and others are already on order. I hope and expect those negotiations will soon result in a final agreement. It will be good for all of us.

As a Coliseum commissioner, it would be inappropriate for me — and it is pointless for all of us — to debate other proposals that have been superseded. A guiding principle for any public body dealing with a public asset is that the public must get fair value for its asset. I am happy with the ideas the parties are pursuing now.
Click to expand...
 
Re: Raiders back to LA?

Bringing in an NFL team would restrict public access to the Science Center and Museum of Natural History on game days.
Click to expand...

Well that's settled then. No football in LA in case the science museum is restricted.
 
Re: Raiders back to LA?

Ralph Wilson has thrown a cat amongst the pigeons in Buffalo with his latest comments about Buffalo. Of course him and Bills are back-tracking, but you can't help feeling that it's a matter of 'when' rather than 'if'.

During a question-and-answer session, Wilson painted a portrait of a dying town in a dying market. He contrasted Buffalo’s economy with all the construction going on in Toronto and Dallas. He talked about Buffalo’s dwindling population and jobs. And he noted that the Bills had run out of rocks to overturn in marketing the team in Western New York.

And then Wilson compounded the situation by telling Buffalo fans, “Don’t worry. Don’t worry right now.”
Click to expand...

http://www.buffalonews.com/cityregion/buffaloerie/story/271349.html

Bills Owner Ralph Wilson says there is "no guarantee" the Buffalo Bills will stay in western New York after he passes away. The 89-year-old owner of the Bills spoke with 2 On Your Side's Adam Benigni at a news conference in Toronto Wednesday, during which the Bills talked about their plans to play several pre-season and regular season games at the Rogers Centre, starting next season.

Ralph Wilson: "The town of Buffalo, and it's no secret its diminishing in size... Buffalo is honestly going the other way (than Toronto). Buffalo is dwindling in population, in jobs, people don't have jobs, they move out. They move out of Buffalo, they move out of western New York."

Ralph Wilson: "We've overturned all the rocks in western New York. We got to do something, so we looked this way to the north."

Ralph Wilson: "So we're gonna play these games up here; what am I going to say to the fans of Buffalo? I'm gonna say, hey, I can't speculate. I can't speculate what's going to happen in the future. But don't worry right now."
Click to expand...

Wilson Cannot Guarantee Bills Will Stay in Buffalo


http://www.billsintoronto.com/pressannouncements.html
 
Some interesting stats

Jerry Seeman, the former NFL Director of Officiating, who was credited for simplifying the rules of the game, making it easier for game officials to make calls, who developed and implemented the current instant replay system, as well as implementing a training and grading system for officials....his edict was that he didn't want officials to determine the outcome of games unless it was the most blatant thing. He also said that on every play in the NFL, especially in the LOS, there was always callable penalties happening!

Just think about that for a minute. Ie, on every play there was always holding and what-not going on that COULD easily be called against both teams or either team, but that he advised officials to basically pick and choose which ones to call. Ie, it ends up being the reverse effect where officials DO end up determining the outcomes of games.

I say all this because a) a former official once admitted that the NFL had a grudge against the Raiders for them to picked on more than others, and b) in the 2007/2008 NFL season, the New England Patriots only got called for holding SEVEN (7) times across 19 games!!

If you're wondering about point #a, consider this....in the 42 year history of the Superbowl era NFL, the Raiders have been the most penalized team at 14 times! The second most penalized team is the Rams with FOUR (4)!!!

Ie, 31 NFL teams have been the most penalized team FOUR OR FEWER times, while the Raiders FOURTEEN times. I don't have the stats at the ready, but the amount of times the Raiders have been second most penalized team has been astronomically as high.
 
Re: Some interesting stats

I'm really trying to conjure up some sympathy for the Raiders..............nope, just can't do it. It's somehow comforting to know that there are people out there that will ensure Raiders lack of success. Al Davis is at the head of that line.
 

(Log in to remove this ad.)

Re: Some interesting stats

Expect nothing - get nothing. Sums up what it is like to be on the Raiders end of officiating. It still stuns me the blatant bias that permeates officiating against us sometimes, but if you say anything/complain, you are just seen as a whiner (not a niner!), but it has (as gg said) been admitted by an ex-official. :thumbsdown:
 
Re: Some interesting stats

manureid said:
Expect nothing - get nothing. Sums up what it is like to be on the Raiders end of officiating. It still stuns me the blatant bias that permeates officiating against us sometimes, but if you say anything/complain, you are just seen as a whiner (not a niner!), but it has (as gg said) been admitted by an ex-official. :thumbsdown:
Click to expand...

Does being a Port Adelaide fan get you prepared for being a Raiders fan or is it vice versa? :D

You clearly like being disliked by the majority. ;)
 
Re: Some interesting stats

http://www.sportsline.com/nfl/teams/report/OAK/10289018

Asked whether he worries that NFL officials might be prone to fix games, Davis said: "I don't worry about gambling, I worry about bias. I worry about bias. Because if you remember, Sports Illustared ran an article about officiating in the NFL. And one of the officials said, 'The only thing we're warned in our meeting, be on the lookout when you go to Oakland. Watch out when you go to Oakland.' ... I worry about that because we were fighting with the league. All the officials come out of the league office. All the supervisors come out of the league office."

Neely Dunn, the NFL supervisor official, was told of Davis' comments when officials toured the Raiders camp to go over new rules and points of emphasis.

"I don't know anything about that," Dunn said. "Since I've been in this office -- this is my seventh year in the office -- we never gave any direction to officials about any team."

Which apparently isn't the same thing as keeping a close eye on teams which traditionally commit the most penalties.

"Some teams have tendencies, and if we get questions from other coaches, saying this team does that, this team does this, and they take a pattern, then we'll make our officials aware of that," Dunn said.
Click to expand...
 
Re: Some interesting stats

Grimmett said:
Does being a Port Adelaide fan get you prepared for being a Raiders fan or is it vice versa? :D

You clearly like being disliked by the majority. ;)
Click to expand...

And try adding Manchester United to that........
 
Re: Some interesting stats

gg said:
Interesting article about the Balco affair...

http://www.49erhaters.com/balco.html
Click to expand...

Yes a site that goes under the stated URL would provide a balanced unbiased opinion. The irony of you linking this site is not lost on me in a thread that you open regarding team biases.

Back on topic though....100% agree that line of scrimmage infringements could go either way on nearly every play...it is the reason the ARL basically gave up on policing scrums and now just allow the half back to place the ball at the foot of the lock and get on with the game.
 
Re: Some interesting stats

gg said:
New England only seven holding calls all year?!! C'mon! Considering how much time Brady always got in the pocket too, the odds, no matter how good an OL might be, that there'd be more than that.
Click to expand...

Mate you wont get an argument from me on line of scrimmage bias.

Two years ago the 49ers had a RT starting by the name of Kwame Harris who had a reputation for being a bit of a swinging door in pass protection. It seemed that everytime the 49ers completed a big pass down field we would get flagged (well I know if happened at least 6 times)..I always thought the officals must have assumed Harris held and flagged him becuase he couldn't possibly have protected without holding.
 
Re: Some interesting stats

Brasher said:
Mate you wont get an argument from me on line of scrimmage bias.

Two years ago the 49ers had a RT starting by the name of Kwame Harris who had a reputation for being a bit of a swinging door in pass protection. It seemed that everytime the 49ers completed a big pass down field we would get flagged (well I know if happened at least 6 times)..I always thought the officals must have assumed Harris held and flagged him becuase he couldn't possibly have protected without holding.
Click to expand...

Man, that really sucks. Typical horseshit from the Officials.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

FrontnCentrePod
MVP Watch in the Playoffs 🏆
Replies
0
Views
328
FrontnCentrePod
FrontnCentrePod
manureid
Fantasy The Terrible Fantasy Manager / Bad Beats Thread
3 4 5 6 7
Replies
174
Views
5K
Constantgin
Constantgin
The Cardtrader
Aussie Punters a hit in the Canadian Football League global draft
Replies
0
Views
440
The Cardtrader
The Cardtrader

Remove this Banner Ad

Back
Top