San Antonio Raiders?

[mo0nlighting]

This is so weird for me.  I live in SA, and I luv football.  I saw this topic last night, but after two very long hot days at work, I decided to sleep on it before I formed an opinion (so it could at least be semi coherent).

 

So after a decent night's sleep...All I've realized is that I would be way more comfortable with a start-up expansion team than a moved team.  I fear that if the team did move here, and they weren't very good, they'd move back to CA (or wherever) in a few years, and the city would be cast aside.  Is that a weird fear to have?

[jvan1973]

http://www.mayoclinic.org/diseases-conditions/complicated-grief/basics/symptoms/con-20032765

[Nadine]

I agree with you.

 

I think leaving the old mascot behind would be best during a move, not only because it allows a city to keep it's old mascot but also because it allows to new city to pick a mascot that is appropriate for that city.  I don't want to change the Colt's name or mascot at this point because like you said, it's been too long.  But the Colts was a mascot for Baltimore because of the horse racing facilities in the area.  It's not really appropriate for Indiana or Indianapolis.  

 

On the ownership I also agree with you, that would make the whole thing more fun and prevent teams from leaving. I'm not sure what happens to the Packer's profits since they don't distribute it to share holders.  My guess is they likely bank it and use it later on for stadium renovations and the like along with selling shares of the team.  And if that's true the other big positive aspect of that is that the profits that the NFL team makes get's sent back into the community.  

 

Of course the problem is that ultimately the view of the NFL in general is that what's the point of all of this if a rich guy can't make a ton of money off of it?

 

I don't know, there's no bears in chicago or lions in Detroit.

There are horses everywhere.........including here.  i drive by horses on my way to walmart.  So Colts works fine here.

 

But I can see if a name is really tied to the area that it makes sense to change it......

 

Generally though I think that's the call of the owner.  It's his and it's up to him to decide what will work and what won't.

 

Times have changed though and the NFL is so big now that I would not be at all surprised to see a name change.

 

I mean when people are still talking about wanting the name colts even though they are over the moon about their new name and their new team.......you can see where it would be a nice thing to avoid.

[Valpo2004]

This is so weird for me.  I live in SA, and I luv football.  I saw this topic last night, but after two very long hot days at work, I decided to sleep on it before I formed an opinion (so it could at least be semi coherent).

 

So after a decent night's sleep...All I've realized is that I would be way more comfortable with a start-up expansion team than a moved team.  I fear that if the team did move here, and they weren't very good, they'd move back to CA (or wherever) in a few years, and the city would be cast aside.  Is that a weird fear to have?

 

Yeah, it's not like an expansion team would be any good either.

 

And as with the Raiders, this seems to be the time to get them.  Al Davis is gone and it seems that they are making good roster decisions for once instead of just looking for the guys with the fastest 40 times and then signing them.

 

Also a team's decision to go or stay typically has more to do with stadium considerations then how good or bad the team is.  There are several bad teams in the NFL and I can only think of one team (Jacksonville) who has recently considered moving due to attendance issues.  And even then it looks like they arn't actually going to move but invest more in the stadium and try to attract more attendance.  They have likely smartly recognized that they need to win to attract attendance.  

 

They are too new of a team to attract generational attendance like the Browns do.  I'm guessing for Browns fans even though their team hasn't been winners on the field, their granddaddy was a Browns fan and he raised his son to root for the Browns who raised them to root for the Browns to the point that it doesn't matter that they don't win.  With Jacksonville they just moved in during the '90's and just havn't become attached to the community there very well.  My wife used to live in Jacksonville when we where dating and in my visits there I honestly don't remember ever coming across many people who cared that much about the Jags.  A few seemed to consider them a distraction or something to do on a Sunday but not a team they where real invested in.  A lot of them considered them jokes.

 

I remember going to church with my wife once and the pastor joked that the Jags didn't have a prayer in the game that day.  (Oddly enough I think that's one of the few games they won)

 

Also the Colts where not very good when they moved to Indianapolis.

[Andrew Luck's Beard]

San Antonio: The City of Sports Teams with Boring Colors.

[The Old Crow]

I agree with you.

I think leaving the old mascot behind would be best during a move, not only because it allows a city to keep it's old mascot but also because it allows to new city to pick a mascot that is appropriate for that city. I don't want to change the Colt's name or mascot at this point because like you said, it's been too long. But the Colts was a mascot for Baltimore because of the horse racing facilities in the area. It's not really appropriate for Indiana or Indianapolis.

On the ownership I also agree with you, that would make the whole thing more fun and prevent teams from leaving. I'm not sure what happens to the Packer's profits since they don't distribute it to share holders. My guess is they likely bank it and use it later on for stadium renovations and the like along with selling shares of the team. And if that's true the other big positive aspect of that is that the profits that the NFL team makes get's sent back into the community.

Of course the problem is that ultimately the view of the NFL in general is that what's the point of all of this if a rich guy can't make a ton of money off of it?

I don't mind an owner making money , but if it's obscene , and they just rake the community over the coals for every last dollar , that is when you would like to see the Packers scenario.

[The Old Crow]

I don't know, there's no bears in chicago or lions in Detroit.

There are horses everywhere.........including here. i drive by horses on my way to walmart. So Colts works fine here.

But I can see if a name is really tied to the area that it makes sense to change it......

Generally though I think that's the call of the owner. It's his and it's up to him to decide what will work and what won't.

Times have changed though and the NFL is so big now that I would not be at all surprised to see a name change.

I mean when people are still talking about wanting the name colts even though they are over the moon about their new name and their new team.......you can see where it would be a nice thing to avoid.

I think the name Baltimore Colts rolls off the to tongue , and was perfect for horse racing and the Preakness, but Ravens are also good for the Edgar Alan Poe connections . Indy Colts certainly isn 't the worst, as they do have some horse racing, but maybe an Indy racing theme back in 1984 would have been more appropriate at the time.

If the Raiders did move to SA, Davis would probably not want to change it from Raiders because it meant something and had all those Championships. Still to me, even though it would be the same franchise, it would just be different from what the Oakland Raiders were, and signified to the NFL. I absolutely hated the temporary move to LA, and glad they returned to Oakland. That being said, they really have to do something about that stadium.

[Valpo2004]

I don't mind an owner making money , but if it's obscene , and they just rake the community over the coals for every last dollar , that is when you would like to see the Packers scenario.

 

Well I don't know what the owners make, but have the Packers made the state or local governments pay for a large portion of their stadium renovations?

 

Because with most NFL teams it becomes. . . I want renovations on the stadium or I want a new stadium and then they demand the tax payers pay for it!  

 

There was a bill proposed a couple years ago that said if tax payers paid for the stadium then the NFL can't blackout TV broadcasts of the game.  Honestly I think that should be the law.  

[Dustin]

LA seems much more logical.