That's between Dripping Springs and Oatmeal, isn't it?

Wow, nothing left so it's down to jokes? I don't know why you jumped in initially 08, but you have been wrong since you did. Answer me this, if ANAHEIM gets a team, which is in the OC right, do you think LA is still in the running for one at that point? OR did you look at a map, see they are both in SoCal, along with San Diego, and if ANY another team goes there it will only be one? So if only one team is gonna go to SoCal, THE ENTIRE AREA COUNTS AS ONE MARKET. Get it yet?

And you started out by saying:

which you even highlighted the media portion, and were 1000000000% wrong based on the convo that was taking place. You have been fishing out BS figures ever since. Your whole argument is done as long as you use SoCal for your locale cause, and let me spell it out for you, T-H-A-T M-A-R-K-E-T I-S O-N-L-Y B-E-I-N-G C-O-N-S-I-D-E-R-E-D F-O-R O-N-E T-E-A-M. So no matter what incorrectly used media figures, or population figures you throw out, you are dead wrong. Unless, and I would hate to believe you think this, you think the NFL would look at putting two teams in that same area gain back to back. Please tell me you don't think that 08. Please.

Yes , it has been a discussion point for years .

Anaheim feels as though they have the market for an NFL franchise and the league has had discussions with them .
Los Angeles is the largest market without an NFL Franchise and feels they should have one .

You are talking about a demographic area that between Ventura county , Kern County, Santa Barbara County , Los Angeles County , Orange County , Riverside County and San Bernadino County has about 20 million people based upon the U.S. Census . That is over half the poulation of California in 7 Counties .

The O.C. is a viable Market for an N.F.L. Franchise , regardless of Los Angeles getting one or not .

I copied the Media Market from the Anaheim Release .

Are you not aware that the 2nd market for an NFL Franchise is Orlando Florida ??? Thought this was common Knowledge .

LMAO. Um, no, that is not common knowledge. Sorry. And that is not even the argument. The argument is outside of SoCal, San Antonio/Austin is the next largest populus without a football team. You have yet to disprove that, unless you seriously believe Orlando is even in the running. Why wouldn't Tom Benson threaten to move to Orlando if they wanted a team? HE pulled New Mexico out his arse before Orlando. Please.

As a note to this conversation , if you believe that Anaheim wants an NFL team so it can be called " Los Angeles " you have lost your mind ....

City of Angels not home to baseball's Angels
By Patrick McFawn


I'm letting one of my biases out of the bag - I'm an Angels fan. What can I say? There's nothing like the nostalgic ballpark atmosphere when you head out to Angel Stadium, watch America's favorite pastime and you hear the announcer yell: "Here are your Los Angeles Angels!"

What?!

By now, you've most likely heard of the controversial name change for the Halos. The Anaheim Angels are now the Los Angeles Angels of Anaheim. Wow - that's quite a mouthful. And I must admit that I'm slightly disappointed as an Angels fan displaced in Los Angeles territory.

Both the city of Los Angeles and city of Anaheim don't like the Los Angeles tag on a team that plays almost 40 miles away from downtown.

The city of Anaheim contends that the name change violates the lease agreement that the Angels signed in 1996, which states that the name Anaheim must be included in the official name of the Angels. The contract also included that the bill of $20 million for the recent stadium renovation to be paid by the city of Anaheim, which would gain virtually no increase in income through municipal taxes.

As a result of this legal controversy, the city of Anaheim sued Angels Baseball, LP. The court date is set for Nov. 7, which conveniently happens to occur after this year's season. You have to love the speed of the legal system.

The city of Anaheim, during January, sought a preliminary injunction baring the name change until the outcome of the November trial was determined. Orange County Superior Court Judge Peter Polos didn't issue this temporary restraining order baring the L.A. tag, since, according to him, the city had not demonstrated that it would ultimately win.

Andrew Guilford, who represents the city of Anaheim, contends that the team is being referred to as the L.A. Angels during the preseason and the phrase "of Anaheim" is never included.

The City of Angels (don't get confused now) filed an amicus curie brief with the city of Anaheim stating "Anaheim is not located in the city of Los Angeles, and the Angels should not be permitted to adopt a name that begins with the geographical identifier 'Los Angeles.'"

http://www.dailytrojan.com/media/pap...s-920725.shtml

If you eliminate California , then yes , San Antonio is the next largest city in total population that does not have a football team .

And for Damn good reasons .....

The TPI for San Antonio is generally in the toilet ......

Portland Oregon looks better on paper then San Antonio .

That is why they can build the Alamo Dome out there and NFL teams have not been interested .

Another media based explanation has been :

http://www.offthekuff.com/mt/archives/005358.html

Okay, I have only said that for the last 5 posts. But now that we got that straight, I still said Austin/San Antonio.

Actually, they built the Alamadome to attract a team, and they did have a team, in the USFL. lol But the Alamadome has never been a first rate NFL facility due to the lack of luxury suites. Also, the numerous attempts to move a team here by Red McCombs has been consistently voiced with displeasure, cause of the seedy way he has tried to do it, similar to the seedy way he wants San Antone to try and steal the Saints right now. But they are on the short list for a team. Houston beat them out on expansion cause they had an owner that had recently moved the team. The only thing preventing San Antone from having a team right now is the NFL, and the fact we have a perfect number of teams in the league as is, so moving an existing team is about the only option.

Again, what does being a MEDIA market have to do with selling out games? Nothing, and it's not what I have been talking about at all. I never even mentioned the media so consistently reading reports about media size is not phasing me. This is what phases me:

Lastly, what does tis have anything to do with baseball and the Anaheim Angels? Nothing. Weren't they the California Angels, then went through all kind of weird changes? What does that have to do with a FOOTBALL team coming in for that area?

No , your point was in eliminating Los Angeles and the market . The O.C. is one county with a larger population then the 5 counties that connect Austin/San Antonio , including those cities .

With its own stadium proposal .

http://bastienarchitects.com/live/anaheimnfl.html

If you think for one minute that the O.C. is going to build a stadium to have the name Los Angeles put on it , you are nuts .

By the way , if you have an issue with that whole proximity thing check a map around central California in the Bay area .... :wink:

Man, I was waiting for you to bring up the bay area. Didn't Al Davis move the first time cause he was losing money due to the proximity of the 49ers? Didn't he, as an owner, have to move his team BACK to Oakland from Los Angeles when he got pissed with the city? Sorry, not even close to the same as expanding a franchise into the area. The NFL didn't go and say, "We need to put a team right across the bay from San Fran right now." Didn't happen. Oakland had a team, had that team leave, and then come back. Think if Anaheim gets a team the Rams will move back to Los Angeles? Pass the wacky tobacky.

Regardless to who proposes what or where they play, SoCal will only get ONE MORE TEAM. I thought you had gotten that, now you are just making things up to keep this going. They can call them whatever they want where they play, that will be it, for now at least. So trying to squeeze them as separate markets is futile.

One, that's MLB. Nowhere near the dominant force that football is. Two, if either location gets a team, they are not gonna be called the LA(insert franchise name here) of Anaheim, or vice versa. The NFL wouldn't do that. They would call them the Los Angeles whomever or the Anaheim whomever, or the California whomever, and that area will have to supprt them or not. It's really not this hard to understand.

Stadium issues

1. When the NFL first declined to approve the Raiders' move from Oakland to Los Angeles back in 1980, the team along with the Los Angeles Coliseum successfully sued the league for violating antitrust laws.

2. The Raiders sued the city of Los Angeles over the fact that the city backed out of a stadium deal for the team.

3.After moving back to Oakland, they were sued by the NFL for losing the Los Angeles television market, the second largest in the United States.

The greedy bastard just wanted the rights .....

No , the A.F.L. did though ...... :wink: The N.F.L. just declined the move to Los Angeles .

Anaheim had a team , had that team leave , and now wants one to come back .

Wrong . That's just life in general ......