WHICH CITYZ SHOULD HAVE A NFL TEAM THAT DONT?

  • Wanna Join? New users you can now register lightning fast using your Facebook or Twitter accounts.
Mar 17, 2006
5,101
1,199
113
42
#21
xpanther206 said:
The Metro Areas of those cities are both significantly larger than Columbus (not to mention, they are not college football dominated areas).

Cleveland MSA = 2.9 mil
Cincinnati MSA = 1.9 mil
Columbus MSA = 1.5 mil

Columbus would be a terrible place for an NFL team. Not only is it too small and too close to two NFL markets, but I remember walking from my hotel to the stadium for the Washington vs. Ohio State a few years back, and one of the OSU fans came up to me, we had a nice conversation and he said something like "this is our contribution to the world, we are not a pro town, we don't want pro sports, Buckeye football is what we do."
ah shit i must have read it wrong
 
Apr 25, 2002
3,970
15
38
42
#22
LurccH918 said:
ah shit i must have read it wrong
Na man I don't think you read it wrong at all, Columbus is the largest city in Ohio. It's just not the largest Metro Area, they are two very different things. But for the purpose of this discussion, it's metro area that's what matters.

Another example of this is that the largest city in Florida is technically Jacksonville (while it's not even close to being the largest MSA). It's just all about how far the city extends and how close to the city center the suburbs creep. To stay in Florida, in Miami the suburbs creep very close to the central city (i.e. Carol City where Rick Ross is from), so the result is that the population of the city of Miami is technically only 350,000 but the Metro Area is huge.

Phoenix is the same way, the metro area is almost the exact same size as Seattle's metro area, but the city of Phoenix is twice as large as the city of Seattle b/c Phoenix's city limits extend way out into the dessert, while Seattle's stop much closer in.
 
Nov 27, 2002
2,092
103
0
48
#25
Portland would be koo if you see the luv the beavers,ducks an trailblazers get.
But I doubt oregon would ever get a team.Even the high school football games are like them things you see on mtv's two a day.
Only thing I really see is the nine men national an 11 men national football leagues.
 
Feb 15, 2007
1,623
3
0
#26
ALL I KNOW IS THAT LA SHOULDN'T HAVE ONE. THEY'VE HAD TEAMS BEFORE BUT NEVER STUCK AROUND CAUSE THEY COULDNT SELL TICKETS. I SEEN YOU SOME THE OTHER DAY WHEN THE RAIDERS PLAYED THERE AND THE SEATS LOOKED HALF EMPTY. AND THIS WAS WHEN THEY WERE WINNING, THEY EVEN WON A SUPER BOWL WHILE IN LA
 
Jan 4, 2003
4,549
5
0
#29
discuss650 said:
well san jose area (santa clara) is about to have one, the niners, and raiders if they share the stadium.
that is not happenin.. rumors rumors rumors.. raiders aint going halfs on no stadium with the niners.. this aint the new york jets/giants
 
Oct 30, 2002
11,091
1,888
113
www.soundclick.com
#31
san jo is getting bigger but not like the past..people are actually leaving san jo more than b4..shit is expensive out there..and id say a shade under a mill.. census dont count everybody but u cant expect 1/4 of a mill to be uncounted.. s
 
Apr 25, 2002
3,970
15
38
42
#34
The notion that San Jose should have an NFL team (and therefore, the Bay Area should have three NFL teams) is laughable.

It's about the metro area, not the city size, and San Jose is part of the San Francisco-Oakland-San Jose-Vallejo metro area. How many times do I have to tell you guys.
 
Oct 30, 2002
11,091
1,888
113
www.soundclick.com
#36
Norcal916 said:
no way ur trippen
its been that way fro quite a while..every year the news always has the statistics for the city.. #1 safest big city, 2nd largest in cali now its 3rd behind san diego..10th largest in in the country #1most hated city in the bay.. look it up..its all there for u too find
 
Mar 17, 2006
5,101
1,199
113
42
#37
birmingham should be tossed in the mix i went through there once and it was a lot bigger than i thought, plus there football fanatics down there they love the Tide