Yes, the drive is 90 plus, you just fly.
But driving back on Sunday really really sucks Its is white knuckle bumper to bumper like you are in a Nascar race.
They need to make the 15 a 3 lane freeway from LA to Vegas.
NFL: Raiders to Las Vegas
- Thread starter dahliaclone
- Start date
But driving back on Sunday really really sucks Its is white knuckle bumper to bumper like you are in a Nascar race.
They need to make the 15 a 3 lane freeway from LA to Vegas.
Just to add some context to this discussion, the 30 largest media markets in the United States are (and assuming you have two teams each in NY and LA, so 30 markets necessary)...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_television_stations_in_North_America_by_media_market
New York
New York
Los Angeles
Los Angeles
Chicago
Philadelphia
Dallas
San Francisco
Washington, DC
Houston
Boston
Atlanta
Tampa-St. Petersburg
Phoenix
Detroit
Seattle
Minneapolis
Miami
Denver
Orlando
Cleveland
Sacramento
St. Louis
Charlotte
Pittsburgh
Raleigh-Durham
Portland
Baltimore
Indianapolis
San Diego
Nashville
Hartford
These 7 are in the top 30 but do not have an NFL team...
Orlando (#18)
Sacramento (#20)
St. Louis (#21)
Raleigh (#24)
Portland (#25)
San Diego (#28)
Hartford (#30)
The "odd men out" cities are...
Kansas City (#33)
Milwaukee (#35) counts for Green Bay
Cincinnati (#36)
Las Vegas (#40)
Jacksonville (#47)
New Orleans (#50)
Buffalo (#53)
Right after the top 30 are...
San Antonio
Columbus
Kansas City
Salt Lake City
Milwaukee
Cincinnati
Greenville, SC
West Palm Beach though really part of Miami-Ft. Lauderdale
Austin
Las Vegas
A few classic franchises -- the Chiefs, Packers, Bengals, Saints, and Bills -- are in sub-optimal locations if you are just looking for TV eyeballs.
The Raiders are a classic franchise, but move around a lot anyways, so I do not count them. The Jaguars are in the worst position of them all on demographics.
I am surprised they are so committed to 32 sometimes.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_television_stations_in_North_America_by_media_market
New York
New York
Los Angeles
Los Angeles
Chicago
Philadelphia
Dallas
San Francisco
Washington, DC
Houston
Boston
Atlanta
Tampa-St. Petersburg
Phoenix
Detroit
Seattle
Minneapolis
Miami
Denver
Orlando
Cleveland
Sacramento
St. Louis
Charlotte
Pittsburgh
Raleigh-Durham
Portland
Baltimore
Indianapolis
San Diego
Nashville
Hartford
These 7 are in the top 30 but do not have an NFL team...
Orlando (#18)
Sacramento (#20)
St. Louis (#21)
Raleigh (#24)
Portland (#25)
San Diego (#28)
Hartford (#30)
The "odd men out" cities are...
Kansas City (#33)
Milwaukee (#35) counts for Green Bay
Cincinnati (#36)
Las Vegas (#40)
Jacksonville (#47)
New Orleans (#50)
Buffalo (#53)
Right after the top 30 are...
San Antonio
Columbus
Kansas City
Salt Lake City
Milwaukee
Cincinnati
Greenville, SC
West Palm Beach though really part of Miami-Ft. Lauderdale
Austin
Las Vegas
A few classic franchises -- the Chiefs, Packers, Bengals, Saints, and Bills -- are in sub-optimal locations if you are just looking for TV eyeballs.
The Raiders are a classic franchise, but move around a lot anyways, so I do not count them. The Jaguars are in the worst position of them all on demographics.
I am surprised they are so committed to 32 sometimes.
Last edited:
It's funny you write this, because just yesterday I was looking at which teams have the oldest stadiums and they were Chicago, Green Bay, Kansas City, Buffalo and New Orleans - I left off St Louis and Oakland (which would rank 1 & 3 respectively) because they are getting new stadiums. 4 of those 5 teams meet your criteria of "Odd Men Out" and it makes me wonder what the owners of those teams will start proposing in a few years when it comes to stadium renovations or building completely new facilities.
Didn't Green Bay do a bunch of renovations to Lambeau a few years back? And the Superdome has been significantly remodeled/repaired since Kartrina.
- Mar 27, 2006
- 41,215
- 29,566
- 113
great post. This is why I think that while it sucks for Oakland, this latest move is actually good for the people who are opposed to public funding for stadiums. There are no slam dunk locations left for the NFL to threaten to relocate to. So, while Vegas gave up a lot of public funds, I think there's a good chance we see a lot more resistance to it going forward.
You are correct about the Superdome remodel, but you have to remember that was 12 years ago - which can almost be considered ancient in terms of modern stadium amenities. Here is an article from this past January stating that they should make plans for another round of renovations to the Superdome as the Saints contract with the facility expires in 2025. http://www.nola.com/saints/index.ssf/2017/01/new_orleans_doesnt_need_a_new.html
Lambeau looks like they have made the most improvements out of the 5 teams listed, and even more impressive was the fact that most improvements were funded with private dollars rather than looking to the city and taxpayers. Green Bay doesn't strike me as a team that would ever relocate, but Buffalo is always on that list of teams to relocate to Canada/London/Mexico City, and Kansas City hasn't seen stadium renovations since 2010.
- Mar 27, 2006
- 41,215
- 29,566
- 113
Green Bay moving is not a possibility because of their ownership situation.
Of my seven odd men out...
New stadium: Las Vegas
Recent major renovations: Kansas City, Green Bay, New Orleans
"OK" stadiums: Cincinnati, Buffalo
"Below average: Jacksonville
I would imagine Cincinnati, Buffalo, and especially Jacksonville are the next three who need to be looking over their shoulders. Demographics are not a friend to any of them.
However, if the appetite for public financing of billion dollar (+) stadium projects is coming to an end, they might find it hard to find a location that really gives them a significantly bigger population or corporate base to draw upon, plus the risk of leaving long-term, established fan bases that hopefully support them through the worst of it. That is an asset in itself that any business needs to be careful about alienating for only marginal gains.
Why risk all that if you can only get a stadium similar to the one you have instead of a $2 billion palace that the taxpayers of XYZ paid for most of for you, right?
It would not shock me to see the Toronto Bills/Argonauts, the London Jaguars/Knights, and the Raleigh Bengals/Stallions (making up silly names here) at some point, though.
- Mar 27, 2006
- 41,215
- 29,566
- 113
You think Raleigh is a desirable location? You've got Charlotte and the Panthers two hours away. That doesn't seem like a recipe for success.
London isn't coming under the current CBA, imho. There are a ton of caveats to it, that will have to be addressed and agreed upon before a team moves over there.
You make a good "meta-" point...
There are not many places left that do not have significant demographic, overlap, legal, CB, political, or logistical problems with them.
I picked Raleigh mostly because, of those at the top of the "have not" list, it is growing the fastest out of all of them, only has an NHL team to compete with right now, and would have a pretty desirable corporate base for an ownership group.
Even if the Panthers would probably be annoyed by it. Plus...
They completely lack a stadium right now, too, unless you want to be a tenant of NC State or UNC or Duke, have broke local and state governments with higher priorities right now (and particularly transportation to service their high population growth rates), and have the whole trans-gendered bathroom issue to worry about that has cost North Carolina some events.
Like you said, no slam dunks out there anymore.
Just throwing stuff against the wall.
Unless the league wants to expand to those places overseas or to "clean up" cities between #25 and #40, which they are unlikely to do because that dilutes the TV money pool for the existing owners, then I figure we are going to be "here" for awhile. Those sorts of cities are not going to generate that much in expansion fees and, without much for public stadium funding streams, you are putting a lot of teams into mediocre/marginal stadium and demographic situations compared to the Wonder of the World expectations that NY, Dallas, and SF have laid down.
- Mar 27, 2006
- 41,215
- 29,566
- 113
All good points. Another strike against Raleigh would be Jerry Richardson. He's one of the more outspoken and influential owners in the league. I'm guessing he'd be able to drum up some significant opposition to putting a team in his back yard.
I think the Bills to Toronto is one legit possibility, but it's only a specific threat to the city of Buffalo. Cities like Jacksonville and KC would never be threatened to move to Toronto.
I could potentially see KC moving to St. Louis down the line, but the city of St. Louis isn't likely to offer up a bunch of public funds to the NFL again, after the Rams skipped town, and the state of Missouri would be involved with both locations, so if they weren't offering state funding in KC, they wouldn't do it in St. Louis, either. The move could happen, but it would likely need to be privately funded.
I'm not sure why you have Cincinnati on this list. First, Paul Brown Stadium opened in 2000, which first means it isn't that old. Second, it's newer than the following stadiums:
Soldier Field (Bears - 1924; major renovations last 2003)
Lambeau Field (Packers - 1957; major renovations last 2015)
Oakland-Alamedia County Coliseum (Raiders - 1966)
Arrowhead Stadium (Chiefs - 1968)
New Era Field (Bills - 1973)
Mercedes Benz Superdome (Saints -1975; major renovations last 2006)
Hard Rock Stadium (Dolphins - 1987)
EverBank Field (Jaguars - 1995)
Bank of America Stadium (Panthers - 1996)
FedEx Field (Redskins - 1997)
M&T Bank Stadium (Ravens - 1998)
Raymond James Stadium (Buccaneers - 1998)
First Energy Stadium (Browns - 1999)
Nissan Stadium (Titans - 1999)
And these stadium are only slightly newer:
Heinz Field (Steelers - 2001)
Sports Authority Field at Mile High (Broncos - 2001)
Gillette Stadium (Patriots - 2002)
NRG Stadium (Texans - 2002)
Ford Field (Lions - 2002)
CenturyLink Field (Seahawks - 2002)
Paul Brown Stadium is middle-of-the-pack in age and a similar age as several more stadiums, and all but two of those teams are not threats to relocate, at least not as you've indicated.
Third, where are they going to move to that's better than Cincinnati at this point? If Toronto happens it will be the Bills; London and Mexico City are all talk and no action. Do you honestly think Cincinnati feels threatened by other markets similar to St. Louis and San Diego, communities which will be real hesitant to put forward any kind of public money for a new stadium going forward?
Fourth, this is the first I've heard of a potential Bengals move, which means it is so out of the blue that I dismiss it outright until something more than an off hand conjecture.
Everything I am saying on here is based on vague readings of demographics and off-hand conjecture. I have no inside information to suspect the Bengals on the move, though the innuendos around the Bills and Jaguars are well-document.
This is worth reading if you are curious about the topic...
http://www.usatoday.com/story/sport...es-san-diego-st-louis-rams-chargers/99701878/
To quote one particular line:
NFL expansion isn’t on the agenda, but the relocation game might not be over. Tampa Bay, New Orleans and Jacksonville are among those with relatively older stadiums and team leases expiring by 2030. If another NFL team is looking for a new $2 billion stadium — and if several non-NFL cities are interested in getting a team — Noll wryly predicts at least one city will bite at the NFL’s bait to offer public subsidies.
I do figure that, if there are whispers about Tampa -- a much larger market that Cincinnati, one that is growing well -- then I do not know how Midwestern cities with 1990s or early 2000s stadiums might be next in line. Chicago is too big to leave, Detroit and Indianapolis have nice and new domed stadiums (and the Vikings for that matter, remember when there were whispers they were going to Austin or San Antonio), Pittsburgh has too much of a following to leave, which leaves, well, somebody like Kansas City or Cincinnati next on the line.
It was not too long ago that the New Sombrero was one of the newer and nicer stadiums in the league, and it has hosted Super Bowls and just hosted the CFP national championship game. If that one is going to be "suspect" in the 2020s according to that article and the quoted academic, well, I figure Paul Brown Stadium and weaker demographics might be next.
Again, all just off-hand speculation, but kind of fun.
This pretty well sums it up. The NFL today is about the stadium and the TV revenue (as has already been pointed out in this thread). Any of these minor NFL teams can probably move around anywhere among the top 50 markets and not adversely affect TV viewership, so they will be looking for a city to give them a publicly-financed stadium that allows them to capitalize on luxury boxes, naming rights, etc. And they will probably find a city to do it.
The NFL has already sacrificed actual game attendance to TV by suspending the blackout rule a couple of years ago. As long as the new city can sell out the luxury boxes, it doesn't really matter if the entire stadium gets sold out.
