SamusAranX
On the Game Day Roster
- Joined
- Jul 29, 2008
- Messages
- 262
- Reaction score
- 338
Samus:
I respect your opinions, but I still disagree on some points.
Thank you, and ditto.
First, as the article indicates, Florida already had two NFL teams before the Jags were added. Granted, Florida's a large state, but still. I've heard the argument that the NFL was trying to win over "transplant" fans, but I don't think that holds water because Jacksonville is in far northern Florida, whereas I believe most transplants are in southern Florida.
Well, as I said, Jacksonville is growing. Miami's population has grown as well, but not as much as Jacksonville's has. Again, I think the NFL's reasoning was good in putting a franchise there. It isn't that far fetched to think that a populous state can support three franchises in a relatively close proximity; California did it for a time in the L.A. area, while the Oakland/San Fransisco Bay Area has had two teams nearby for awhile now.
But I can see there were flaws in the NFL's plans.
I'll admit that even if the AFC team had gone to Baltimore and not Jax, that doesn't mean the Browns wouldn't have left Cleveland. That was all but certain with the predicament Modell had gotten himself into. BUT with the way it turned out, there was such a backlash that the league felt it had no choice but to promise to restore the Browns in Cleveland within five years, which necessitated making the new Browns an expansion club, which in turn necessitated adding yet another expansion club to restore an even number of teams. As a result the league is in danger of becoming a diluted product because even with all the college football programs in the country, there just aren't that many NFL-caliber players to go around. (Though I'll admit that the new alignment of eight four-team divisions works rather well.)
This point I definitely agree with, in a way. I'm no longer in favor of more expansion, but wasn't against it before the total reached 32 teams.
So I still feel that the league IS still being bitten in the ass because of the relocation/expansion snafu created by blowing off Baltimore and St. Louis. I have nothing against the Jaguars or their fans, but I do feel very strongly that it would have been much better for the league as a whole had that franchise gone somewhere else.
I understand your point. But I have faith in Jacksonville. It will take time, but I already feel that passion is growing as is tradition, and once we start avoiding blackouts and the fanbase grows, Jacksonville will be able to pull their weight so to speak as pertaining to league revenue.
Finally, I would like to clarify that I wasn't saying I believed Jacksonville people aren't into football, I was just trying to explain why there seemed to be issues with attendance/blackouts. I was not aware that the games actually were selling out, just not by the blackout deadline. I also read last year in an article (can't remember the source, maybe it was CBS Sports) that the economy down there wasn't that good which was likely contributing to the drop in ticket sales. Granted, no one can predict that kind of stuff over a decade down the road.
Like I said, that is why blackouts are imposed. If the fans can't get the game on TV, they'll likely shell out some money for those last seats remaining, thus selling out the stadium and ensuring the league gets its money.
One last thing - when you said Jax had one major league franchise, were you referring to the Bulls of the USFL?
I was actually referring to the Jags. I was pointing out that the Jaguars have no "competition" to speak in getting attention. They are the only major sports franchise there and thus are the only team many kids there grew up watching. No NBA, no NHL, no MLB. Just the Jags and good NFL football.
Last edited: