Sports in Austin - Page 9

The ATX · #**161** Posted **Jan 16, 2016, 1:47 AM**

The bottom line is that the Raiders will do everything possible to stay in California, and the NFL owners would like to see that as well.
But the fact that Red McCombs is involved and has talked to Mark Davis makes this more interesting.

Jdawgboy · #**162** Posted **Jan 17, 2016, 10:13 PM**

And while it's interesting to follow the gossip and hype, it really doesn't directly affect Austin or sports in Austin unless by an unlikely chance a stadium is built in or on the edge of our market, provided anything happens to begin with. They'll undoubtedly draw fans from Austin but it wouldn't be any different than what the Spurs do.

The ATX · #**163** Posted **Jan 18, 2016, 4:49 AM**

In one of the many recent articles/blog posts about this, the owner of the chargers was quoted as saying he would decide within a month on whether they would move to LA or stay in San Diego. If they they stay, this discussion is over as the Raiders will announce their move to LA a few seconds later. If the Chargers move to LA this discussion will heat up significantly.

drummer · #**164** Posted **Jan 18, 2016, 6:39 AM**

^ Agreed. Interesting time in the NFL.

paul78701 · #**165** Posted **Jan 24, 2016, 3:50 PM**

Rumors of the Raiders ending up in SD:
http://www.cbssports.com/nfl/eye-on-football/25460384/report-raiders-move-to-san-diego-very-viable

Novacek · #**166** Posted **Jan 24, 2016, 5:16 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by paul78701

Rumors of the Raiders ending up in SD:
http://www.cbssports.com/nfl/eye-on-football/25460384/report-raiders-move-to-san-diego-very-viable

Why?

This assumes SD moves, because they didn't get a brand new stadium. The Raiders would only move there if they got a brand new stadium out of SD.

paul78701 · #**167** Posted **Jan 24, 2016, 5:27 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Novacek

Why?

This assumes SD moves, because they didn't get a brand new stadium. The Raiders would only move there if they got a brand new stadium out of SD.

Yea, I question this too. The city of San Diego, to this point, has been quite adverse to spending any public funds on a new stadium. The article doesn't give much substance to back up the rumor. But who really knows what could be going on behind the scenes.

The ATX · #**168** Posted **Jan 25, 2016, 12:13 AM**

It looks like the Raiders will try to play in Oakland for another year. That makes sense because I don't think think a move to anywhere can be worked out in time for the 2016 season.

http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2016/01/23/raiders-oakland-to-work-on-a-lease-for-2016/

ILUVSAT · #**169** Posted **Jan 25, 2016, 1:21 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by The ATX

It looks like the Raiders will try to play in Oakland for another year. That makes sense because I don't think think a move to anywhere can be worked out in time for the 2016 season.

http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2016/01/23/raiders-oakland-to-work-on-a-lease-for-2016/

Look...Florio is a complete idiot! Based on the recent general meeting of NFL owners, no other team has permission to move other than the Rams.

There will be no team in San Antonio! That's it. Final (at least for the coming decade).

The NFL (and its owners) know there is not enough money in San Antonio (TV revenue), alone, to support a team in SA (let alone the lack of disposable income). Furthermore, the NFL is not dumb enough to allow a new franchise in the unproven Austin-San Antonio market. Mexico City, London and Toronto are FAR more intising to the owners than Austin-San Antonio.

paul78701 · #**170** Posted **Jan 25, 2016, 1:55 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by ILUVSAT

Look...Florio is a complete idiot! Based on the recent general meeting of NFL owners, no other team has permission to move other than the Rams.

There will be no team in San Antonio! That's it. Final (at least for the coming decade).

The NFL (and its owners) know there is not enough money in San Antonio (TV revenue), alone, to support a team in SA (let alone the lack of disposable income). Furthermore, the NFL is not dumb enough to allow a new franchise in the unproven Austin-San Antonio market. Mexico City, London and Toronto are FAR more intising to the owners than Austin-San Antonio.

There's no need to be abrasive.

ILUVSAT · #**171** Posted **Jan 25, 2016, 5:15 PM**

I apologize...you are right. I can see how my comments could sound abrasive.

drummer · #**172** Posted **Jan 26, 2016, 3:40 PM**

Yay to civility and such. Thanks guys.

jmarchbanks13 · #**173** Posted **Jan 26, 2016, 7:00 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by ILUVSAT

Look...Florio is a complete idiot! Based on the recent general meeting of NFL owners, no other team has permission to move other than the Rams.

There will be no team in San Antonio! That's it. Final (at least for the coming decade).

The NFL (and its owners) know there is not enough money in San Antonio (TV revenue), alone, to support a team in SA (let alone the lack of disposable income). Furthermore, the NFL is not dumb enough to allow a new franchise in the unproven Austin-San Antonio market. Mexico City, London and Toronto are FAR more intising to the owners than Austin-San Antonio.

Is it just me, or does it seem to defeat the purpose of having a "National Football League" team in a foreign country? Also, I would think the market for American football would be subpar in London and Mexico City compared to soccer. Regardless, I do agree that a NFL team in SA would be a joke.

ILUVSAT · #**174** Posted **Jan 27, 2016, 5:55 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by jmarchbanks13

Is it just me, or does it seem to defeat the purpose of having a "National Football League" team in a foreign country?

I can empathize with that feeling. However, the "National" Basketball Association, the "National" Hockey League, MLB, and MLS all have cross-frontier teams associated with their leagues. I believe American "gridiron" can be very successful in both London and Mexico City (let alone Canada and other European cities).

paul78701 · #**175** Posted **Jan 29, 2016, 1:08 PM**

Raiders to Vegas? It sounds like this one actually has money behind it. Because of that, I'd *bet* that this is where they end up. (I have a hard time believing that the NFL really cares that much about the gambling.)
http://espn.go.com/nfl/story/_/id/146691...icials-regarding-potential-stadium-sites

Novacek · #**176** Posted **Jan 29, 2016, 5:01 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by paul78701

Raiders to Vegas? It sounds like this one actually has money behind it. Because of that, I'd *bet* that this is where they end up. (I have a hard time believing that the NFL really cares that much about the gambling.)
http://espn.go.com/nfl/story/_/id/146691...icials-regarding-potential-stadium-sites

I don't think I buy it. The NFL knows it has an image problem, and they've got enough troubles with Johnny Football and such spending time there, I don't think they want to put a team there.

The article goes on to say that the LV media market, while small, isn't the absolute smallest. But if they're going on that, that's a further argument for SA.

The ATX · #**177** Posted **Jan 30, 2016, 12:07 AM**

San Diego is staying put for 2016. They want to continue working on getting a new stadium in San Diego. But they will move to LA for 2017 if they don't get a new stadium in San Diego.

http://espn.go.com/nfl/story/_/id/146749...d-rams-long-term-solution-not-worked-out

Maximusx1 · #**178** Posted **Feb 29, 2016, 9:41 PM**

Article on MLB expanding to 32 teams has Austin as #2 choice.

http://www.foxsports.com/mlb/story/which-locations-make-the-most-sense-for-mlb-expansion-022816

Same demographics arguments we've discussed here before. I would love a downtown stadium at the AAS site, but I think MLB here is a pipedream.

MLS is a much better option for our city's style and personality. Soccer would't compete with UT sports for attention and again, the AAS site for a stadium would double perfectly as a concert venue.

GoldenBoot · #**179** Posted **Feb 29, 2016, 9:52 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Maximusx1

Article on MLB expanding to 32 teams has Austin as #2 choice.

http://www.foxsports.com/mlb/story/which-locations-make-the-most-sense-for-mlb-expansion-022816

Same demographics arguments we've discussed here before. I would love a downtown stadium at the AAS site, but I think MLB here is a pipedream.

MLS is a much better option for our city's style and personality. Soccer would't compete with UT sports for attention and again, the AAS site for a stadium would double perfectly as a concert venue.

Very interesting....

I like the idea of MLB far above any other league. I believe it could work here better than most other "options."

NOTE: PLEASE DO NOT LET SIR KING WILLIAM (OR ANY OTHER SA POSTER) SEE THIS STORY. HE'LL (THEY"LL) FLIP OUT! Thanks.

The ATX · #**180** Posted **Feb 29, 2016, 10:11 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by GoldenBoot

Very interesting....

I like the idea of MLB far above any other league. I believe it could work here better than most other "options."

NOTE: PLEASE DO NOT LET SIR KING WILLIAM (OR ANY OTHER SA POSTER) SEE THIS STORY. HE'LL (THEY"LL) FLIP OUT! Thanks.

LOL. We're OK though because he doesn't care about any place other than S.A., so he doesn't venture outside of that forum.