pun Posted January 15, 2016 Share Posted January 15, 2016 (edited) Sure the NY metro pulls in enough fans (I do realize this as I'm from the NYC metro area), but wasn't the whole point of the thread that most of the money comes from television anyway? So I'm just pointing out that, if the Jets were in Portland, not only would Portland watch the Jets, but the whole state of Oregon plus who knows how much area in parts of states like Idaho, Montana, Nevada, Utah, Wyoming, etc. And the NFL would still have the tv ad profit covered from Giants games. I'm thinking spreading it out to reach as many fans as possible would = more revenue, but maybe I'm wrong? I'm not quite sure about all this as I stated from the getgo. I'm (possibly more than) a bit naive on the ins & outs of NFL management, but this was the reason why the Rams' move to LA didn't make sense to me. I think I'm merging the topics in this thread and the Rams to LA thread a little bit. @stevegrab, check my post here, might clear a few things up: http://forums.thehuddle.com/index.php?/topic/458786-rams-to-la/?p=4192819 Edited January 15, 2016 by pun Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tazinib1 Posted January 15, 2016 Share Posted January 15, 2016 I think you are stuck on the idea Portland could land an NFL franchise. Maybe, and i stress MAYBE, if it were back in the day like Green Bay, itcould have happened. It would never happen today. The Seahawks control that market. Sorry to burst your bubble. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dolphin_Akie Posted January 16, 2016 Share Posted January 16, 2016 If its just about TV markets then pull out one team from Florida and move to Alabama as well as taking a New York team to Oregon Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pun Posted January 16, 2016 Share Posted January 16, 2016 If its just about TV markets then pull out one team from Florida and move to Alabama as well as taking a New York team to Oregon Florida's a big state though to be fair. That'd be like saying - move 3 out of the Giants, Jets, Eagles, and Bills because they're all in an area the size of florida. And move one of the Redskins/Ravens as well. Tampa, Miami, and Jacksonville are all indisputably separate metropolitan areas - East Rutherford and.... East Rutherford are not. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dolphin_Akie Posted January 16, 2016 Share Posted January 16, 2016 (edited) Florida's a big state though to be fair. That'd be like saying - move 3 out of the Giants, Jets, Eagles, and Bills because they're all in an area the size of florida. And move one of the Redskins/Ravens as well. Tampa, Miami, and Jacksonville are all indisputably separate metropolitan areas - East Rutherford and.... East Rutherford are not. But area of land means nothing, more space doesn't equal more people otherwise you should move a team to Montana as its huge with no teams around and not worry about the fact nobody lives there. Edited January 16, 2016 by Dolphin_Akie Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dolphin_Akie Posted January 16, 2016 Share Posted January 16, 2016 Plus a lot of money is still made from people attending and not just in ticket sales. The NFL still needs fans to attend games as much as they need them to watch on TV. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jetsfan Posted January 16, 2016 Share Posted January 16, 2016 why do you hate Jets fans? We hate ourselves. It's ok. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pun Posted January 16, 2016 Share Posted January 16, 2016 (edited) But area of land means nothing, more space doesn't equal more people otherwise you should move a team to Montana as its huge with no teams around and not worry about the fact nobody lives there. That's not the point, the point is that Tampa, Miami, and Jacksonville are separate, distinct markets. In fact, all three of those cities are further away from each other than NY and Philly, or Baltimore and DC. I'm not even still arguing my original point, honestly, I'm just saying that the point I was making was not the same as "pull out one of the Florida teams and stick it in Montana (as there's effectively no market in Montana compared to places like Portland, San Antonio, or Toronto). For reference it'd be like if you you had two teams in London, two teams in Manchester, and one team each in Leeds, Liverpool, and Sheffield. Why not put one of London's teams in Bristol and one of Manchester's in Birmingham? (OK maybe not a perfect analogy but you see what I mean - I wasn't saying there should be a team in Carlisle) Edited January 16, 2016 by pun Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tazinib1 Posted January 17, 2016 Share Posted January 17, 2016 I triple dog dare you to reply without mentioning Portland Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
loaf Posted January 17, 2016 Share Posted January 17, 2016 It was my understanding that there'd be no geography Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stevegrab Posted January 17, 2016 Share Posted January 17, 2016 I triple dog dare you to reply without mentioning PortlandOr soccer and teams in London. Teams are going to LA because they and the league will make more money, despite what the OP thinks. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.