Well, they already got the Lakers from there if I remember correctly, so I guess it's only logical that they also take their NFL team.

In some cases the city decides to keep the franchise name, like what happened with Cleveland and the Browns, so I wonder if Minnesota could still keep the Vikings franchise even if they ended up losing the team?

I'm not sure who decides that or how it works, but I do remember reading about it some time a go, but I can't remember how exactly it worked.

Also, I think some stadium bill got rejected in SoCal within past days, so I'm not sure if LA are even able to receive a team at the moment or even in a year's time - don't know what the bill was about.

I love this schedule. Its not easy, no. But it has a bunch of teams I
want to clobber. #1: 49ers. My hatred of the 9'ers is back.

Oh yeah, the Lakers did start out in Minnesota ... that deal in Cleveland with the name, I think the City sued whoever bought the team for the right to keep the name "Browns" if the team relocated, so I assume Minnesota would have to take legal action to keep "Vikings" ... they weren't too concerned when the Lakers & North Stars left, probably won't fight for 'Vikings' either.

put like that, the Vikings should totally move. All those teams went on to become champions after leaving the state while Minnasotians (are they called that?) settled for mediocre to poor teams several years later.

Well, that is one thing I've read many former LA Rams' fans talk about, like how they should've hold on to the Rams franchise even when the team itself relocated, so that they could re-brand a potential new team as the Rams.

Of course, LA wasn't even the original city of the Rams franchise, but they don't seem to be aware of that or choose to disregard that little bit of history.

I don't know, it would be so weird to see the Vikings relocate to LA, and I'd certainly prefer it if they seized to be the Vikings if the team moved there - just like I would've preferred it with the North Stars as well.

I think that the State(MN) shouldn't have to flip the bill for a new stadium. Why have owners if they can't build their own stadium. Tax Breaks yes. Loan yes. Not flip the whole bill.

They aren't flipping the whole bill by any stretch of meaning. The owner Zygi Wilf is actually proposing to pay more of the overall bill than other owners have in the past - except of course for Jerry Jones.

The thing is that why should Wilf pay for the whole thing? The project is going to provide many jobs and the structure itself is going to be in the center of the metropolis area - where Metrodome is located at the moment.

And if you add all the monetary income the Vikings provide either directly or indirectly to the twin cities and to the state, it would only be logical that the team shouldn't be the only one having to pay for their stadium.

The basketball team didn't have to... the baseball team didn't have to... and the hockey team didn't have to either... so why should the football team's owner be the only one who has to pay for it all?

Also, if the owner should pay for the whole thing, then why shouldn't he/she just move the team to a better market area where his/her profit margins would be much greater than in Minnesota and the Minneapolis/St. Paul area?

I mean if the State and the cities don't show loyalty to the team in helping them build a new stadium for them, then why should the team show the state and the cities any loyalty in return.

It's a very difficult situation which has been going on for years now, and at least in my opinion the Vikings have been more than understanding of the cities' and the state's needs and limitations, and they have provided them with numerous alternative plans on where to build the stadium and how to finance the build. So, I won't blame Wilf if he decides to move the team or to sell it in light of these recent developments.

How exactly do they work out the schedule?
I know you play each team in the division twice and then the better teams get harder schedules.With this being the case how exactly do the Oatriots get the easy schedule they do other than being GODell pets.
Only going on the road to play a playoff/championship contender once.
It stinks

The schedule is pre-determined. Currently we know who and where we'll play for the next 100 years (except for the 2 standings related teams, which is detrmined by each teams divisional standings).

The ONLY variable is when we play those teams.

Fair enough,wasn't aware how they scheduled the games.

Here's why strength of schedule is misleading..

Which division would you like to play?

Division A which finished...
9-7
9-7
8-8
8-8

Or

Division B which finished
11-5
11-5
11-5
0-16

Strength of schedule says Division B is the weaker of the two, but I'd say its the strongest.

Looks like we got a break with the schedule this year. Estimated at 29 on strength of schedule VS passing, running, and points against. We might actually pull this off.

2012 NFL Strength Of Schedule vs. PassFantasy Football Rankings, 2012 NFL Player Projections

2012 NFL Strength Of Schedule Points AgainstFantasy Football Rankings, 2012 NFL Player Projections

2012 NFL Strength Of Schedule Points AgainstFantasy Football Rankings, 2012 NFL Player Projections

Last year we played 10 teams 8-8 or better, and 6 teams 7-9 or worse

This year we'll play 10 teams 8-8 or better, and 6 teams 7-9 or worse.

Ain't scared.

They face who they face - no team is invincible.

That is none of the current teams, because I didn't mean any disrespect to the '72 Dolphins.

Yeah, the schedule makers are the same guys who use to run the college game until the SEC teams started tearing new ones in the BCS Championships...

It always takes the Giants half a season to get hot also, so bad timing there too.

The Saints played at Green Bay last season because the schedule fell that way (the NFC South played the NFC North). They play at Green Bay this season because the division winners play division winners. The 49ers (NFC West winners) play at the Saints. The Giants (NFC East winners) played at the Saints last season. So either the Giants play at the Saints two years in a row, or the Saints play at the Packers two years in a row. See below why the NFL schedule makers chose to have the Saints play at GB two seasons in a row

The last season the NFC South played the NFC East (2009), the Saints played at Philadelphia and at Washington, and played NY Giants and Dallas at home. So this go around, Philadelphia and Washington play at the Saints, and the Saints play on the road at NY Giants and Dallas.

DOES ANYONE KNOW WHERE OR HAVE THE SAINTS 2012 SCHEDULE AS A BACKGROUND, WOULD SURELY APPRECIATE IT. ST.

I'm putting one together. I'll post it in the Wallpaper forum when completed.