Writers of Pro Football Prospectus 2008

11 Nov 2005

NFL, L.A. Coliseum Reach Preliminary Deal

The NFL has reached an agreement with Los Angeles to bring professional football back to the L.A. Coliseum. That agreement, however, doesn't specify when exactly this team will be playing in L.A. or which team that will be. It's doubtful the NFL will go to 33 teams and screw up the eight, four-team division format the league currently has. So, who's going to move to L.A.? The Saints are the obvious choice, but I'd put my money on the Jaguars. Jacksonville is still having trouble selling out their games, even after reducing the seating capacity of their stadium to avoid local television blackouts.

Posted by: Al Bogdan on 11 Nov 2005

18 comments, Last at 14 Nov 2005, 5:23pm by Richie

Comments

1
by PatsFan (not verified) :: Fri, 11/11/2005 - 3:48pm

For the love of God, please move an existing team and not add a 33rd team to screw up the nice 2x4x4 symmetry we currently have.

2
by PerlStalker (not verified) :: Fri, 11/11/2005 - 9:56pm

I could see either the Saints or the Jags going. Here's an interesting senerio, what if the Jags move to LA and the Saints move (temporarily?) to San Antonio. The SA move for the Saints is kinda nice since they're still close to their original fan base.

3
by Jerry P. (not verified) :: Fri, 11/11/2005 - 10:07pm

Won't they have to realign the divisions if the Jaguars or Saints are moved to the west coast?

I guess the Rams could be moved into the NFC South and the Saints moved into the West. But who would they drop from the AFC West to make room for the Jaguars? If they didn't move Dallas to the NFC West and the Dolphins to the AFC South to avoid breaking rivalries up, I don't see how they'd break up the Chargers/Broncos/Raiders/Chiefs grouping.

4
by BlueStarDude (not verified) :: Fri, 11/11/2005 - 10:11pm

What about Arizona moving? At least then it would still be a "West" team. And I'm sure St. Louis Rams vs. L.A. Cardinals could become a great rivalry.

5
by Jerry P. (not verified) :: Fri, 11/11/2005 - 10:20pm

Arizona has a new stadium opening next season.

Why does anyone think bad teams like the Saints or Cards are going to draw any more fans than the Rams did when they were in L.A.?

6
by Theo (not verified) :: Fri, 11/11/2005 - 10:38pm

LA Packers without Favre at QB.
How's that for a horror story.

They won't add a team. They're not that stupid.

I dont know the ticket sale %s of the teams but I expect the Aints moving.

7
by DJAnyReason (not verified) :: Fri, 11/11/2005 - 10:45pm

Considering the Dallas Cowboys are in the NFC East, the St. Louis Rams are in the NFC West, the Indianapolis Colts are in the AFC South, and the Baltimore Ravens are in the AFC North, I don't think they're going to care too much if the team that moves to L.A. isn't geographically appropriate

8
by Theo (not verified) :: Fri, 11/11/2005 - 10:48pm

Oh...
It's a GREAT "let's stop that retarded T.O. discussion".

9
by Tarrant (not verified) :: Fri, 11/11/2005 - 11:14pm

While Tags has said that the only way the league would ever expand again is for LA, I can't see them doing so, agreed.

They'll move a team there, revamp the Colisum, and they'll do moderately well. And if the team leaves? That's fine, at least USC then would have a state-of-the-art stadium with luxury boxes :)

T.

10
by Jerry P. (not verified) :: Fri, 11/11/2005 - 11:41pm

The idea of realigning divisions isn't so that city locations "match" the division names it's to avoid transcontinental division games.

Baltimore may not make you think "north" but it's close to Cincinnati, Pittsburgh, and Cleveland. L.A. to Atlanta, Tampa, and Charlotte would kind of suck for a team to have to do every year in addition to their non-division road games.

11
by BlueStarDude (not verified) :: Sat, 11/12/2005 - 12:43am

Yeah, thanks, that new stadium would rule out the Cardinals.

Maybe the Chargers move a little north then. Are they still without a new stadium deal?

12
by Spoilt Victorian Child (not verified) :: Sat, 11/12/2005 - 4:30am

The Chargers are indeed still looking for a new stadium. I don't know whether they're making progress, but they don't have anything in place yet.

13
by MAW (not verified) :: Sat, 11/12/2005 - 5:55am

As a new resident of LA, I'm hoping we DON'T get a team. I kind of like not having a local team dictate what I see on Sundays, especially after living in the Washington, DC area for 12 years, where I saw way-too-many Washington and Baltimore games.

As it stands now, each week we get the top matchups, without fear of blackouts, #4 announcer teams, and excessive viewings of bad teams.

14
by Russell Levine :: Sat, 11/12/2005 - 10:31am

I'd put my money on the Saints getting there eventually. I think San Diego will get a stadium built because the city wants to stay in the Super Bowl mix. If the Saints do end up in LA, I bet its under new ownership. I don't think New Orleans is going to have a team anymore, but I wouldn't be surprised if the NFL helps broker a stadium deal in NO and puts the new stadium permanently in the Super Bowl rotation.

15
by Rollo (not verified) :: Sat, 11/12/2005 - 3:21pm

The Jaguars recently came to an agreement with the city and solved some stadium issues. So far ticket sales have been, if not brisk, then adequate - there's yet to be a blackout through the first half of the season. While the stadium agreement would cost peanuts in the long term to break, I have to expect Wayne Weaver is going to keep the Jacksonville experiment going a little longer to see if he can make it work. That being said, if the obvious choice of the Saints doesn't relocate than Jacksonville is a good #2 option from the NFL's point of view.

16
by Joey (not verified) :: Sat, 11/12/2005 - 10:22pm

Talk about a non-story...the article says they're not really committed to the Coliseum and that they're still interested in the Rose Bowl AND a proposed new stadium in the parking lot of Angel Stadium. So, it will either be a new stadium or one of the two major existing ones...glad to have that cleared up.

17
by Alan P (not verified) :: Mon, 11/14/2005 - 4:48pm

#13 pointed out, one of several reasons not to put a team in LA - I wonder if ratings for the 4 best games of the week are better than the ratings for 1 home team game and whatever other games they can work around it.

Not having a team in LA also gives every other team leverage in stadium deals - don't get a good deal, threaten to move to LA.

18
by Richie (not verified) :: Mon, 11/14/2005 - 5:23pm

I once heard a neat idea. Change the NFL schedule from 16 to 17 games. Every team plays one game in Los Angeles. Every week there would be one or two games played in Los Angeles.

I have no idea how many people would go to an Arizona vs Denver game played in Los Angeles, though.