What the hell is Goodell thinking?

[Brooklyn Bully]

Austin. Has a population just about equal to Charlotte. Can pull some of the Houston and Dallas fans that live closer. Has the Univ of TX so you'd have the students, and football fans in general.

[Kevin Greene]

I think expansion in LA would be the way to go. I'd hate to see any US city lose their football team. Being in SoCal and losing the Rams I can tell you it sucks ass.

"Whah, whah KG but the fans in LA dont deserve a team because they didn't support the Rams."

Educate yourselves meatheads.

Facts to ponder:

The Rams played in LA from 1946-1994 often leading or at the top of the league in attendance.

Los Angeles has never had a stadium built for a Pro football team. The Coliseum was built in the late 1920s for the '32 Summer olympics. It's a decaying mass in a horrible part of town that has long since past it's ability to house an NFL Franchise. When the Rams moved to Anaheim and shared a baseball stadium with the Angels it was an attempt to get a few of the amenities teams came to expect in the 80s. The Rams left town in 1994 because that bitch Frontierre was tempted by the shiny new Transworld Dome in St. Louis and the rest is history.

Bickering by NFL ownership, government in LA and Cali have all lead to a proper stadium never being built to house an NFL team. Looks like LA may finally have the pieces in place to build a state of the art facility all teams need to thrive and hopefully expnasion will be the answer.

The Raiders? Dont even mention the Al Davis move to LA trying to force Oakland to build him a stadium. Al went back home where the Raiders belong after failing to use the power play to get either city to build him a stadium. To date the Raiders still play in a poohole baseball stadium in Oakland jury rigged to house the Raiders.

A team, a new stadium and LA will fill the stadium to capacity every Sunday as they do for the Lakers, Clippers, Dodgers, Angels, Kings and Ducks every year.

[Kevin Greene]

This site is in favor of having the Rams return to LA which I dont prefer but does have some interesting info:

3. The Rams never had a decent following in Los Angeles/Anaheim.

The Los Angeles Rams led the NFL in attendance 11 times in franchise history, spent a majority of their time in the top 5, and averaged well over the NFL average during their stay in the City of Angels. The television ratings were also significantly higher when the Rams were in Los Angeles as opposed to ratings of random teams (including the Raiders) on television in Southern California during the previous 16 seasons. The Rams were at one point the pride and joy of Los Angeles and they had a very large following both when they played at the Coliseum and Anaheim Stadium.

http://losangelesrams.org/myths.html

.

[Mr. Scot]

I like the disciplinary stuff that Goodell instituted when he took over.

Beyond that, ugh :(

The obsessions with...

- getting a team (or two) in L.A.

- trying to expand internationally

- going to an 18 game season

- reducing the amount of contact (especially to QBs)

...and the whole "moving the kickoffs" thing.

And what's worse is he plays these things as if the vast majority of fans love these ideas when in reality the greater tide of fan opinion goes from indifference to hatred.

He's the commissioner who's engaged the fans more by having fan forums and such, but darned if he isn't the guy who seems to actually listen to fans the least :mad:

[Squirrel]

Been thinking for years Raleigh would be a good place for a team. Yeah would hurt the Panthers a little but not as bad as people think.

[theyhateme45]

I don't like the idea.... 32 is the perfect Number for the NFL, balanced divisions, balanced conferences, balance schedule that makes sense, I don't think we need to jack it up for more $$$ in L.A... Just let a franchise struggling $$$ wise head there.

But we all know $$$ talks in the NFL, so...

[Grammer]

Been thinking for years Raleigh would be a good place for a team. Yeah would hurt the Panthers a little but not as bad as people think.

zero chance

My money is on LA and Portland

[Porn Shop Clerk]

Been thinking for years Raleigh would be a good place for a team. Yeah would hurt the Panthers a little but not as bad as people think.

it may actually give the panthers a legitimate rival

[SuperLego5]

As a Brit I'm fairly sure a London franchise wouldn't work. The International Series always sells out because it's a novelty. Also everything in London is so expensive, for anybody that has to travel and stay its about $1500 every time you want to see an NFL match, it's almost as cheap to go to the US. Something else nobody factors in is British fans probably wont change allegiance. If there was a British franchise they would be my second team behind the Panthers, I would still rather save up and come across to Charlotte and go to BoA stadium than spend a fortune going to see my second team in London.

[Hawk]

What city are you talking about?

Los Angeles...yes they have the population, but it's not like they have overwhelmingly supported the NFL in the past

[Johnny Rockets]

I like the disciplinary stuff that Goodell instituted when he took over.

Beyond that, ugh :(

The obsessions with...

- getting a team (or two) in L.A.

- trying to expand internationally

- going to an 18 game season

- reducing the amount of contact (especially to QBs)

...and the whole "moving the kickoffs" thing.

And what's worse is he plays these things as if the vast majority of fans love these ideas when in reality the greater tide of fan opinion goes from indifference to hatred.

He's the commissioner who's engaged the fans more by having fan forums and such, but darned if he isn't the guy who seems to actually listen to fans the least :mad:

The rules limited contact and specifically protecting the QB were put into place by Tagliabue long before Goodell took over. Not sure why that is ignored all the time when this discussion is brought up.

Kickoffs just went back to how they used to be. Before 1994 they always kicked off from the 35 just like they do today. It only makes sense that if head injuries are the main concern for the NFL (as they should be) then something needed to be done with the one play that caused more injuries (especially head injuries) than any other....the kickoff. Sure I would rather see someone run the ball back instead of a touchback but I can understand why it was put into place BY THE OWNERS.

[Claws]

Okc?

[Hawk]

here's the play...a new team in Toronto, which will essentially kill the Bills, who then get moved to LA

[Mr. Scot]

The rules limited contact and specifically protecting the QB were put into place by Tagliabue long before Goodell took over. Not sure why that is ignored all the time when this discussion is brought up.

Kickoffs just went back to how they used to be. Before 1994 they always kicked off from the 35 just like they do today. It only makes sense that if head injuries are the main concern for the NFL (as they should be) then something needed to be done with the one play that caused more injuries (especially head injuries) than any other....the kickoff. Sure I would rather see someone run the ball back instead of a touchback but I can understand why it was put into place BY THE OWNERS.

I don't hold Tagliabue blameless there. Nor the owners, though not all of them voted for this particular change (Bears I know voted against).

Kinda wish Goodell would spend more time getting better medical benefits for the former players than tinkering with the rules for the current ones.

Safety vs gameplay is an argument that won't end anytime soon.

here's the play...a new team in Toronto, which will essentially kill the Bills, who then get moved to LA

Nobody wants Canadians involved :sosp: