I only support this move if the team becomes the Los Angeles Vikings.
Southern California has as many Vikings as Lakes.
<p>Why would any team want to move to a city that has never shown any scintilla of desire to support an NFL team after the first third of the first season?</p>
Having lived in LA for almost a decade, I can say that it is a great place to be an NFL fan almost precisely because of the lack of an NFL team. Nobody is from LA anyway, and everybody brings his own affiliation from his last stop before LA. And when the kids are born, they ultimately choose either to support the family affiliation or to develop a new one, for no reason other than that that the new team is fun to follow. And don't get me started on the theft of teams that are well supported in their long-time home cities. The lack of a new Vikings stadium does not translate to a dearth of local support. This is a real collective action problem. The only way that the NFL will ever learn to stop holding teams hostage until local governments pay public-subsidy ransom is if local governments refuse to do it. As long as there are places like Oklahoma City and LA that lack the balls and good sense to say no to huge subsidies that do a lot of good to the NFL and its owners and are a net negative to the locals, places like Seattle and Minneapolis are going to keep losing their teams.
In other words, move the Jaguars, not the Vikings.The LA plan that I heard (via BS Report) is to build down in the LA Live complex and use the stadium as expanded convention space as well.
That fameball Brett Favre will come back just to play in L.A., won't he. Isaac's point is well taken -- Philadelphia almost lost the Eagles to Phoenix back in the day. Minnesota's situation is not unlike Cleveland's -- they build a new baseball stadium only to leave the NFL franchise without a suitable arena. Although, unlike Cleveland Municipal, the Hubert H. Humphrey Metrodome is not in imminent danger of collapse.(Want to move a team to L.A.? Get a time machine and move the Saints. The Superbowl was a touching, feel-good story, but every dollar spend refurbishing the Superdome was a criminal waste.)
I live in LA and would LOVE a home team to root for. Yes, I grew up a Giants fan, but I would be willing to defect (sorry, Eli, you've disappointed me too many years in a row anyway) if I could actually go to games in my hometown.I do agree with Isaac, though, that it doesn't make sense to move a team that has a real following in their home city (I know a zillion Vikings fans who'd freak out if we stole their team).
Yes, the L.A. Live center owned by Phil Anschutz, who is in negotiations to buy a controlling stake of the S.D. Chargers, according to Mike Florio.
Yes, Giants fans are long-suffering. If I recall correctly, the team did not even win the Super Bowl in either of its last two seasons.
I think the Simmons rule needs to be cited here:<span>18) "If you live in a city that has fielded a professional team since your formative years, you have to root for that team."</span><span>OK, you're in LA and don't have to worry about that part.19) "Once you choose a team, you're stuck with that team for the rest of your life ... unless one of the following conditions applies:Your team moves to another city.You grew up in a city that didn't field a team for a specific sport - so you picked a random team - and then either a.) your city landed a team, or b.) you moved to a city that fielded a team for that specific sport.One of your immediate family members either plays professionally or takes a relevant management/coaching/front office position with a pro team.You follow your favorite college star (and this has to be a once-in-a-generation favorite college star) to the pros and root for his team du jour. Only works if there isn't a pro team in your area.The owner of your favorite team treated his fans so egregiously over the years that you couldn't take it anymore -- you would rather not follow them at all then support a franchise with this owner in charge.</span>Hmmmm....nothing about moving to a city with no pro team and then one moves there. Personally, I think it's fine.
Something that I've been rolling around in my head, but didn't have time to look up until now:If the Vikings moved to LA, it's a surprisingly easy divisional realignment. The Vikings join the NFC West, and the St. Louis Rams join the NFC north along with Chicago, Green Bay and Detroit.
The Rams are located East of the NFC East's Dallas Cowboys. (In addition, b/c I looked this up recently, the AFC South's Indianapolis Colts are north of the AFC North's Baltimore Ravens and Cincinnati Bengals.)
But those rivalries make sense. You want Cleveland and Cincy together. The Bills would make more sense in the AFC North than the Ravens, but they were in the AFC East before, and the league probably wants to keep them together. For that same reason, there is zero chance the NFL gives up 4 Eagles/Cowboys and Redskins/Cowboys games a year. I think SD is going to LA before the Vikes or Jags do, but a Rams/Bears divisional rivalry could be a good one, like Cubs/Cardinals.
Exactly, Benner. Besides, the Cowboys in a North division makes even less sense than their being in an East division.