NFL: If Los Angeles gets a team, League would expand to 34 teams.

If LA gets team NFL goes to 34

Talk about streching thin.

Stupid, why do we need more teams. Take a team from a city that doesn't deserve it and put it in LA if you want it so badly. But LA already has a pro team...so why bother?

Stupid, why do we need more teams. Take a team from a city that doesn't deserve it and put it in LA if you want it so badly. But LA already has a pro team...so why bother?

Chutebox

He's back.

He's back.

sherman-tank1

Fact.

Stupid, why do we need more teams. Take a team from a city that doesn't deserve it and put it in LA if you want it so badly. But LA already has a pro team...so why bother?

Chutebox

[QUOTE="Chutebox"]

Stupid, why do we need more teams. Take a team from a city that doesn't deserve it and put it in LA if you want it so badly. But LA already has a pro team...so why bother?

DarkOfKnight

So who would get the other? England? Toronto?

And I think they'd be better off just relocating the Rams, Jags or even Bills.

So who would get the other? England?

JohnBean42

That's definitely on Goodells mind. He wants to get a SB there one day. Why not a franchise?

I think there is an outside possibility that the Vikings might be moving, why not LA? They are still looking at getting a new stadium and the state wont help pay for a new one. The owner would have to foot the bill by himself, so why not get a new stadium and new location while you're at it?

I worry about 2 extra teams joining the league. Will it not water down the talent pool greatly?

[QUOTE="JohnBean42"]

So who would get the other? England?

Namgis

Will it not water down the talent pool greatly?

I point out again that three different franchises have left LA (Chargers, Raiders and Rams). Why do they deserve a 4th chance?monkeytoes61

[QUOTE="DarkOfKnight"][QUOTE="Chutebox"]

Stupid, why do we need more teams. Take a team from a city that doesn't deserve it and put it in LA if you want it so badly. But LA already has a pro team...so why bother?

Chutebox

LA would probably get two teams an expanion team and either the Jags or the Rams, if it was the Rams St. Louis would probably be inline for another team in a few years. They probably would not expand into Toronto out of respect of the CFL which the NFL has already stripped of talent because of the salary disparity that was not there 30 years ago.

San Antonio team perhaps? Complete the triangle in Texas. (Houston, Dallas area)

LA would probably get two teams an expanion team and either the Jags or the Rams, if it was the Rams St. Louis would probably be inline for another team in a few years. They probably would not expand into Toronto out of respect of the CFL which the NFL has already stripped of talent because of the salary disparity that was not there 30 years ago.

BosoxJoe5

[QUOTE="DarkOfKnight"][QUOTE="Chutebox"]

Stupid, why do we need more teams. Take a team from a city that doesn't deserve it and put it in LA if you want it so badly. But LA already has a pro team...so why bother?

Chutebox

[QUOTE="Chutebox"][QUOTE="DarkOfKnight"]LA already has a team?!?!?!?!? When did this happen? LA doesn't have an NFL team, the Chargers are in San Diego not LA.GamerForca

Attendance for every team:

http://espn.go.com/nfl/attendance

So we'd have 17 teams in each league, which means some division is stuck with 5 teams, MATH FAIL.

Doing my part for the community.

So we'd have 17 teams in each league, which means some division is stuck with 5 teams, MATH FAIL.

CJL13

Why do we need more teams?:? There are at least three teams that want to move to L.A., just pick one and let's move on. Heck, there's an argument for contraction IMO. (hint: Jacksonville)

[QUOTE="Chutebox"][QUOTE="GamerForca"] lol they don't even come close to selling out unless they're going undefeated...GamerForca

You're going to need a link for those numbers. Those are some pretty outlandish claims you're making.

Attendance for every team:

http://espn.go.com/nfl/attendance

hanslacher54

[QUOTE="Chutebox"]

Stupid, why do we need more teams. Take a team from a city that doesn't deserve it and put it in LA if you want it so badly. But LA already has a pro team...so why bother?

Master_Live

You're going to need a link for those numbers. Those are some pretty outlandish claims you're making.

QuistisTrepe_

http://web1.ncaa.org/mfb/2010/Internet/attendance/FBS_AVGATTENDANCE.pdf

There, I don't know how the hell to link on here anymore, so that'll have to work. I was off on USC, I guess their numbers improved when conference play started. 85%. I remember seeing around 50% attendance on them for a while at the time. I was dead on with the other two.

Oh, and ok whatever to the other guy. Two states with pro sports teams have nothing else to do. Right. 85% is still laughable for a "pro team" playing in college football, but that city is not exactly known for supporting football, so I guess that looks like a great number. I guess they're lucky at how irrelevant UCLA is, otherwise it could be worse. And, if they were playing for nothing because of the bowl ban, then I suppose conference championships mean nothing (which USC was still eligible for in 2010) to LA football fans, which further proves my point.

San Antonio team perhaps? Complete the triangle in Texas. (Houston, Dallas area)

Major_Snake

Rather get a baseball team.

Pretty sure LA already had a team and they blew it. Messiahbolical-

They didn't blow it, no one cared. Al Davis went back to Oakland to chase more money while running off with the money from Irwindale. The Rams had awful management the drove the team into the ground and then fled to St.Louis chasing dollars and a new stadium.

So who would get the other? England? Toronto?

And I think they'd be better off just relocating the Rams, Jags or even Bills.

JohnBean42

Let LA have the Jets, they wont be missed. :D

The risk of giving LA a crappy team like the Jags or Rams is that the fans probably won't go to the games. Who would want to watch a team that went 2-14 this season? There would be no excitement in the city.sergemyster8

[QUOTE="sergemyster8"]The risk of giving LA a crappy team like the Jags or Rams is that the fans probably won't go to the games. Who would want to watch a team that went 2-14 this season? There would be no excitement in the city.Master_Live

Expansion teams just need time. Took em about a decade but the Texans are somewhat relevant now. lolol

[QUOTE="Master_Live"][QUOTE="sergemyster8"]The risk of giving LA a crappy team like the Jags or Rams is that the fans probably won't go to the games. Who would want to watch a team that went 2-14 this season? There would be no excitement in the city.Major_Snake

Expansion teams just need time. Took em about a decade but the Texans are somewhat relevant now. lolol

The Jags and Panthers became relevant (in the sense of success) in their 2nd year of existence. Jags made it to the AFC championship game that 2nd year, and were a largely successful team in the late 90s.

Either move a team to LA, or don't let LA have a team. DO NOT add 2 more teams, that's so stupid.

Move the Jaguars to LA. Then swap divisions with the Rams to better encourage geographic rivalries. The closest teams to the Rams are the Colts and Titans. Take advantage of that.

Honestly I think Goodell was just being PR-friendly with that statement. Admitting they'd actually consider moving a current team might alienate some of the fanbases in Jacksonville, Minnesota, Oakland, Buffalo, and St. Louis.

[QUOTE="CJL13"]

So we'd have 17 teams in each league, which means some division is stuck with 5 teams, MATH FAIL.

GodofBigMacs