English Deutsch Français Italiano Español Português 繁體中文 Bahasa Indonesia Tiếng Việt ภาษาไทย
All categories

Again, the question is if the NFL has an expasion team, which city should get it?

2007-08-30 15:32:04 · 17 answers · asked by AK 3 in Sports Football (American)

17 answers

i hate to say it but its san antonio

2007-08-30 16:02:08 · answer #1 · answered by Anonymous · 0 1

Should the NFL expand, it will be by at least 2 teams to keep things even. I think they should expand by 4, and here's where I'd put the teams:

- 2 in Los Angeles. The NFL has wanted to re-enter the LA market (second largest only to New York) since the Rams left for St. Louis and the Raiders for Oakland after the 1994 season. The market is large enough, of course, to support two teams. They should also build just one new stadium for the two teams to share (ala New York Giants and Jets sharing Giants Stadium).

- San Antonio. The next largest city without the NFL, San Antonio did well as a temporary home for the Saints two years ago. Hell, if the NBA can have 3 Texas teams, why not the NFL? After all, football is religion to Texans.

- Salt Lake City. Four major reasons: (1) they have the MLS and Arena Football; (2) they played host to the Winter Olympics; (3) still larger than Green Bay; and (4) I've already got the perfect name for their team.

Two cities that should NOT get teams are: Toronto and Las Vegas. Toronto because of the agreement with NFL has with the CFL (Toronto is home to the Argonauts in the CFL, which is slightly different from the NFL game); and Vegas because of one word: GAMBLING! (Vegas can adopt the Salt Lake team as their own due to proximity.)

2007-08-30 23:06:48 · answer #2 · answered by Anonymous · 0 0

We have the NY Jets and NY Giants. We have the Dallas Cowboys and The Houstan Texans and the Cinncinnati Bengals and the Cleveland Browns. The aforementioned examples are two teams in one state. Why not have an expansion team in New Orleans, alongside the Saints? The previous NY Giants fan states they raised their tax base by $4000 and their rugged determinism with bake sales and community events to raise money would fit nicely into The Big Easy.
This may not solve al of the problems in the area, but additional investments towards roads, stadiums, hotels and the service industry would fit nicely. Much of the residential ills could be addressed by the rule of business, instead of dependence on Government. Let's face it, the reported $114 million that has been appropriated to build New Orleans is about all of the Government assistance this state will recieve. Just yesterday, the President has asked for $50 billion dollars to rebuild Iraq. What do you think? I say an NFL expansion team is a far better shot than further dependence on the Federal Government's FEMA. It is for these reasons the State of Lousianna would be at the top of my list.

2007-08-30 23:45:04 · answer #3 · answered by mark_hensley@sbcglobal.net 7 · 0 1

I would say LA. LA currently does not have a football team with the Rams having moved to St. Louis. Or Las Vegas. Both would bring the NFL some cash. But after the fiasco with Pacman Jones at the NBA All Star Weekend, I would doubt that Las Vegas would get it. Most likely LA

2007-08-30 22:38:42 · answer #4 · answered by Byrne 2 · 0 0

Nolanville, TX.
We increased our tax base by $4,000 last year and, have been holding bake sales and, selling bumper stickers, in order to finance the building of the Nolan Dome, Our new state of the art retractable roof stadium.
We are hoping that an existing team such as, the Giants, will become tired of all the media attention in the big apple and, be easily coaxed into moving. if not, We would settle for an expansion team. DON'T SEND THE RAIDERS!!! We are not that desperate.

2007-08-30 22:44:04 · answer #5 · answered by ny21tb 7 · 1 0

Las Vegas there gambling
is there a rule where football players can't go into a casino and gamble.
but anyways I would say San Antonio it one of the fastest cities growing in America plus its Texas. Its always the city where owners threaten to move if they don't get there stadium. Only problem is I don't think Houston and Dallas owners would want that $$$$

2007-08-30 22:37:54 · answer #6 · answered by legendaryplanets 3 · 1 0

San Antonio, TX. Huge population. Large fan base. Great area for marketing and development of a popular team. Texas has a huge population and everyone here is football crazy. Having only two teams for this state is not enough.

2007-08-30 22:45:30 · answer #7 · answered by Kevin P 4 · 1 0

I would say San Antonio. The QB would be a French guy dating a hot hispanic actress. The RB would be an expressionless guy. They would dominate and everybody would hate them.

2007-08-30 22:41:43 · answer #8 · answered by Wesley W 5 · 2 0

I would say none and actually look at retracting some teams. All American pro sports have been watered down with too much expansion. However, I would definitely look at moving a current team to a new location. I think St. Louis would be a great choice.

2007-08-30 22:45:22 · answer #9 · answered by Adam S 2 · 0 4

i think that las vegas should get the team because they dont have any sports teams. it would be great for the city and draw even more people to the town

2007-08-30 22:35:55 · answer #10 · answered by oj19914life 1 · 1 1

Las Vegas, the market is here and im waiting for it.

2007-08-30 22:50:43 · answer #11 · answered by MARIO S 2 · 0 0

fedest.com, questions and answers