If SA ever got their own team, most people would drop the Cowboys so fast if would make your head spin.

^^I agree. Once they went to one game they'd be sold.

I don't get it.

I do. It's just like in Austin where we don't have an NFL team so the Longhorns here are HUGE. My neighbor throws a barbecue party every time the Longhorns play a game. They have Longhorn decals on their burnt orange colored Chevy Silveraldo and they even have Longhorn decals on their mailbox and fly those little window mounted Longhorn flags on their truck the week before every UT game. The Horns are huge in Austin, probably more so than any NFL team. I suspect that since San Antonio doesn't have an NFL team, or any college football, that they adopted the Cowboys as their favorite pick.

Thanks Kevin. That's exactly my point. I think this also the reason why San Antonians get excited about UTSA possibly bringing college football.

That'll be big for the city and university once that happens. It might even save the Alamodome.

Would be nice if it were on campus, though, but the Alamodome makes perfect sense.

I'm glad you mentioned it. Having D1A and eventually D1 football at UTSA will be a terific boon for both the University and the city. It's a travesty that a city the size of San Antonio has had to wait this long for a big time college football program to emerge. But once it does, like the NFL it will be a huge hit.

Yep. And that's also why I doubt Austin will ever see an NFL team. The Horns here might as well be an NFL team. UT is so big here in Austin, atleast football-wise that we get our fill of football with UT. Now baseball and basket ball is a different story. The Frank Erwin Center which hosts UT basketball, only seats 16,000 and soccer seating at Mike A. Myers Stadium is around 20,000 and Disch-Falk Field which is for seats 6,649.

Has anyone seen the latest San Antonio Business Journal?


Alamo City may still have shot at landing Saints football team.

Here's some highlights from the article-

For one thing, the Saints are not yet locked into New Orleans for the long-term. In fact, Louisana Gov. Kathleen Blanco's office confirms that she is currently in talks with the New Olreans Saints in an attempt to covince the team to remain in the Cresent City beyond 2010.

Red McCombs says there is reason to be optimistic. McCombs says he is not certain that the Saints are currently "in play," but he does say there is enough reason for local leaders(S.A.) to keep their eye on the ball.

Has the window shut on the opportunity to bring the Saints back to San Antonio?
"No," McCombs says, explaining that are still plenty of uncertainties about the New Orleans region roughly a year and a half after Katrina slammed into the Gulf South.

"Im involved in businesses that have strong relationships in New Orleans," Mccombs says. "New Olreans still has some serious, serious issues that are life and death in a lot of ways.

Blanco's office reports that the Saints can opt out of their current Superdome deal as soon as March 31 of this year. To do so, the team would have to pay a hefty early-exit penalty.

Asked about the situation, Saints spokesman Greg Bensel, will only say: "We have no comment. We will...comment when we have something to report.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------

That comment doesn't sound to convincing that the Saints will remain in New Orleans.

Good luck San Antonio, you will need it against Los Angeles. I doubt the Saints move to SA over staying in New Orleans.

Sorry, but if the Saints leave New Orleans, they'll be headed to Los Angeles, not San Antonio.

And about the comment from the Saints spokesman, what was he supposed to say? He can't say "No, no, no! We are here to stay forever!" because the city still is facing problems, and because the NFL is a business, you can simply never say that. So his comment doesn't mean much of anything to me apart from what it said, they had no comment, because there was nothing new to comment on.

As for the Saints season here last year, the city of New Orleans and its citizens stepped up and did everything it could've done to ensure the Saints that the city could keep them. A completely renovated Superdome that is now as good as it was 25 years ago, the season sold out completely on season ticket sales, and every single suite in the Dome except for two or three bought up by local businesses. Basically everything the city wasn't supposed to be able to do, happened, and the NFL was extremely pleased. And the good news, this coming season looks even more profitable for the team than last year.

But again, if the Saints leave in 3 years, it would be disappointing, but not too suprising. And if they do leave, they'll be in Los Angeles before they even leave New Orleans.

While, I agree that NORMALLY SA wouldn't have a snowballs chance against Los Angeles, this situation is unique. IF the saints were to ever leave N.O., I believe it would be SA, for the simple fact that Benson owns the team. Unless the NFL forced Benson to move to LA. But I see how they could force an owner to move somewhere they don't want to be - never happed before, and he owns the franchise, not the NFL. Benson is from SA as is Rita Benson, he owns business around SA, and SA is his adopted home town. He has no ties to LA - he would not move it there on his own accord. If he has a choice on where he moves his team it will be SA. I say this with the caveat that the NFL could do some severe arm twisting like they did to get him to move back to N.O. I personally think there is still a good chance they will stay permanently in N.O., but if Benson does move the team it will be to SA, unless the team is sold to someone else, imo.

^A very good arguement to what I was thinking. But I just cannot see the NFL passing on Los Angeles again if the spot finally opens up. The NFL is more than desperate to put a team there, and when a spot finally opens up, whether it's the Vikings, Bills, Jaguars, Saints, or any other team on the hotseat in their city, I think the NFL will jump at it faster than you imagine. I realize Tom Benson has lots of ties to San Antonio, but he's a businessman, and at his core he just wants to make money, just like the NFL. For example, right after Katrina, Benson wanted to get out of New Orleans more than anyone could imagine. But now that the Saints are hitting it big here, and he along with the franchise is making tons of money, he absolutely LOVES it here again. So even if he wants to go to S.A., I think his longing for the $$$ and the NFL's arm twisting, like you said, will be the deciding factor in him going to Los Angeles.

Of course, I could be wrong, but I just don't think the NFL will let a team move anywhere but Los Angeles until they have a team there. And of course, the Saints do still have a very good chance of staying here much longer than 3 years. Word around town is that the talks between the team and the state are going quite well, and that the Saints are closer than they've been in many, many years to signing a long term contract.

We shall see!

Benson has way too many ties in S.A. to leave "his team" in New Orleans. In fact, I believe Benson just recently launched in new bank in S.A.

The NFL won't be able to stop Benson from moving the Saints to S.A. if he so choses. Two good examples of this is the Rams and the Raiders leaving L.A.

Well, if the owners approve of it. If the owners want more revenue, they will want a team in Los Angeles, an area of 20 million.

Yeah, well the same could be said about many other teams seeking more revenue.

That's all great, but the main goal of any businessman is to make money, and as long as Benson continues to haul in the kind of cash he is in New Orleans right now, he'll be more than happy here. That's all I'm saying about him staying here.

But like I said earlier, we shall see. I just think some people in San Antonio are thinking too much of the "local ties" and too little on the money to be made in an area of nearly 20 million that can offer an owner just about anything he wants.

If that's the case, why is it that the Rams and the Raiders both left the L.A. market? That's right..not one but two NFL teams left the L.A. market. Stop preaching about how much money could be made if the Saints left to L.A. because it's not going to happen.

The Raiders are in the Bay Area, a place of almost 10 million people. They do share a market with Los Angeles, but there are still a lot of Raider fans in the LA area.

For the Rams, the LA Coliseum did not have box seats. How are you going to get more money without box seats?

The Raiders were originally from Oakland,then moved to Los Angeles. The Raiders were sharing revenue with the USC Trojans, and they still had no luxury boxes. Al Davis wanted some.

Sorry, but anything is possible in the NFL, and saying that there is no way the Saints will go to L.A. if they leave New Orleans is pretty silly, IMO. If the NFL wants the Saints there, the Saints will be there, believe that. And as long as a metro of 20 million is just sitting out there without a team, a metro of 1.8 million like San Antonio will get looked over every time. And that's pretty much the way everyone outside of San Antonio seems to feel about the Saints situation. Not to mention the stadium situation, which is no problem for Los Angeles considering the NFL will practically build it themselves, all to get a team out there.

But again, who knows. If the Saints leave, it won't be for another 3 years, and lots can change in that time.

Not to nitpick your numbers, but LA has 12 million, not 20 million, according to Wikipedia and the US census bureau. Still a huge market though. SA has 2 million (1.9 mil as of 2 years ago - last estimate), with 3.5 mil in a 80 mile radius (including Austin).

I agree with most of what you said though. The Saints appear to have at least a better than 50/50 chance of staying in NO, imo. SA's best chance may be if/when the NFL expands by 2 teams to put a team in LA, if another team doesn't move to LA. They should have put a team in football mad San Antonio back in the 90s instead of a rinky dink market like Jacksonville. But I don't think SA had their stuff together at that time. Plus, SA has grown by leaps and bounds since then. SA does have a bigger population base than the likes of Jax and Nashville.

Los Angeles is out of the picture
 

You hit the nail right on the head SAguy. If the league were so concerned with having a team(s) in Los Angeles because of the size and richness of the market there then Tagliabue and the owners never would have allowed the Rams or the Raiders to move in the first place. Also remember that Al Davis moved his team back to Oakland because Los Angeles would not build him another stadium. Forced to play in the ratty old LA Coliseum he chose to relocate instead. And after 15 years not a thing has changed. Still no new stadium. Ditto with Georgia Frontiere and the Rams. So I would say that if Benson opts to pay the $61 million penalty and opt out of the current contract he has with Louisiana and leave New Orleans, he will relocate the team to San Antonio not Los Angeles. The main reason being that San Antonio and its leaders are more amenable to building a new stadium or refurbishing the Alamodome than is Los Angeles.

LA is having a lot of trouble getting any stadium plan off the ground. The fact that the NFL has to come in and help a city with 12 million+ is ridiculous. Fact is, people in LA arn't begging for a team and most really don't care. They consider USC as their pro team. I know that Benson is a businessman, but I just can't see him wanting to move to the West Coast. Tagliabue is out as Commish, and Goodell is SA friendly. My money would be on SA but I can understand why others feel like LA should get the team. Benson wants to go "home" and celebrate on his ranch here in TX after games. Or maybe he would love to stay in his private suite in a brand new stadium they city of San Antonio built him without the help of the league. Hell I wouldn't leave.

Use an 80 mile radius around LA, you have 20 million. The NFL won't expand by two teams, especially after their setup now.

The people of LA could really care less, but a lot has changed in 15 years. The NFL wants a team in LA because of the money to be made there. I have my money on LA over SA.

I've read a lot of good responses in regards to this issue but one thing strikes me concerning why some think LA is the "default" winner over any Saints move just b/c they don't have a team now once again. That wasn't much of an issue in recent years with expansion and relocation teams. For instance, don't you think that if the NFL really wanted a team in LA, that it would be there by now instead of Houston? Houston beat out LA for their second chance at the NFL and IMHO, no matter what the financing package Houston offered, LA is still a 22 million+ metro vs Houston at 5.5 million. If it was that important to the powers-that-be in the NFL, then you can bet that LA, even without a stadium and its financing problems, would have got the nod over Houston. They would have moved heaven and earth to nail down a financing package and a "band-aid" quick-fix stadium to play in LA until they could get a new one built, IMHO. That obviously didn't happen, however, because LA is notorious for its apathy in the NFL department and it continues that way without a stadium still. As someone mentioned earlier LA's "teams" are USC and UCLA...similar to those in Austin who say that they don't need the NFL b/c they have the Longhorns.

I don't think the Saints will leave New Orleans, but if they did, I don't see the NFL forcing team owner Benson to move them to LA. And team owners wouldn't force his hand either...can you imagine the bad precedent that would set up for themselves if other team owners forced another owner to move his/her team to someplace they may not want to? Next they'll be forcing team owners in smaller metros like Jacksonville or Nashville to move to larger metros like Portland or Las Vegas, (insert your favorite metro here) etc etc simply b/c they think there's more money to be made there and they're gonna decide instead of the owner of the team, or because they think it's "better" because it's larger, etc. I just don't see that happening or that being relevant at all.

Just my .02

Houston and Bob McNair came out with a billion dollar stadium proposal that was better than the LA Coliseum (Reliant Stadium).

Excellent point.

Wrong. LA is a huge metro area by land area. The counties in SoCal are huge (much bigger than TX). The LA official metro area goes out over a hundred miles.

It is still 20 million. That 12 million you gave out does not include Riverside-San Bernardino. That area alone can support its own NFL team (according to a news report published a while back). The whole Los Angeles area (income and population wise) can support seven.

You are also exaggerating a bit on the hundreds of miles. The counties may be large, but the LA area does not skip over land (unless a mountain range is in the way), like SA does (and really any southern city).

^^OK, I won't argue that point, I'll admit LA is absolutely huge, and can support more than one team obviously. I just get upset to those who say SA CAN'T do it, when I know that is not true.

San Antonio can definitely do it (especially with support from the Austin metro), but Los Angeles can really do it.

Los Angeles has had its chances
 

If Los Angeles can "really" do it why did two franchises vacate that city for other locations in your opinion?

We have been back and forth on this. Just read pages six-seven. :rolleyes:

Old stadium. That, however, isn't a problem for L.A. because the NFL will simply build one themselves in order to get a team there. It's pitiful for that to have to happen in a metro that rich and that large, but it looks like that will be the case. The City of Los Angeles doesn't really care about having an NFL team, the people of Los Angeles don't really care about having an NFL team, it's the NFL that wants Los Angeles to have a team. That's proven by the fact that the NFL is willing to pretty much compeltely fund a new state of the art stadium themselves. Again, it's sad, but it's the truth.

Los Angeles lacks enthusiasm for the NFL
 

I've read pages six and seven and you're still off the mark on Los Angeles. You and others who think that LA is the default relocation spot for the Saints should they move seem to be unaware that the Los Anegeles citizenry is almost if not totally apathetic when it comes to NFL football. The question I posed was a rhetorical one more than anything else. Of course LA is a huge market. Would they support yet another team in their midst? Probably so, if only marginally. But that doesn't take away from the fact that they have not built any new stadiums in decades and have no group ready to finance a team should one choose to relocate there. San Antonio has all of the above and except for being only a fraction of the size of LA has everything else necessary to succeed as an NFL city. :)

How old is the Alamodome, and when was it last renovated? Looks like when SA built a new stadium, the NFL turned away, still.

The Alamodome is a spry teenager at 14 years old.
It has been consistently kept up, but I don't think I'd say it has been renovated. Little improvements are made from time to time to keep it as current as possible (video boards, paint).

Honestly, it's like having a well kept up 1993 Toyota Corolla. With tune-ups, paint jobs, replacement parts, etc. the car can be kept running and quite useful. But put up against a 2007 Corolla, it would look like a piece of junk no matter how well it was kept up.

The average NFL stadium lasts about 30 years, so the Alamodome has reached it's half-life. Texas Stadium, Astrodome, Silverdome, Giants Stadium, Veterans Stadium, and on and on... All of these were once state of the art and are now relics, either replaced are being replaced.

The NFL rejected (rightly) SA in '94 because we weren't an NFL city. We resembled Austin of today - vibrant and dynamic, but not quite to NFL standards. Certainly there were some politics involved as well.

Alamodome information
 

The Alamodome was completed in 1993. Various renovations have been done including the adding of some 13 luxury boxes to the original 39 and a new paint job begun last year. The Alamodome is a beautiful structure that should be the home of an NFL team. Imo this will happen within five years. Maybe sooner if Benson opts out of the current contract he has with Louisiana.

Alamodome information
 

I'm a real believer when it comes to NFL in San Antonio. Passed over numerous times in the past decades San Antonio has now what it takes to be a viable NFL city. More than what is necessary actually. The key is convincing the league and other owners what we already know to be true down here.

I agree. The Alamodome gets knocked by those in other cities who have never set foot in it. It is actually a VERY nice facility, but just lacks the luxury boxes NFL teams are looking for. Other than that, it is a very nice stadium, and not a thing wrong with it. Although certainly not on par with stadiums being built now like Jerry Jones' 1 billion dollar stadium. I think it cost about 186M back in 93 when built, whatever that equates to in today's standards.

There is no way the Alamodome cost 186k in 1993. :koko:

I believe he meant $186 million. I've seen that price listed before at Wikipedia.

Yes, sorry. 186 MILLION not thousand.