Dolphins denied public $$ for stadium renovations

Gee, I don't understand... they had plenty of public money for the Marlins last year.

Y! SPORTS

Here's an idea... the Doll-Fiends move to L.A. and the Jags move to Miami.

TrueBeliever said:

Gee, I don't understand... they had plenty of public money for the Marlins last year.

Y! SPORTS

Here's an idea... the Doll-Fiends move to L.A. and the Jags move to Miami.

Click to expand...

I'm surprised to read that their stadium has been around since 1987, I didn't think it had been that long.

Marlins did get a new stadium, but I think much of that had to do with the two pro teams sharing one venue. I will say thank you for them doing so, in that great OT win down there when Tom Brady hit Troy Brown on a long bomb for the game winning score after the Dolphis missed two would be game winning field goals kicking off what was the pitcher's mound.


The other thing to consider is that the stadium renovations are not so much for annual use, but in order to host a Super Bowl? That seems like an awful lot of money for a once every four or five year event - and that's before entering the debate on how much economic impact there really is for a city hosting a Super Bowl.

I wouldn't go so far as to think this would lead the Dolphins to move - though on the other hand with all the celebrity minority shareholders, who knows?

TrueBeliever said:

Gee, I don't understand... they had plenty of public money for the Marlins last year.

Y! SPORTS

Here's an idea... the Doll-Fiends move to L.A. and the Jags move to Miami.

Click to expand...

Why not just move the Jags to LA and Leave the phins where they are...I like beating them twice a year and besides Jacksonville is a Sch*thole anyhow...

Chopblock CB said:

Why not just move the Jags to LA and Leave the phins where they are...I like beating them twice a year and besides Jacksonville is a Sch*thole anyhow...

Click to expand...

I was being facetious...

L.A. is such a mess that I don't see any team there, even with how bad the league wants one (or two) there.

Besides, back in 2002 when they did the realignment I said they should put Baltimore in our division and Miami in the AFC South (with Indy in the AFC North) and Pats fans done lost their minds that I would even THINK about not having the Fiends in our division.

TrueBeliever said:

I was being facetious...

L.A. is such a mess that I don't see any team there, even with how bad the league wants one (or two) there.

Besides, back in 2002 when they did the realignment I said they should put Baltimore in our division and Miami in the AFC South (with Indy in the AFC North) and Pats fans done lost their minds that I would even THINK about not having the Fiends in our division.

Click to expand...

It's funny, I was just talking with someone yesterday and saying that even though I would not want it to happen from a competitive standpoint, the Ravens really belongs in the AFC East.

From a geographic standpoint - which fosters more regional rivalry, and better allows fans to make road trips to see their favorite team play each and every tear - Miami should move from the AFCE to the AFCS; Indianapolis should move from the AFCS to the AFCN; and Baltimore should move from the AFCN to the AFCE.

From a business standpoint I do understand why this did not happen when the NFL expanded to eight divisions, though I don't agree with the decision. The NFL wanted to keep what was still left of the AFL East together, so the Dolphins remained in that division.

The Colts were not a strong team at the time, and they had already bounced from the NFL to the AFC, and from Baltimore to Indy; they had no strong rivalries at that point so they were one of those nomads sacrificed to form a new division.

The irony (or hypocrisy) of the NFL's realignment had to do with the old and new Cleveland franchises. The league decided that all records for the Browns would remain in Cleveland, and pretend the team never left (I guess they were just hibernating when there was no NFL team at The Mistake On The Lake). Keeping a rivalry between relatively close rust belt cities (Pittsburgh and Cleveland) made sense, but they also wanted to keep the rivalry between the fans that followed the old Browns/new Ravens and the Steelers alive. Not only that but the NFL wanted to capitalize on an old Browns/new Browns rivalry - even though officially they acted as if the Ravens never played in Cleveland.


Of course none of that compares to the far more blatant special treatment that the Cowboys received to remain in the NFCE; how can one justify a team from Dallas being in a division with three teams from the northeast?. The funny thing is that with how revenue sharing has made playing in a division full of other big market teams not that big of a deal from a financial perspective, Jerry Jones would never agree to a realignment because of his ego; it might mean that his 8-8 Cowboys are not on national television quite so often.

If the league really wanted to do it right they would move the Cowboys to the NFCS, and generate a rivalry with the Saints; Carolina could take their place in the NFCE.

Imo it would have been better for Indy to stay in the east, and Miami belongs in the AFC south. Both geographically, and Peyton vs Brady 2 times a year would have been sensational. Indy being moved to the south was all about getting manning into the playoffs because they wanted him to win multiple super bowls. They were, and still are willing to do anything so he doesn't end up like marino.

But there is no way they can split up Washington and Dallas. That has just been too good a rivalry for far too long. I would have been willing to put baltimore and carolina in the NFC east rather than split up Dallas and Washington. Although baltimore, washington, dallas, and tampa bay would have made a great division too.

jmt57 said:

It's funny, I was just talking with someone yesterday and saying that even though I would not want it to happen from a competitive standpoint, the Ravens really belongs in the AFC East.

From a geographic standpoint - which fosters more regional rivalry, and better allows fans to make road trips to see their favorite team play each and every tear - Miami should move from the AFCE to the AFCS; Indianapolis should move from the AFCS to the AFCN; and Baltimore should move from the AFCN to the AFCE.

From a business standpoint I do understand why this did not happen when the NFL expanded to eight divisions, though I don't agree with the decision. The NFL wanted to keep what was still left of the AFL East together, so the Dolphins remained in that division.

The Colts were not a strong team at the time, and they had already bounced from the NFL to the AFC, and from Baltimore to Indy; they had no strong rivalries at that point so they were one of those nomads sacrificed to form a new division.

The irony (or hypocrisy) of the NFL's realignment had to do with the old and new Cleveland franchises. The league decided that all records for the Browns would remain in Cleveland, and pretend the team never left (I guess they were just hibernating when there was no NFL team at The Mistake On The Lake). Keeping a rivalry between relatively close rust belt cities (Pittsburgh and Cleveland) made sense, but they also wanted to keep the rivalry between the fans that followed the old Browns/new Ravens and the Steelers alive. Not only that but the NFL wanted to capitalize on an old Browns/new Browns rivalry - even though officially they acted as if the Ravens never played in Cleveland.


Of course none of that compares to the far more blatant special treatment that the Cowboys received to remain in the NFCE; how can one justify a team from Dallas being in a division with three teams from the northeast?. The funny thing is that with how revenue sharing has made playing in a division full of other big market teams not that big of a deal from a financial perspective, Jerry Jones would never agree to a realignment because of his ego; it might mean that his 8-8 Cowboys are not on national television quite so often.

If the league really wanted to do it right they would move the Cowboys to the NFCS, and generate a rivalry with the Saints; Carolina could take their place in the NFCE.

Click to expand...

Why?PJ said:

I would have been willing to put baltimore and carolina in the NFC east rather than split up Dallas and Washington. Although baltimore, washington, dallas, and tampa bay would have made a great division too.

Click to expand...

For the record, when the Cardinals were looking to leave St. Louis in the '80s, one or two of the NFC East owners tried to convince them to go to Baltimore, since it made geographic sense. Presumably though the Redskins' owner was against it. As we all know, however, they went to Phoenix/Arizona, so you had NFC East teams flying 10K miles for a divisional game.

Personally, here's what I would like to see - the Rams leaving St. Louis to return to L.A. and the Jaguars then moving to St. Louis. That way the league benefits by having a team in L.A. again and by getting the heck out of Jacksonville, plus both teams could stay in their respective divisions without too much displaced geography.

Oh and one other thing... when they were figuring out the realignment, the league kept pushing that it made sense to have the Colts in the south because then Peyton Manning could play in Tennessee again every year. Did they think he was going to play forever?