Posted Feb 26, 2007, 10:43 PM
|
 |
Registered User
|
|
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: San Antonio
Posts: 372
|
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by Corinth940
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
|
Excellent point.
|