2007-07-02 12:46:49 · 24 answers · asked by Le Magnifique 1 in Sports ➔ Football (American)
The team with the most mexicans on it
2007-07-02 13:07:11 · answer #1 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 2⤋
good question, but no one is in bad shape except for Buffalo.
They are having the finacial hardships. Only Buffalo has been in its location since 1960. Charter member of the AFL. Do not think Ralph Wilson family will let the team move.
Expansion may be the way.
But Las Vegas and some other cities will pour the dollars to make a franchise new or relocate to the area.
LA sorry has lost the Rams and Raiders.
Chargers also started there and then moved South.
May not be in the cards this time.
2007-07-02 12:54:45 · answer #2 · answered by Michael M 7 · 3⤊ 0⤋
All you guys that mentioned that LA had two teams and held none needs to drop that agreement. That was a different time, sports is so mass media now. LA cannot sustain 2 teams, but it can sustain 1 team, THAT was the problem with the two teams. Just like right now, the Raiders now in Oakland, constantly get TV blackouts cuz of non sell outs. Obviously the SF bay area cannot hold 2 teams either but you don't hear any gripe there. San Diego is not known as a football town (especially before the LT era), they don't seems to have a problem. and LA/OC area is XXXX times bigger than SD. There are definitely a ton of politics behind this whole team in LA issue.
If we went with the notion of cannot hold a team, places like cleveland, Houston, St. Louis should never even of gotten a second a chance then. Especially the product cleveland and houston has brought to the plate.
In a area that covers maybe 5 million people, you're telling me you can't fill 75K -80K seats when in the age of free agency you can go from 6-10 to 10-6 (and playoffs) in a year. In my two cents it should be the Raiders.
2007-07-02 15:06:12 · answer #3 · answered by PrevMan 1 · 0⤊ 1⤋
Los Angeles does not want and/or need a football team. They showed that with losing two teams there. The L.A. Raiders and the L.A. Rams. If one HAD to relocate, i would say the Buffalo Bills because they do not have a great fan support there.
2007-07-02 15:04:26 · answer #4 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 1⤋
No team should relocate to LA. The already had two teams and what happened they relocated. So why give LA another team that will just relocate in 5 years.
2007-07-02 14:32:03 · answer #5 · answered by redman656565 6 · 1⤊ 0⤋
no team should relocate but la should get an expansion team but the only way they can get an expansion team is for someone else to want an nfl team
2007-07-02 22:41:19 · answer #6 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
None, they had their chances twice the Rams and the Raiders both left due to low attendance = low profit. LA will never support a pro team. They would rather hang out at the beach than see the greatest sport in America
2007-07-02 13:05:31 · answer #7 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 0⤋
I say no to relocation, unless Al Davis decides to move the Raiders back to LA and KEEP them there.
I do, however, think that the NFL will return to LA within the next decade, and that'll be in the form of an expansion team.
2007-07-02 12:51:46 · answer #8 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 2⤋
none of them should relocate. Los Angeles should get a brand new team.
2007-07-02 12:50:39 · answer #9 · answered by jcaseatbjam 2 · 2⤊ 1⤋
Im not sure Los Angeles has expressed any interest in wanting a NFL team at all.
BUT, if they do, i would give them Oakland, because nobody likes to see them play...or NY Jets/Giants because new york dont need 2 teams.
2007-07-02 12:56:39 · answer #10 · answered by Sidewinder 4 · 0⤊ 2⤋
I personaly don't think they should put a team in LA, but if they are going to, they should take the weakest team. When I say weakest team I mean the team that has not preformed in terms of revenue,and any other flow of cash.
2007-07-02 12:52:58 · answer #11 · answered by RSS2005 3 · 3⤊ 0⤋