New NFL Teams...

"AMELIA ISLAND, Fla. -- The National Football League would like to have a team back in Los Angeles by 2008, Commissioner Paul Tagliabue said Tuesday.

Tagliabue said league owners were pushing for a decision on a stadium site by next spring, giving the NFL the time it needs to return a franchise to the country's second largest television market by 2008.

"We're hopeful we can stick to a timeline that would have us make some decisions on a stadium project maybe a year from now in May of '05," he said.
The league, which has not had a team in the Los Angeles area since the Rams departed for St. Louis 10 years ago, has been working with groups representing sites at Carson, the Coliseum and the Rose Bowl in Pasadena.

"Everyone has been working at this," Tagliabue said. "At some point decisions need to be made."

League owners have made no decision about expanding to a 33rd team or moving a troubled franchise to Los Angeles when and if they come to an agreement on a stadium there."

http://sports.espn.go.com/nfl/news/story?id=1809392


If the NFL adds a 33rd team, will they add another team to even out the conferences? If they do what city will get the team? Does the NFL really need 4 (Chargers, 49ers, Raiders, and NEW TEAM) teams located in CA?

IMO the NFL is just fine the way it is, I really don't think that there is a need for a team to be in L.A. If an owner wants to relocate to L.A. then fine but just to add a team because there has not ben a team in L.A. since the Rams is crazy. There should be a better reason than that.

Well it's possible that the Chargers might move to Los Angeles

hrm, if LA is the 2nd biggest TV audience. Who's #1?

If the Chargers move that is fine, but the article makes it sound as if they are going to add a 33rd team.

hrm, if LA is the 2nd biggest TV audience. Who's #1?
New york area I would think



I just don't see LA supporting a team, but that won't stop Tags from sending one there anyway. I think 1st choice would be to send a team there rather than make a new one. Four teams in 8 divisions just is too neat to screw around with.

Tags is an ex-basketball player. He thinks that since they can support 15 NBA teams in that city that football should try to edge into the market!

Funny how LA has never been a strong supporter of any NFL franchise in that city, yet the NFL is dead set on putting another team there. Kinda sucks for other cities that would be much more supportive. That #2 TV market is just too much for them to overlook I guess.

I think that in the new "media-savvy" NFL, the league would promote an LA-based team to national prominence, so they wouldn't rely on the fickle LA-sports fans.

LA got a bad rap, in my book. They last had a diluted product, with the Raiders and Rams both playing there. The Raiders were always looking to move, and the Rams were God-awful at the time. The fans were divided between the two, and they both deserted the city.

The best idea I have heard in a while was to have one game a week in LA. This will guage the interest of the locals, without taking a team from a city that has football. Half the NFL team would lose a home game year 1 and half year 2 and their home game would be played in the Rose Bowl. You get football in LA real fast on a short term basis and generate money to build a better stadium for a future team. If no one from LA shows up to these games then you know football doesn't need to be in LA, instead of just assuming that since LA is the 2nd biggest city it would support a football team.

You almost have to have an even number of teams in the league so why not have to LA teams so they can leave the city in a few years. They dont deserve one after going from 2 to none teams having half full stadiums. New York has never had the problem supporting 2 teams. There is just too much to do in LA other than go to a football game.