The issue with San Antonio is the lack of disposable income, despite the metro area being larger than a few current multi-sports markets. The majority who have any are supporting the Spurs. It's better than it was, say, around the time the Alamodome was built and there's almost twice as many people in the region now and more money to go around as well.

That's why I hope it can happen.

(07-31-2014 04:23 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(07-31-2014 02:32 PM)BullsFanInTX Wrote:  

(07-31-2014 02:27 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(07-31-2014 02:24 PM)BullsFanInTX Wrote:  

(07-31-2014 01:08 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  San Antonio is not a big enough market. I know it has a huge city population but once you get outside the limits it is nothing but tumbleweeds for hundreds of miles in all directions, save for Austin some 60 miles away and to the extent that Austin cares about the NFL, it's already divided up into Cowboys and Texans fans.

I just don't think SA has the suburban population to carry a franchise, especially one as ineptly run as the Raiders.

I see you are not from South Texas so have no idea. Not only do you have a 2 million metro a stone's throw away (Austin), you also have the RGV (Rio Grande Valley for those of you not from TX), an explosive growth area in south TX with over 1.3 million residents and growing rapidly. You also have Corpus Christi and Laredo, which have several hundred thousand each. All of these areas would naturally gravitate towards SA. Austin would be split among all the Texas teams.

If San Antonio is such a banging area for pro sports, why does it only have the Spurs?
I don't think I'm alone in doubting whether there is enough suburban areas to pay for an NFL team. As for Austin, I think they are spoken for, NFL-wise. Good luck prying fans away from the Cowboys and Texans.

Very simple answer, Quo. Because when they were handing out franchises when most of these leagues started 50-100 years ago, San Antonio WAS a tumbleweed city, and therefore wasn't going to get teams. Since then, it has grown much faster than the rest of the US. MUCH faster than all of the rust belt cities, but they had teams 50 years ago and they are not going to take them away now. Plus you have most leages not looking at moving franchises around...it's hard to get one. If you could somehow take away all cities franchises and re-distribute them all over again...chances are SA would have more than one team, while other northern cities like Buffalo, Milwaukee, and other similar sized cities would have less.

I understand why SA wasn't awarded franchises 50-100 years ago. But plenty of franchises have been handed out since the 1970s or else teams have moved, e.g. Tampa, Charlotte, Jacksonville, Nashville, Seattle, Indianapolis, Baltimore, Phoenix and the Raiders moved back to Oakland in the mid-90s.

San Antonio is a dynamic city, and a beautiful one, but the market may be a bit isolated to be really attractive to an NFL franchise. That was also a sensation that i got the three or so times I've visited SA - it feels like you are on an island of civilization in the middle of a vast Texas desert out of a John Wayne movie. It doesn't have the sprawling metroplex feel of Dallas or Houston.

I remember after Hurricane Katrina, the Saints played a few games in San Antonio and Benson seemed to be testing the waters for a possible move, but nothing came of it.

Not that many franchises have moved or been awarded in the past 20-30 years (relatively speaking) while SA was booming. Most leagues strongly discourage movement. A few have, but they had another city in mind. The thing is, though, a LOT of teams have investigated moving to SA...but what usually happens is that their home city ends up caving and building them a new stadium. About 4-5 NFL teams have looked into SA. The Marlins were fairly close to moving to SA, before Miami built them a new stadium. And Tom Benson wasn't just testing the waters, reports were he WAS moving the Saints to SA, before Tagliabue stepped in and convinced him to keep Saints in NO. Read the reports. The Saints were as good as in SA until Tagliabue brokered a deal for them to stay in NO.

Now, your greater point about the SA suburbs being small...partially true. But if you know the area like I do, then you know ALL of south Texas (to include the RGV, CC, Laredo) is being thrown into the mix as part of SA's market. And it really is SA's market. South Texas thinks of SA as their big city. ANd this doesn't even include Austin, which by itself, is the largest city in the US without a pro franchise. Now whether this will fly with the NFL remains to be seen.

(07-31-2014 04:07 PM)adcorbett Wrote:  

(07-31-2014 02:32 PM)BullsFanInTX Wrote:  Very simple answer, Quo. Because when they were handing out franchises when most of these leagues started 50-100 years ago, San Antonio WAS a tumbleweed city, and therefore wasn't going to get teams. Since then, it has grown much faster than the rest of the US. MUCH faster than all of the rust belt cities, but they had teams 50 years ago and they are not going to take them away now.

There were no non-California teams west of St. Louis or south of Atlanta until the 1970's in any sport. Granted that was almost 50 years ago as you say, but the 1970's is not as long ago as you make it sound. Plus when the Oilers moved in the 90's, or the Rams and Browns, when the Panthers and Jaguars were given teams, San Antonio was not a Tumbleweed City. I am not talking smack or anything, just pointing out that your depiction of why there are not teams other than the Spurs doesn't really match the reality of the marketplace.

Now baseball would be absolutely out of the question, as it requires the largest population of the three sports to work, but two write it off as San Antonio had a late boom leaves out part of the story.

In your argument, in the 70's, San Antonio wasn't ready for the NFL or MLB, and barely the Spurs. It's only the past 30 years or so in which SA has really blown up to be able to support teams, and since say 1990 not that many teams have either moved or been added in the NFL or MLB (SA was never getting an NHL team). SA should have received a team ahead of Jacksonville though. There's no contest there. SA is a much better market than Jax. The others like Charlotte and Nashville are relatively similar in size to SA (although I think SA's metro pop is bigger than both), and both of those cities have 2 teams.

It was just a move meant to leverage other discussions, which is why it went public immediately.

Personally I wish the Rams would go back to LA and then St. Louis could get an expansion team and join the NFC North. Having a St. Louis team in our NFC West division makes no sense.

Perhaps the Raiders would rather be the ones to get down to LA and so they are trying to jump the gun to pressure the NFL to bring the Raiders down there as the NFL has already said, I do believe, that they will be funding the efforts to get an L.A. team again.

(08-01-2014 08:29 AM)He1nousOne Wrote:  It was just a move meant to leverage other discussions, which is why it went public immediately.

Personally I wish the Rams would go back to LA and then St. Louis could get an expansion team and join the NFC North. Having a St. Louis team in our NFC West division makes no sense.

Perhaps the Raiders would rather be the ones to get down to LA and so they are trying to jump the gun to pressure the NFL to bring the Raiders down there as the NFL has already said, I do believe, that they will be funding the efforts to get an L.A. team again.

I could see the NFL agreeing to moving the Raiders to LA, if Davis agrees to sell the team.

As for a St louis expansion team in the NFC north, does that mean we are going to 5-team divisions when expansion comes? Does that mean 18-game seasons?

Except for the Cowboys though (who are in the NFC East because of tradition alone) the Rams are tied for the fourth farthest west team in the NFC (The Saints are also on the Mississippi River but more southern), so it actually makes sense.

(08-01-2014 10:40 AM)_C2_ Wrote:  Except for the Cowboys though (who are in the NFC East because of tradition alone) the Rams are tied for the fourth farthest west team in the NFC (The Saints are also on the Mississippi River but more southern), so it actually makes sense.

Let's see if I had to guess without looking it up. West to east would be

1. Seattle
2. San Fran
3. Arizona
4. Dallas
5. Minnesota
6. St. Louis
7. New orleans
8. Green Bay
9. Chicago
10. Detroit
11. Atlanta
12. Tamps
13. Carolina
14. Wash DC
15. Philly
16. New York

AFC
1. Oakland
2. San Diego
3. Denver
4. KC
5. Houston
6. Indy
7. Tenn
8. Cleveland
9. Cincy
10. Pitt
11. Jacksonville
12. Miami
13. Buffalo
14. Baltimore
15. New york
16. New england

(07-31-2014 04:07 PM)adcorbett Wrote:  

(07-31-2014 02:32 PM)BullsFanInTX Wrote:  Very simple answer, Quo. Because when they were handing out franchises when most of these leagues started 50-100 years ago, San Antonio WAS a tumbleweed city, and therefore wasn't going to get teams. Since then, it has grown much faster than the rest of the US. MUCH faster than all of the rust belt cities, but they had teams 50 years ago and they are not going to take them away now.

There were no non-California teams west of St. Louis or south of Atlanta until the 1970's in any sport.

Kansas City had pro teams since 1955. Texas had teams since 1960.

(08-01-2014 10:57 AM)goofus Wrote:  

(08-01-2014 10:40 AM)_C2_ Wrote:  Except for the Cowboys though (who are in the NFC East because of tradition alone) the Rams are tied for the fourth farthest west team in the NFC (The Saints are also on the Mississippi River but more southern), so it actually makes sense.

Let's see if I had to guess without looking it up. West to east would be

1. Seattle
2. San Fran
3. Arizona
4. Dallas
5. Minnesota
6. St. Louis
7. New orleans
8. Green Bay
9. Chicago
10. Detroit
11. Atlanta
12. Tamps
13. Carolina
14. Wash DC
15. Philly
16. New York

AFC
1. Oakland
2. San Diego
3. Denver
4. KC
5. Houston
6. Indy
7. Tenn
8. Cleveland
9. Cincy
10. Pitt
11. Jacksonville
12. Miami
13. Buffalo
14. Baltimore
15. New york
16. New england

Houston is actually farther west than Kansas City is.

American football is traditionally a north/northeastern/cold-weather sport. At one time folk said "it's too hot and humid in Washington, D.C."

Ok I decided to look it up

http://www.footballgeography.com/nfl-tea...y-stadium/

NFL teams west to east

1. Edit: Seattle is now the farthest west
2. Edit: Oakland is now #2
3. Edit: San Fran is now #3 (new stadium in Santa Clara is east of Oakland)
(3.5). Los Angeles
4. San Diego
5. Arizona
6. Denver
(6.5) San Antonio
7. Dallas
8. Houston
9. KC
10. Minny
11. St. Louis
12. New orleans
13. Green Bay
14. Chicago
15. Tenn
16. Indy
17. Cincy
18. Atlanta
19. Detroit
20. Tampa
21. Cleveland
22. Jacksonville
23. Carolina
24. Miami
25. Pitt
26. Buffalo
27. Wash DC
28. Baltimore
29. Philly
30. New York
31. New York
32. New England
(32.5) London

(07-31-2014 01:08 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(07-30-2014 09:07 PM)hawghiggs Wrote:  The Raiders need to move to San Antonio. Just like the Bills need to be moved to Toronto.

San Antonio is not a big enough market. I know it has a huge city population but once you get outside the limits it is nothing but tumbleweeds for hundreds of miles in all directions, save for Austin some 60 miles away and to the extent that Austin cares about the NFL, it's already divided up into Cowboys and Texans fans.

I just don't think SA has the suburban population to carry a franchise, especially one as ineptly run as the Raiders.

you don't know central Texas all that well.....the whole I-35 corridor is growing together

you also have Corpus and you could pull fans from the Valley

nothing but tumbleweed? try Lubbock

Davis should move them to San Antonio! Specifically the north side to allow fans from Austin to come down

Raiders---> San Antonio (and moved to the AFC South)
Jaguars--> LA (moved to the AFC West

and you know they're trying to get someone in London....

(08-01-2014 12:02 PM)goofus Wrote:  Ok I decided to look it up

http://www.footballgeography.com/nfl-tea...y-stadium/

NFL teams west to east

1. San Fran
2. Seattle
3. Oakland
(3.5). Los Angeles
4. San Diego

The new 49ers stadium is east of the Oakland Coliseum.

So the W-to-E order is Seattle, Oakland, Santa Clara, San Diego.

(08-01-2014 11:41 AM)PlayBall! Wrote:  American football is traditionally a north/northeastern/cold-weather sport. At one time folk said "it's too hot and humid in Washington, D.C."

ok....

That's why college football is huge in the south? in Florida and in Texas??

http://www.mysanantonio.com/sports/pro-s...660283.php

San Antonio-based NFL franchise could draw support from Mexico

SAN ANTONIO — There's a growing interest in South Texas and Mexico for a San Antonio-based NFL team, international experts say, and the possibility of an Oakland Raiders relocation here has fans on edge.

“We really recommend this for the city of San Antonio and to grow the tourism,” said Eduardo Bravo, chairman of the Association of Mexican Entrepreneurs, a San Antonio-based networking group with 22 chapters throughout the U.S. and Mexico.

Bravo said San Antonio landing an NFL franchise would be “a great opportunity for the Mexicans to come and to watch American football. Remember, the Mexican people — they are not just coming for shopping — they are coming to look at other attractions.”

-----

Davis, who's unhappy with Oakland and its stadium, told San Antonio leaders that his team has tremendous support from the Hispanic community.

And the NFL is actively marketing its brand in Mexico with past preseason exhibition games.

San Antonio presents a natural bridge to the market, some say.
-----

The late McHenry Tichenor, who grew a Hispanic media company to more than 60 radio stations before it was acquired by Univision Communications for more than $3 billion in 2003, a decade ago pitched the Rio Grande Valley as a the perfect place for an NFL franchise that could draw from a region stretching from Monterrey, Mexico, to San Antonio.

“At the time, he didn't even have a team, he was just interested in expanding into the market,” said Mari Woodlief of Ally Media, the Dallas-based firm that worked with Tichenor on the pitch.

While Tichenor's plan was for the Rio Grande Valley, San Antonio isn't that far off when one takes a 300-mile radius and considers the market, Woodlief said.

“You're reaching Mexicans in Monterrey and that really feeds into the concept of how you fill luxury suites,” she said.

-----
Perez said he's hopeful the conversations will develop into more serious talks and predicted San Antonio would hear something in the next 60 to 90 days. He said he left that weekend with Davis feeling good about the future.

“It was the first date, and I thought it was a good, strong first date,” he said. “And we (including Davis) left that room thinking we'd like to have future dates.”

(07-30-2014 10:35 PM)Maize Wrote:  

(07-30-2014 10:17 PM)hawghiggs Wrote:  The Bills in Toronto allows them to become Canada's team. That would be a huge win for the Bill's franchise and the NFL.

The Raiders aren't leaving California IMO...at the end of the day Mark Davis will get what he wants somewhere in the Bay Area...

ya.....and the Big 10 will never expand....they are good at 11

Louisville will never be in the ACC.....

There will never be a college football playoff.....

yada yada yada....

I don't know how a London based team could possibly work unless an entire European division is created around it?

With just a team in London that would require a RIDICULOUS amount of travel for that team - not to mention the other teams in its division. That just doesn't work. However, if you were to put an entire division in Europe, that would mean that 11 of their 16 games would be played on the other side of the Atlantic - which is obviously much more tenable. You can keep the teams in the US for a few consecutive weeks and/or wrap them around bye weeks. I really think that's the only way this whole deal works.

I remember once reading that before it finally bit the dust, something like eight out of the 12 NFL Europe teams were based in Germany. It was a crazy number like that. Basically, the feedback was that Germans really liked the precise nature of the football field as well as its simulation of war. I am not joking about that - that was what the article said. Also, they liked the coordinated movement of the offensive line. Where many other Europeans see chaos, the Germans see orchestration and they appreciate the nature of it.

It was an amazing article and shed a ton of light on NFL Europe and how it may one day lead to NFL teams in Europe. With that in mind, my thought would be to put perhaps two teams in England and another two teams in Germany. My guesses would be London, Manchester, Berlin and Munich. I really thing that would work out very well. I would also be open to putting a team in say, Paris as well (instead of a second British team).

To me that would mean expansion franchises and that would obviously severely dilute the talent pool which in turn would typically mean lesser football quality. Then again, the NFL wouldn't care as that would give East Coast fans at least early morning football each Sunday and a LOT more money. It is not at all difficult to imagine each NFL Sunday beginning at 10 AM EST with the Berlin at London game and running through midnight with San Diego at Cincinnati.

In fact, if the talent pool would support it, I could easily see the NFL eventually expanding even further into Asia and/or Northern Africa or even just to the largest North American cities outside the US like Toronto, Mexico City, Vancouver, etc.

(07-31-2014 02:24 PM)BullsFanInTX Wrote:  

(07-31-2014 01:08 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(07-30-2014 09:07 PM)hawghiggs Wrote:  The Raiders need to move to San Antonio. Just like the Bills need to be moved to Toronto.

San Antonio is not a big enough market. I know it has a huge city population but once you get outside the limits it is nothing but tumbleweeds for hundreds of miles in all directions, save for Austin some 60 miles away and to the extent that Austin cares about the NFL, it's already divided up into Cowboys and Texans fans.

I just don't think SA has the suburban population to carry a franchise, especially one as ineptly run as the Raiders.

I see you are not from South Texas so have no idea. Not only do you have a 2 million metro a stone's throw away (Austin), you also have the RGV (Rio Grande Valley for those of you not from TX), an explosive growth area in south TX with over 1.3 million residents and growing rapidly. You also have Corpus Christi and Laredo, which have several hundred thousand each. All of these areas would naturally gravitate towards SA. Austin would be split among all the Texas teams.

This is spot on.....

I lived in San Marcos for several years, and lived in McAllen for a year. The Valley is growing big time....all of Texas is growing really. The economy in Texas has flourished tremendously.

I think the problem is that outside people look at San Antonio in a microcosm, and not the surrounding region. The REGION could definitely support an NFL team

(07-31-2014 04:23 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(07-31-2014 02:32 PM)BullsFanInTX Wrote:  

(07-31-2014 02:27 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(07-31-2014 02:24 PM)BullsFanInTX Wrote:  

(07-31-2014 01:08 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  San Antonio is not a big enough market. I know it has a huge city population but once you get outside the limits it is nothing but tumbleweeds for hundreds of miles in all directions, save for Austin some 60 miles away and to the extent that Austin cares about the NFL, it's already divided up into Cowboys and Texans fans.

I just don't think SA has the suburban population to carry a franchise, especially one as ineptly run as the Raiders.

I see you are not from South Texas so have no idea. Not only do you have a 2 million metro a stone's throw away (Austin), you also have the RGV (Rio Grande Valley for those of you not from TX), an explosive growth area in south TX with over 1.3 million residents and growing rapidly. You also have Corpus Christi and Laredo, which have several hundred thousand each. All of these areas would naturally gravitate towards SA. Austin would be split among all the Texas teams.

If San Antonio is such a banging area for pro sports, why does it only have the Spurs?
I don't think I'm alone in doubting whether there is enough suburban areas to pay for an NFL team. As for Austin, I think they are spoken for, NFL-wise. Good luck prying fans away from the Cowboys and Texans.

Very simple answer, Quo. Because when they were handing out franchises when most of these leagues started 50-100 years ago, San Antonio WAS a tumbleweed city, and therefore wasn't going to get teams. Since then, it has grown much faster than the rest of the US. MUCH faster than all of the rust belt cities, but they had teams 50 years ago and they are not going to take them away now. Plus you have most leages not looking at moving franchises around...it's hard to get one. If you could somehow take away all cities franchises and re-distribute them all over again...chances are SA would have more than one team, while other northern cities like Buffalo, Milwaukee, and other similar sized cities would have less.

I understand why SA wasn't awarded franchises 50-100 years ago. But plenty of franchises have been handed out since the 1970s or else teams have moved, e.g. Tampa, Charlotte, Jacksonville, Nashville, Seattle, Indianapolis, Baltimore, Phoenix and the Raiders moved back to Oakland in the mid-90s.

San Antonio is a dynamic city, and a beautiful one, but the market may be a bit isolated to be really attractive to an NFL franchise. That was also a sensation that i got the three or so times I've visited SA - it feels like you are on an island of civilization in the middle of a vast Texas desert out of a John Wayne movie. It doesn't have the sprawling metroplex feel of Dallas or Houston.

I remember after Hurricane Katrina, the Saints played a few games in San Antonio and Benson seemed to be testing the waters for a possible move, but nothing came of it.

sorry man, you have no idea what you're talking about

As for the Saints to SA? that would have been a horribly ugly move...on the heels of a tragedy, you're going to tell the City of New Orleans that you're moving the football team? lol