Expansion team in LA=rearranged divisions

ArtMonkDrillz · 05-26-2006, 02:43 PM

http://sports.espn.go.com/nfl/column...ohn&id=2456278

It's the offseason, I'm bored, and this story got me thinking...

If a one of the three teams mentioned (Buffalo, Jacksonville, or N.O. {not counting San Diego because it woulnd't be a problem}) was moved to LA I would assume the divisions would need to be rearranged in order to make up for the geographical distance. So, how does everyone think they would be redrawn?

I would say like this:
Buffalo: AFCEast- New England, NYJets, Miami, Baltimore; AFCNorth - Pittsburg, Cinnci, Cleveland, Indy; AFCSouth - Jacksonville, Tennessee, Houston, KC; AFCWest - Denver, Oakland, LA Bills, San Diego

Jacksonville: AFCEast- same as it is now; AFCNorth- same as it is now; AFCSouth- Indy, Tennessee, Houston, KC; AFCWest- Denver, Oakland, LA Jags (that could work name-wise), San Diego

New Orleans: NFC- THE Washington Redskins and the same scrubs that are in it now; NFCNorth- same as it is now; NFCSouth- Carolina, Tampa Bay, Atlanta, St. Louis; NFCWest- Arizona, LA Saints, San Fran., Seattle

this is just for the hell of it since I feel like we need something new to talk about. I feel like people will have their own ideas for redrawn divisions (if they think they would need to be redrawn at all) so I'd liek to hear some.

RedskinRat · 05-26-2006, 02:54 PM

All I want is Dallas out of the NFC East and into any AFC Division so we can one day play them in a SB.

ArtMonkDrillz · 05-26-2006, 03:00 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by RedskinRat

All I want is Dallas out of the NFC East and into any AFC Division so we can one day play them in a SB.

That would be pretty cool, but I don't see see it happening because 1.) the NFL wouldn't want to break up one it's oldest rivalries and 2.) dallas sucks and probably won't ever make it another super bowl. But then again, i guess the way I redrew the teams KC gets seperated from Oakland and Denver and they seem to have rivalries with both teams. Oh well, gotta crack some eggs...

dmek25 · 05-26-2006, 03:59 PM

why does the nfl insist on trying to place a team in los angeles? it doesnt work, proved over and over again. it seems like alot of hassle just to have a place to play a super bowl

number21isabadman · 05-26-2006, 04:44 PM

They had some really good points on that article about the expansion of another team, if they were to add a 33rd team it would just water it down more and make competition that less intense, soo i rule it down to either the buffalo bills or the jags to move to la becuase of there low revenue income. On the other hand I personally feel that california has already enough teams(3) in its state for them to add one or in arnolds words, 2 teams to the l.a. area haha. But as you look now, the san deigo chargers are struggling to build a new stadium for their team but i hardly doudt they will move, oakland wil never give back the raider to l.a. just because al davis has more money than all the owners and that leaves san fran, a team that has been pathetic over the last half decade, and even though they have the revenue to support the team i feel that san fran could head to l.a. and keep the exsisting teams in california but to move one just a little ways and you would have both san frans fan and l.a's money.

FRPLG · 05-26-2006, 05:02 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dmek25

why does the nfl insist on trying to place a team in los angeles? it doesnt work, proved over and over again. it seems like alot of hassle just to have a place to play a super bowl

Money money money money money.

The TV contracts have gotten so huge that growing them is becoming more difficult. One way to ensure the contracts grow significantly again next time they are up is to add the 2nd largest part of the country as a primary market rather than a secondary market. Even if the team blows and doesn't sellout it still adds roughly 8-9 million viewers each week. Thats worth a boat load of money. It's all about the benjamins baby. Why do you think there are two teams in New York?

BigSKINBauer · 05-26-2006, 05:02 PM

I think I would cry if dallas moved to another division. I live for dallas week twice a year. Those weeks are amazing and those games are amazing. If I was only able to go to the dallas vs skins games for the rest my life I wouldn't be at all upset. The game last year was an amazing experience to be at.

Not to mention the probability(if everything was random) of the skins playing dallas in a super bowl, while in different conferences, is .39% so it wouldn't happen in our lifetimes
WE WANT DALLAS! WE WANT DALLAS!

FRPLG · 05-26-2006, 05:14 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by BigSKINBauer

I think I would cry if dallas moved to another division. I live for dallas week twice a year. Those weeks are amazing and those games are amazing. If I was only able to go to the dallas vs skins games for the rest my life I wouldn't be at all upset. The game last year was an amazing experience to be at.

Not to mention the probability(if everything was random) of the skins playing dallas in a super bowl, while in different conferences, is .39% so it wouldn't happen in our lifetimes
WE WANT DALLAS! WE WANT DALLAS!

Actually the probability of us playing Dallas in the SB would be 6.25. When you reference us playing someone in the SB you have to assume we have already made it. Therefore our probabaility of playing any one team from the AFC in the SB would be 6.25. The.39 is the probability of of any one team playing any other one team. Idependent of what the teams are.

And now my head will explode.

Sociofan · 05-26-2006, 05:35 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dmek25

why does the nfl insist on trying to place a team in los angeles? it doesnt work, proved over and over again. it seems like alot of hassle just to have a place to play a super bowl

TV Revenue

jdlea · 05-27-2006, 12:32 AM

I'm not a fan of moving the Bills to LA. First of all, they're a cold weather team and they've been a cold weather team forever. Second, they've been to Super Bowls and they've had great players there. I don't think that moving the Bills is a good idea. Despite the fact that they're down right now, I can't get on board with the NFL trying to move them. I'm by no means a fan, but that's too big of an adjustment for me.

The Jags I think would work. They don't seem overly tied to Jacksonville. Also, they have an exciting Running Back if he could ever stay on the field. And Leftwich is coming into his own. I'm a big Leftwich fan. I wouldn't mind seeing them move to LA.

Finally, the Saints?! WTF? How f-ed up would that be? I mean, really, I just spent last semester in New Orleans. Everything I saw was huge buzz about the Saints returning to the Big Easy. Their season tickets are sold out for the upcoming season. They just drafted Bush and he's saying he wants to be there. Everyone in NOLA is excited about this season. It would be heartless of the NFL to move the Saints to LA because of Katrina!

Oakland Red · 05-27-2006, 04:10 AM

I don't think there will be any expansion team in the NFL for a long time. They will move either the Raiders, Jacksonville, or the Chargers to LA. I would think the Jaguars would be the most likely candidate.

MonkFan4Life · 05-27-2006, 10:51 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dmek25

why does the nfl insist on trying to place a team in los angeles? it doesnt work, proved over and over again. it seems like alot of hassle just to have a place to play a super bowl

THANK YOU !!! I'm tired of the NFL trying to put a team in LA JUST beacause it's LA. FUCK LA ! If they wanted a team why haven't they cried and hustle a team to move there ? As a matter of fact think about that ? If LA is SO attractive WHY AREN'T THE BROWNVENS THERE ? I hate that I'm agreeing with Jerry Jones but I'm sure The Danny does too because the Skins and The Cowdungs make money.

"Expansion does not make sense for the NFL at this juncture. We don't improve anything by expanding. We water it down."
-- Cowboys owner Jerry Jones

With that being said,.... FUCK DALLAS !!!

HAIL !!!!!

SmootSmack · 05-27-2006, 05:11 PM

The NFL is doing pretty well TV revenue wise without a team in Los Angeles. In fact I would say they don't really need or even necessarily want a team in LA. But they want to use LA as leverage against other cities. Much the same way MLB did with threatening to put a team in Washington, DC for so many years until there was no choice. "Oh you won't build a new stadium, oh you won't pay our debt with tax dollars? Fine then, we don't need you we're going to LA...oh now you want to build the stadium. Yeah I thought so" That's pretty much how it goes. But when you take away the threat of LA then what happens? You start threatening to move a team to Vegas?

Los Angeles is really just NFL leverage against all the other cities in the league

GTripp0012 · 05-27-2006, 10:47 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ArtMonkDrillz

http://sports.espn.go.com/nfl/column...ohn&id=2456278

It's the offseason, I'm bored, and this story got me thinking...

If a one of the three teams mentioned (Buffalo, Jacksonville, or N.O. {not counting San Diego because it woulnd't be a problem}) was moved to LA I would assume the divisions would need to be rearranged in order to make up for the geographical distance. So, how does everyone think they would be redrawn?

I would say like this:
Buffalo: AFCEast- New England, NYJets, Miami, Baltimore; AFCNorth - Pittsburg, Cinnci, Cleveland, Indy; AFCSouth - Jacksonville, Tennessee, Houston, KC; AFCWest - Denver, Oakland, LA Bills, San Diego

Jacksonville: AFCEast- same as it is now; AFCNorth- same as it is now; AFCSouth- Indy, Tennessee, Houston, KC; AFCWest- Denver, Oakland, LA Jags (that could work name-wise), San Diego

New Orleans: NFC- THE Washington Redskins and the same scrubs that are in it now; NFCNorth- same as it is now; NFCSouth- Carolina, Tampa Bay, Atlanta, St. Louis; NFCWest- Arizona, LA Saints, San Fran., Seattle

this is just for the hell of it since I feel like we need something new to talk about. I feel like people will have their own ideas for redrawn divisions (if they think they would need to be redrawn at all) so I'd liek to hear some.

There are certain rivalries that the NFL can't afford to break up. Oakland-KC rivals Dallas-Washington, and Chicago-Green Bay in tradition. So Oakland, KC, and Denver will be in that division for all eternity. An LA team could play in the South, or in the West as SD moves to the South. Of course, I think it will ultimately be the Chargers that move to LA. Your Saints realignment is very plausible.

LBrown43 · 05-28-2006, 12:48 AM

Since the Rams and Raiders left, I have really heard nothing about the city crying about not having a team. It is always the NFL worried about not having a team in the 2nd largest TV market? Then I heard Gov. Arnold a week or so ago saying he wanted not one but TWO teams in L.A.!!! I see it failing once again. For some reason L.A. just is not a football town.

05-26-2006, 02:43 PM	#1
ArtMonkDrillz Franchise Player Join Date: Sep 2005 Location: Ellicott City, MD Age: 42 Posts: 8,029	Expansion team in LA=rearranged divisions http://sports.espn.go.com/nfl/column...ohn&id=2456278 It's the offseason, I'm bored, and this story got me thinking... If a one of the three teams mentioned (Buffalo, Jacksonville, or N.O. {not counting San Diego because it woulnd't be a problem}) was moved to LA I would assume the divisions would need to be rearranged in order to make up for the geographical distance. So, how does everyone think they would be redrawn? I would say like this: Buffalo: AFCEast- New England, NYJets, Miami, Baltimore; AFCNorth - Pittsburg, Cinnci, Cleveland, Indy; AFCSouth - Jacksonville, Tennessee, Houston, KC; AFCWest - Denver, Oakland, LA Bills, San Diego Jacksonville: AFCEast- same as it is now; AFCNorth- same as it is now; AFCSouth- Indy, Tennessee, Houston, KC; AFCWest- Denver, Oakland, LA Jags (that could work name-wise), San Diego New Orleans: NFC- THE Washington Redskins and the same scrubs that are in it now; NFCNorth- same as it is now; NFCSouth- Carolina, Tampa Bay, Atlanta, St. Louis; NFCWest- Arizona, LA Saints, San Fran., Seattle this is just for the hell of it since I feel like we need something new to talk about. I feel like people will have their own ideas for redrawn divisions (if they think they would need to be redrawn at all) so I'd liek to hear some. __________________ "Yeah, well, you know, that's just, like, your opinion, man." The Dude

05-26-2006, 02:54 PM	#2
RedskinRat Franchise Player Join Date: Feb 2004 Location: I'm in LA, trick! Posts: 8,700	Re: Expansion team in LA=rearranged divisions All I want is Dallas out of the NFC East and into any AFC Division so we can one day play them in a SB.

05-26-2006, 03:59 PM	#4
dmek25 MVP Join Date: Oct 2005 Location: lancaster,pa Age: 63 Posts: 10,672	Re: Expansion team in LA=rearranged divisions why does the nfl insist on trying to place a team in los angeles? it doesnt work, proved over and over again. it seems like alot of hassle just to have a place to play a super bowl __________________ "It's better to be quiet and thought a fool than to open ones mouth and remove all doubt." courtesy of 53fan

05-26-2006, 04:44 PM	#5
number21isabadman Special Teams Join Date: Apr 2006 Location: Oregon Age: 39 Posts: 157	Re: Expansion team in LA=rearranged divisions They had some really good points on that article about the expansion of another team, if they were to add a 33rd team it would just water it down more and make competition that less intense, soo i rule it down to either the buffalo bills or the jags to move to la becuase of there low revenue income. On the other hand I personally feel that california has already enough teams(3) in its state for them to add one or in arnolds words, 2 teams to the l.a. area haha. But as you look now, the san deigo chargers are struggling to build a new stadium for their team but i hardly doudt they will move, oakland wil never give back the raider to l.a. just because al davis has more money than all the owners and that leaves san fran, a team that has been pathetic over the last half decade, and even though they have the revenue to support the team i feel that san fran could head to l.a. and keep the exsisting teams in california but to move one just a little ways and you would have both san frans fan and l.a's money.

05-26-2006, 05:02 PM	#7
BigSKINBauer Pro Bowl Join Date: Feb 2005 Location: Washington, DC Age: 36 Posts: 5,688	Re: Expansion team in LA=rearranged divisions I think I would cry if dallas moved to another division. I live for dallas week twice a year. Those weeks are amazing and those games are amazing. If I was only able to go to the dallas vs skins games for the rest my life I wouldn't be at all upset. The game last year was an amazing experience to be at. Not to mention the probability(if everything was random) of the skins playing dallas in a super bowl, while in different conferences, is .39% so it wouldn't happen in our lifetimes WE WANT DALLAS! WE WANT DALLAS!

05-27-2006, 12:32 AM	#10
jdlea Playmaker Join Date: Feb 2004 Location: Arlington, VA Age: 40 Posts: 3,109	Re: Expansion team in LA=rearranged divisions I'm not a fan of moving the Bills to LA. First of all, they're a cold weather team and they've been a cold weather team forever. Second, they've been to Super Bowls and they've had great players there. I don't think that moving the Bills is a good idea. Despite the fact that they're down right now, I can't get on board with the NFL trying to move them. I'm by no means a fan, but that's too big of an adjustment for me. The Jags I think would work. They don't seem overly tied to Jacksonville. Also, they have an exciting Running Back if he could ever stay on the field. And Leftwich is coming into his own. I'm a big Leftwich fan. I wouldn't mind seeing them move to LA. Finally, the Saints?! WTF? How f-ed up would that be? I mean, really, I just spent last semester in New Orleans. Everything I saw was huge buzz about the Saints returning to the Big Easy. Their season tickets are sold out for the upcoming season. They just drafted Bush and he's saying he wants to be there. Everyone in NOLA is excited about this season. It would be heartless of the NFL to move the Saints to LA because of Katrina!

05-27-2006, 04:10 AM	#11
Oakland Red Special Teams Join Date: Feb 2006 Location: Oakland, Calif. Posts: 268	Re: Expansion team in LA=rearranged divisions I don't think there will be any expansion team in the NFL for a long time. They will move either the Raiders, Jacksonville, or the Chargers to LA. I would think the Jaguars would be the most likely candidate.

05-27-2006, 05:11 PM	#13
SmootSmack Uncle Phil Join Date: Feb 2004 Posts: 45,256	Re: Expansion team in LA=rearranged divisions The NFL is doing pretty well TV revenue wise without a team in Los Angeles. In fact I would say they don't really need or even necessarily want a team in LA. But they want to use LA as leverage against other cities. Much the same way MLB did with threatening to put a team in Washington, DC for so many years until there was no choice. "Oh you won't build a new stadium, oh you won't pay our debt with tax dollars? Fine then, we don't need you we're going to LA...oh now you want to build the stadium. Yeah I thought so" That's pretty much how it goes. But when you take away the threat of LA then what happens? You start threatening to move a team to Vegas? Los Angeles is really just NFL leverage against all the other cities in the league __________________ You're So Vain...You Probably Think This Sig Is About You

05-28-2006, 12:48 AM	#15
LBrown43 Special Teams Join Date: Jan 2006 Location: Clinton (as in Portis) New Jersey Age: 63 Posts: 217	Re: Expansion team in LA=rearranged divisions Since the Rams and Raiders left, I have really heard nothing about the city crying about not having a team. It is always the NFL worried about not having a team in the 2nd largest TV market? Then I heard Gov. Arnold a week or so ago saying he wanted not one but TWO teams in L.A.!!! I see it failing once again. For some reason L.A. just is not a football town.

Expansion team in LA=rearranged divisions

Locker Room Main Forum