Are the Oakland Raiders considering a move to San Antonio?

[Mark L. Ford]

Conversation carried over from yesterday, October 11

Started by oldecapecod 11, October 11, 2014, 05:56 AM

Are the Oakland Raiders considering a move to San Antonio?

http://www.aol.com/a...nk2&pLid=543458

Is $1,500.00 fairly common for a low-level season ticket?

In 1966, when we first moved to Boston, we paid $176.00 for TWO season tickets. 'Course every year we had to get used to a different location in a different stadium.

When the Ravens first arrived in Baltimore, a woman remarked she paid more to park than she did for her season ticket when the Colts came to town.

In the early '50s, a friend and I were herded like cattle and moved from section to section behind police barriers to pay fifty cents (yes; that's $.50) to get into the Polo Grounds bleachers. If I had a buck, after $.15 subway fare each way, I still had a dime for a program and another dime for a hot chocolate.

#2 Are the Oakland Raiders considering a move to San Antonio?:
post #2 rhickok1109
Posted October 11, 2014, 07:41 AM

When I was in college (1955-59), we paid 25 cents for centerfield bleacher seats at Fenway Park.

#3 Are the Oakland Raiders considering a move to San Antonio?:
post #3 oldecapecod 11
Posted October 11, 2014, 08:41 AM

Slightly before those years and during them, unreserved grandstand at Yankee Stadium was 50 cents. Once in, you kinda moved around until you were as close to 3rd or 1st Base as you thought possible and then hoped you did not get chased. Third was the visitors side so it was easier. I never did the bleachers at the Stadium but the Polo Grounds also was a quarter. My one game at Ebbet's Field was a treat in a $1.25 Grandstand seat.

[oldecapecod11]

BUMP (To avoid duplication)

[sheajets]

In an era where the NFL wants to be green, family friendly, and get away from the era of dawg pounds or the well lubricated, violent shaking stands of stadiums past...the Oakland Coliseum stands as a throwback. It's a dingy stadium, rough part of town, doesn't seem to have the amenities to keep up with some of the new palaces being built, and the crowd is essentially a cell block without bars.

They're not economically viable there anymore. It can't continue. But thrusting them into San Antonio in an area that's already chock full of Cowboys and Texans fans is just foolish. They will essentially become what the Hartford Whalers were wedged between the Rangers and Bruins.

The Raiders only have 1 landing spot and that's L.A.

The question is will the Rams beat them there? They just played a Monday night game against the 49ers where they honored the 1999 team, and 80% of of the Stadium (which had large swaths of empty seats) were 9ers fans. It seems like St. Louis has already checked out on the Rams

[oldecapecod11]

Maybe the Rams and the Browns should swap cities?

We would have the return of the Cleveland Rams and the football version of the St. Louis Browns.

[ChrisBabcock]

Maybe the Rams and the Browns should swap cities?

We would have the return of the Cleveland Rams and the football version of the St. Louis Browns.

hah! cool idea. I was thinking something similar in the NBA until New Orleans changed their name from the Hornets to the Pelicans. I was thinking that Utah and New Orleans could swap Jazz and Hornets nicknames. Since Utah is the Beehive State and New Orleans can have their Jazz nickname back.

(The Utah Jazz were the New Orleans Jazz in the late 70s for any non-NBA fans here.)

[oldecapecod11]

I thought that Stingers was a great name for a Utah-based team and never really understood why the PCL franchise changed to Bees?
Maybe they don't care what I think? Imagine that?

[rhickok1109]

Maybe the Rams and the Browns should swap cities?

We would have the return of the Cleveland Rams and the football version of the St. Louis Browns.

hah! cool idea. I was thinking something similar in the NBA until New Orleans changed their name from the Hornets to the Pelicans. I was thinking that Utah and New Orleans could swap Jazz and Hornets nicknames. Since Utah is the Beehive State and New Orleans can have their Jazz nickname back.

(The Utah Jazz were the New Orleans Jazz in the late 70s for any non-NBA fans here.)

I could never understand why the name wasn't changed when the Jazz moved to Salt Lake City. It's as if the football team were called "the New Orleans Latter-Day Saints."

[oldecapecod11]

If the CFL could have the Rough Riders and the Roughriders, why can't the NFL have the Texans and the Texians?
Roses, or better yet, Yellow Roses, would be a natural but the San Antonio Roses have been around for quite some time and only in Pennsylvania does there seem to be the gumption for naming teams for flowers (standards though they were.) (That's Lancaster and York, Houses of Plantaganet, for those who have forgotten.)
Whoops! What's a buckeye? is that a flower?

[7DnBrnc53]

But thrusting them into San Antonio in an area that's already chock full of Cowboys and Texans fans is just foolish. They will essentially become what the Hartford Whalers were wedged between the Rangers and Bruins.

Here's the thing, though: San Antonio is a bigger city than Jacksonville (which isn't too far from Atlanta and Tampa) and Hartford, so it makes more sense for them to have major league sports than those cities. I don't know why the league even looked at Jacksonville.

Also, why did the NFL choose Tampa over Phoenix in the 70's?

[sheajets]

But thrusting them into San Antonio in an area that's already chock full of Cowboys and Texans fans is just foolish. They will essentially become what the Hartford Whalers were wedged between the Rangers and Bruins.

Here's the thing, though: San Antonio is a bigger city than Jacksonville (which isn't too far from Atlanta and Tampa) and Hartford, so it makes more sense for them to have major league sports than those cities. I don't know why the league even looked at Jacksonville.

Also, why did the NFL choose Tampa over Phoenix in the 70's?

I wouldn't mind the Jags in San Antonio. Just keep the Raiders in Cali, that's where they belong.

I have no clue about Jax. Maybe they saw a population spike, maybe they saw business was moving in and booming. Maybe Jacksonville was drawing good TV numbers for football pre 1995(though it was a tiny TV market overall) though what I really think was there was some under the table back room stuff going on and that's why they got the franchise. Because that 2nd team in 1993 should've been awarded to Baltimore. Those were rabid fans just thirsting for a team. And since they got one back they haven't disappointed.

If you gave the NFL truth serum they would tell you Jacksonville was flat out idiotic. And now they have to carry the dead corpse Jags franchise until a more suitable city is up and ready.