I think there should be one or two NFL franchises in L.A. but I think they should come in the form of a new franchise and not an existing one. Yes, the NFL does already have 32 teams. And yes, L.A. is looking for a winning team or two to stick in a new arena to draw fans but I think with the options they have looking into moving to L.A. such as Oakland, Jacksonville, at one point Minnesota, St. Louis and the best of the group San Fran. I think they would be better suited to have a new franchise because the ones looking into moving in are almost like starting a new one excluding San Fran.
The NFL wants two teams to run the arena. Similar to the NY Giants and the NY Jets situation. Where one team gets home field every other Sunday. They are mostly discussing the two California teams that are already there in Oakland and San Fran. But like I said earlier, lets add two new franchises and keep everyone else where they are. So I say call one the L.A. Oilers (named after Houston’s former team) and the other L.A. Cougars (no pun intended) .It would make it exactly like NY’s. Two teams, same city, same stadium, more money for the NFL and some new excitement for those in L.A. I know it would lead to four teams in California..but I don't honestly see a problem with that. The NFL shouldn't either. It will help keep their pockets full.
Not to mention it helps to keep current franchises where they are already. I wouldn't want to see another Cleveland Browns turned Baltimore Ravens situation when Cleveland lost their franchise to Baltimore then out of nowhere they revived them a few years later.Why don't we just skip a step and add two new franchises instead of moving San Fran and Oakland to L.A. then only to have San Fran and Oakland end up with franchises later on.
Not to mention it helps to keep current franchises where they are already. I wouldn't want to see another Cleveland Browns turned Baltimore Ravens situation when Cleveland lost their franchise to Baltimore then out of nowhere they revived them a few years later.Why don't we just skip a step and add two new franchises instead of moving San Fran and Oakland to L.A. then only to have San Fran and Oakland end up with franchises later on.
As for the two new teams, I would stick one of the teams in the NFC West (more competition needed) and AFC West (same). I do see where one division would have an extra team in each the AFC and NFC, but that’s the way the NFL used to be before realignment.
Do I think the NFL will listen to my suggestions, probably not. Will there be a new team in L.A., I think so. I think it will be an existing franchise or two. And if I was to make a guess that will be by 2015. And I think they will immediately put them into the running to hold a Super Bowl as well since L.A. is well L.A.
What do you think? Should the NFL put a franchise in L.A.? Should they be a new franchise or an existing one? Would love to hear what you guys think!!
0 comments:
Post a Comment