FanIQ

  • join now
  • login
  • Login
You Might Like




Asked By: starrman


Who liked it? 24
zadai1234 (+)
Cleveland Browns

YankeeDudeL (+)
New York Giants

darkangel711 (+)
New England Patriots

Jared (+)
Washington Redskins

jungleboy213 (+)
Philadelphia Eagles

242fast (+)
Clemson Tigers

djclemson (+)
Dallas Cowboys

OUSMALLZ (+)
Houston Texans

donm454 (+)
Philadelphia Eagles

Jahiegel (+)
Green Bay Packers

... and 14 other fans
 Skip to Next Poll »
24
Of the following top ten largest cities without a NFL team, which is the best city for a new team? (Edited 02/16/08 09:42PM by Seth)
| Closed on 04/18/08 at 12:00PM
FanIQ Pts? No | NFL | Multiple Choice Opinion Poll
Team Breakout:
76 Fans 
30%a. Los Angeles, CA
11%b. San Antonio, TX
0%c. San Jose, CA
8%d. Columbus, OH
1%e. Austin, TX
1%f. Memphis, TN
0%g. El Paso, TX
7%h. Louisville, KY
26%i. Las Vegas, NV
16%j. Portland, OR

 &nbp;
TOP COMMENT * * * * * * * * * * * *
#55 | 1869 days ago

 JRE1969 wrote:
Do New Jersey and New York have the same Governor???

Well their former Govs certainly do not share titles.  One blows bros, the other blows hoes.

Los Angeles, CA  
3

  
61 Comments | Sorted by Most Recent First | Red = You Disagreed
Vote for your favorite comments. Fans decide the Top Comment (3+ votes) and also hide poor quality comments (4+ votes).
#1 | 1942 days ago

 I think Portland would also be able to support a NFL franchise.
Los Angeles, CA  

#2 | 1942 days ago
Ali (+)

I can safely say, that Columbus Ohio should not get a NFL team.  First off, the state already has two NFL franchises, and secondly- OHIO STATE is too much of a force for folks to support an NFL team as well.

 

Columbus has done fairly well with its professional teams- the Bluejackets, Crew and Destroyers- but note that none of these teams are competing with OSU Football and Basketball...
3

#3 | 1941 days ago

Portland, Louisville, and Las Vegas..in that order.

 

LA will never deserve another team, as far as I'm concerned.

San Antonio, Austin, El Paso, Memphis and Columbus are eliminated because there are already enough teams in their state who are already popular enough. Ali's reasons for Columbus were right on. And San Jose is in the 49ers' territory.

Portland, OR  

#4 | 1941 days ago

 I think every place up there but LA should have equal rights to a team. LA lost as they lost the Raiders and Rams. I think Vegas is needing a team, gambling capital, get some Casino owners to buy a team and certain with the tourists that swamp the area, guaranteed sellouts
Las Vegas, NV  

#5 | 1940 days ago

 i live in vegas, the last thing we need is more tourist, plus a team bing in vegas is bound to have corruption some how, either refs or players throwing the games or who knows what.
Portland, OR  

#6 | 1940 days ago

 The Rams need to return to LA
Los Angeles, CA  

#7 | 1940 days ago

 I think that the Jets should move to Syracuse NY and build a new stadium that is attached to "DestiNY USA" which, when completed, will be the largest mall in North America. Syracuse University has a very high average attendence for it's basketball and football teams. That on top of the tourist attraction of the new mall could definately support an NFL team. Plus it would get it out of Jersey....LOL
Columbus, OH  

#8 | 1940 days ago

 Ali wrote:

I can safely say, that Columbus Ohio should not get a NFL team.  First off, the state already has two NFL franchises, and secondly- OHIO STATE is too much of a force for folks to support an NFL team as well.

 

Columbus has done fairly well with its professional teams- the Bluejackets, Crew and Destroyers- but note that none of these teams are competing with OSU Football and Basketball...

Texas and California also already have two NFL teams
Louisville, KY  
1

#9 | 1939 days ago

I have to say that I think that LA would be a good place finacially but LA has already proven that they can't keep a football team to save their lives. I also agree with several people above about Columbus not being a good place for both reasons a) OH already has 2 NFL teams and b) I really don't think that they would fare well because of OSU.

 

Las Vegas, NV  

#10 | 1939 days ago
shark74 (+)

Not having a team in LA helps the NFL and the 32 teams in their negotiating power with local authorities... "if you don't give us x, we can always relocate to LA".  I think Ohio and Texas have already got enough teams, hence my choice of Las Vegas.

 

It's just ironic that there's curently more chance of London getting a regular game than Los Angeles !!!

Las Vegas, NV  

#11 | 1939 days ago

 chad_is_god wrote:
Texas and California also already have two NFL teams
Yeah but Ohio NFL teams have always been failures at football. I know from experience.
Los Angeles, CA  
1

#12 | 1939 days ago

 jrgriffey wrote:
Yeah but Ohio NFL teams have always been failures at football. I know from experience.
maybe the third one will be a charm lol!! sorry i couldnt help it!
Louisville, KY  

#13 | 1937 days ago

 (Edited by RichyMcWiggleSr)

I have to give it to Vegas!  There is too much money in that town not to have a stadium.  To state that they already have enough tourism is ridiculous ... and I don't mean that derrogatively on the person who wrote it, but just because as I thought about it, the tourism there is exactly why you want that stadium.  Everywhere you go in the US, someone is almost always talking about going to Vegas, so no matter what team is playing against them, you have a fan-attraction towards filling all the seats.  The weather is almost constant, so it'd be a perfect location for the Superbowl and big college games. 

 

With the money going in and out of Vegas, I'm quite certain the security issues surrounding the refs and officials could be handled and kept outside the stadium.  Along with being the 'center of gambling' for the US, I think it's way up at the top of the list of cities for security and servaillance.

 

Las Vegas Bambinos!!!!  You gots my vote!!!

 

**This just came to me:  Make the main characters for the Sopranos be their PR Reps!  lol

Las Vegas, NV  

#14 | 1936 days ago

 Columbus, Portland, Las Vegas, and Los Angeles in that order-- in fact, add all 4 at once, and have Portland and Columbus go to the AFC, and LV and LA go to the NFC....
Columbus, OH  

#15 | 1936 days ago

 Indydave wrote:
Columbus, Portland, Las Vegas, and Los Angeles in that order-- in fact, add all 4 at once, and have Portland and Columbus go to the AFC, and LV and LA go to the NFC....
3 Ohio teams in the AFC? Really.
Los Angeles, CA  

#16 | 1933 days ago

san antonio

1. they want a team so bad

2. as the 7th leargest city in america they can support it

3. they are pretty die hard out there, you should see how spurs crazy they are

4. they are probably still trying to get the vikings

5. i like san antonio and am biased

San Antonio, TX  

#17 | 1933 days ago

 If San Antonio gets one then the Cowboy fans will have another band wagon to jump on when they suck! Remember the Oilers!!!
San Antonio, TX  

#18 | 1883 days ago

 I dont think they should add any teams because the scheduling system is perfect right now.
Los Angeles, CA  

#19 | 1883 days ago

 I don't think there is much competition here. L.A. has proven that it can support 2 teams!
Los Angeles, CA  

#20 | 1883 days ago

 Gazzo wrote:
I don't think there is much competition here. L.A. has proven that it can support 2 teams!
More accurately, they have proven that they CAN'T. Hence, the zero current teams.
Portland, OR  

#21 | 1883 days ago

 Pat wrote:
More accurately, they have proven that they CAN'T. Hence, the zero current teams.
Just leave baseball and basketball to LA
Los Angeles, CA  

#22 | 1883 days ago

 Pat wrote:
More accurately, they have proven that they CAN'T. Hence, the zero current teams.
That has more to due with the money and stadium areas. I answered based solely on the fan base, and ability for a team with the RIGHT situation to make money.
Los Angeles, CA  
1

#23 | 1883 days ago
242fast (+)

chad_is_god wrote:
Texas and California also already have two NFL teams
Florida has three teams who get good support. If they can California and Texas can.
San Antonio, TX  
1

#24 | 1883 days ago

 242fast wrote:
Florida has three teams who get good support. If they can California and Texas can.
Technically, the same can be said for NY.
Los Angeles, CA  

#25 | 1871 days ago
JRE1969 (+)

Gazzo wrote:
Technically, the same can be said for NY.
Not really two of the "New York" teams play in New Jersey. The 3rd is technically in Canada for God's sake.
San Antonio, TX  

#26 | 1871 days ago

 JRE1969 wrote:
Not really two of the "New York" teams play in New Jersey. The 3rd is technically in Canada for God's sake.
Jets played at Shea, and the Giants played at Yankee stadium! so they were once in NY! And  have you never heard of BUFFALO NY? its in NY last i checked. 
Louisville, KY  
2

#27 | 1871 days ago
JRE1969 (+)

(Edited by JRE1969)
chad_is_god wrote:
Jets played at Shea, and the Giants played at Yankee stadium! so they were once in NY! And  have you never heard of BUFFALO NY? its in NY last i checked. 

They (Jets, Giants) don't play in New York anymore they play in New Jersey. I am right about that-just please admit it. 2nd topic- I was joking about Buafflo being in Canada.

San Antonio, TX  

#28 | 1871 days ago

 JRE1969 wrote:

They (Jets, Giants) don't play in New York anymore they play in New Jersey. I am right about that-just please admit it. 2nd topic- I was joking about Buafflo being in Canada.

and i was right about how both teams ORIGINALLY played in NY! Hence the name NY Jets/Giants.

 

Just because your Pats lost the SB to a NY team, doesn't mean you should go looking for reasons to bash them!

Louisville, KY  
1

#29 | 1871 days ago
JRE1969 (+)

chad_is_god wrote:

and i was right about how both teams ORIGINALLY played in NY! Hence the name NY Jets/Giants.

 

Just because your Pats lost the SB to a NY team, doesn't mean you should go looking for reasons to bash them!

But they don't play their anymore, they play in New Jersey. I am not bashing them I am just winning an argument about basic geography.

San Antonio, TX  
1

#30 | 1871 days ago

 JRE1969 wrote:

But they don't play their anymore, they play in New Jersey. I am not bashing them I am just winning an argument about basic geography.

I am well aware of the location of the meadowlands!  However they (once again) ORIGINALLY played in NY which is why they are called NY teams. They are not going to change the name for moving over a half of a state!
Louisville, KY  

#31 | 1871 days ago
JRE1969 (+)

chad_is_god wrote:
I am well aware of the location of the meadowlands!  However they (once again) ORIGINALLY played in NY which is why they are called NY teams. They are not going to change the name for moving over a half of a state!
Yes but they are not in New York anymore. With your logic the Jazz should still be called the New Orleans Jazz and the Lakers the Minneapolis Lakers.
San Antonio, TX  

#32 | 1871 days ago

 JRE1969 wrote:

They (Jets, Giants) don't play in New York anymore they play in New Jersey. I am right about that-just please admit it. 2nd topic- I was joking about Buafflo being in Canada.

I think that the Jets should move to Syracuse NY and build a new stadium that is attached to "DestiNY USA" which, when completed, will be the largest mall in North America. Syracuse University has a very high average attendence for it's basketball and football teams. That on top of the tourist attraction of the new mall could definately support an NFL team. Plus it would get it out of Jersey....LOL

 

This is a re-post...It seems relevent

Columbus, OH  
1

#33 | 1871 days ago

 JRE1969 wrote:
Yes but they are not in New York anymore. With your logic the Jazz should still be called the New Orleans Jazz and the Lakers the Minneapolis Lakers.
no because they didnt move like half a state! besides the fact that New Jersey and  New York are practicaly the same thing!
Louisville, KY  

#34 | 1871 days ago
JRE1969 (+)

chad_is_god wrote:
no because they didnt move like half a state! besides the fact that New Jersey and  New York are practicaly the same thing!
Do New Jersey and New York have the same Governor???
San Antonio, TX  

#35 | 1871 days ago

 JRE1969 wrote:
Do New Jersey and New York have the same Governor???
What does that have to do with the sports world and sports fans? By saying that they were the same thing i ment that the fans and citizens of both states are very very identical!
Louisville, KY  

#36 | 1871 days ago
JRE1969 (+)

chad_is_god wrote:
What does that have to do with the sports world and sports fans? By saying that they were the same thing i ment that the fans and citizens of both states are very very identical!
Well if New York and New Jersey are practically the same thing I would assume they would only need one Governor for both states.
San Antonio, TX  

#37 | 1871 days ago

 JRE1969 wrote:
Well if New York and New Jersey are practically the same thing I would assume they would only need one Governor for both states.
did u not read any of that?
Louisville, KY  

#38 | 1871 days ago
JRE1969 (+)

chad_is_god wrote:
did u not read any of that?
Yes I did, and I still say I'm right. They play in New jersey, it doesn't make sense they are called New York.
San Antonio, TX  

#39 | 1871 days ago

 chad_is_god wrote:
Texas and California also already have two NFL teams

California has 3 teams.

- Oakland Raiders

- San Francisco 49ers

- San Diego Chargers

 

I think the Raiders should move back to Los Angeles. Oakland can't really support their team either, being a suburb of San Francisco. The L.A. riots that occured when the St Louis Rams won Super Bowl XXXIV proved they still need a team.

 

Los Angeles, CA  

#40 | 1871 days ago

 chad_is_god wrote:

and i was right about how both teams ORIGINALLY played in NY! Hence the name NY Jets/Giants.

 

Just because your Pats lost the SB to a NY team, doesn't mean you should go looking for reasons to bash them!

Ah...is that why they still call those other teams the Brooklyn Dodgers and the New York (MLB) Giants?

REAL teams change their name if it no longer fits. For example...when the Patriots moved out of the city of Boston, and into Foxborough (still in the same STATE, even), they became known as the NEW ENGLAND Patriots.
Portland, OR  

#41 | 1871 days ago

 Pat wrote:
Ah...is that why they still call those other teams the Brooklyn Dodgers and the New York (MLB) Giants?

REAL teams change their name if it no longer fits. For example...when the Patriots moved out of the city of Boston, and into Foxborough (still in the same STATE, even), they became known as the NEW ENGLAND Patriots.
You guys are retarded....The Dodgers and Giants moved clear across the country, not a few miles across a state line as has been said over and over and over again already! Boy, you Boston fans are thick headed!!!....LOL
Columbus, OH  
1

#42 | 1871 days ago

 Pat wrote:
Ah...is that why they still call those other teams the Brooklyn Dodgers and the New York (MLB) Giants?

REAL teams change their name if it no longer fits. For example...when the Patriots moved out of the city of Boston, and into Foxborough (still in the same STATE, even), they became known as the NEW ENGLAND Patriots.
Yes but mind you that the Dodgers and Giants didn't move into neighboring states. They are both in California! Not even remotly close to NY!
Louisville, KY  

#43 | 1871 days ago

 chad_is_god wrote:
Yes but mind you that the Dodgers and Giants didn't move into neighboring states. They are both in California! Not even remotly close to NY!
A. They should not call themselves New York if they play in New Jersey.
and
B. They shouldn't have moved from New York

If a team is not from a certain city, they should not say they are.
Los Angeles, CA  
1

#44 | 1870 days ago

The Vegas Gamblers....no PR nightmare there for the NFL executives!!!

Louisville, KY  
1

#45 | 1870 days ago

 donm454 wrote:
A. They should not call themselves New York if they play in New Jersey.
and
B. They shouldn't have moved from New York

If a team is not from a certain city, they should not say they are.

Back that up, give me reasons why what you are saying should be how it is.

 

I agree with what youy are say as far as letter A is concerned, however i also believe there can be acceptions!

Louisville, KY  

#46 | 1869 days ago

 chad_is_god wrote:

Back that up, give me reasons why what you are saying should be how it is.

 

I agree with what youy are say as far as letter A is concerned, however i also believe there can be acceptions!

The reasoning behind it is New York is one of the biggest markets in the world.  The NFL is one of the biggest sports in the world.  A team representing that should play in that state, however there are 2 teams that represent it and they both play in New Jersey.

 

I agree with you that there can be acceptions, but on a lower level.  Not New York.  I agree with the person above who said the Jets should move to Syracuse, that would turn the rivalry into more of a Mets-yankees because they each have their own field and when they played, it would be filled with the home teams fans, not whoever is doing better at the time. But an addition to me liking the Jets to go to Syracuse, the Giants should play at the Mets new stadium, if they make it compatible for two sports.

 

All I'm saying is New York is a major city and should have an NFL team play in and for it, not just for it.

Los Angeles, CA  
1

#47 | 1869 days ago

 I like the whole Jets moving to Syracuse thing, but u the Giants rn't going anywhere.  They can be the New Jersey Giants. 

I'd really like to see each division get a 5th team, so I guess maybe all these places need one, ok, maybe not all these, but LA, definitely.  I'd like to see Vegas, too.  Portland sounds great as well.  Guess they're would be a need for restructuring the divisions.

I got one for u'se.  Oklahoma City.  It seemed to fair well for the Hornets when they were there, I'm sure football could thrive.  Lord knows they love their college football.  And I don't think it'd compete w/ it either, only make things stronger.
Los Angeles, CA  

#48 | 1869 days ago

 YankeeDudeL wrote:
I like the whole Jets moving to Syracuse thing, but u the Giants rn't going anywhere.  They can be the New Jersey Giants. 

I'd really like to see each division get a 5th team, so I guess maybe all these places need one, ok, maybe not all these, but LA, definitely.  I'd like to see Vegas, too.  Portland sounds great as well.  Guess they're would be a need for restructuring the divisions.

I got one for u'se.  Oklahoma City.  It seemed to fair well for the Hornets when they were there, I'm sure football could thrive.  Lord knows they love their college football.  And I don't think it'd compete w/ it either, only make things stronger.
New York City also sounds great.
Los Angeles, CA  

#49 | 1869 days ago

 chad_is_god wrote:
I am well aware of the location of the meadowlands!  However they (once again) ORIGINALLY played in NY which is why they are called NY teams. They are not going to change the name for moving over a half of a state!
Its not even half a state. The Meadowlands is only 6-7 miles from Manhattan.
Los Angeles, CA  

#50 | 1869 days ago

 donm454 wrote:
A. They should not call themselves New York if they play in New Jersey.
and
B. They shouldn't have moved from New York

If a team is not from a certain city, they should not say they are.
The Dallas Cowboys don't play in Dallas. I can come up with a few more if you want. They started in NY and still are NY teams. The only reason they play in NJ still is politics. 
Los Angeles, CA  

#51 | 1869 days ago

 DiabloLoco wrote:

I think that the Jets should move to Syracuse NY and build a new stadium that is attached to "DestiNY USA" which, when completed, will be the largest mall in North America. Syracuse University has a very high average attendence for it's basketball and football teams. That on top of the tourist attraction of the new mall could definately support an NFL team. Plus it would get it out of Jersey....LOL

 

This is a re-post...It seems relevent

The Jets can't move to Syracuse. They are locked into the new stadium for 30 years.
Los Angeles, CA  

#52 | 1869 days ago

 Pat wrote:
Ah...is that why they still call those other teams the Brooklyn Dodgers and the New York (MLB) Giants?

REAL teams change their name if it no longer fits. For example...when the Patriots moved out of the city of Boston, and into Foxborough (still in the same STATE, even), they became known as the NEW ENGLAND Patriots.
The ridiculousness of your statements never ceases to amaze me.
Los Angeles, CA  

#53 | 1869 days ago

 JRE1969 wrote:
Do New Jersey and New York have the same Governor???
You and Pat should start your own blog or something, since you both say similarly retarded things. You know what he is trying to say. Stop being an idiot.
Los Angeles, CA  

#54 | 1869 days ago

 Also, the Giants have played in Connecticut, just to fan the flames.  I grew up 2 towns away from East Rutherford, and u can see the New York skyline perfectly from there.  It's directly across the water.  I can't say for sure, but I believe their name implies their relation to the City of New York, not the state.  They're as close if not closer than other teams' stadiums to cities.  Like Arlington for Dallas, Anaheim for LA, and so on.  Still their base of business operations is in Manhattan, it's where their corporate office is, also y the team keeps the name. 
Los Angeles, CA  
1

#55 | 1869 days ago

 JRE1969 wrote:
Do New Jersey and New York have the same Governor???

Well their former Govs certainly do not share titles.  One blows bros, the other blows hoes.

Los Angeles, CA  
3

#56 | 1869 days ago

 donm454 wrote:

The reasoning behind it is New York is one of the biggest markets in the world.  The NFL is one of the biggest sports in the world.  A team representing that should play in that state, however there are 2 teams that represent it and they both play in New Jersey.

 

I agree with you that there can be acceptions, but on a lower level.  Not New York.  I agree with the person above who said the Jets should move to Syracuse, that would turn the rivalry into more of a Mets-yankees because they each have their own field and when they played, it would be filled with the home teams fans, not whoever is doing better at the time. But an addition to me liking the Jets to go to Syracuse, the Giants should play at the Mets new stadium, if they make it compatible for two sports.

 

All I'm saying is New York is a major city and should have an NFL team play in and for it, not just for it.

unfourtunatly NY cant afford 2 new baseball stadiums AND 2 new football stadiums! wounldn't it be nice. What i ment by acceptions is the perfect explanation for NY. They only moved 7 miles away from Manhattan! The state they are in is about as close to NY as you can get quite frankly!
Louisville, KY  

#57 | 1868 days ago
wtullyjr (+)

LA is too strung out on the OAKLAND Raiders to deserve a team of their own.
Las Vegas, NV  

#58 | 1867 days ago

 chad_is_god wrote:
unfourtunatly NY cant afford 2 new baseball stadiums AND 2 new football stadiums! wounldn't it be nice. What i ment by acceptions is the perfect explanation for NY. They only moved 7 miles away from Manhattan! The state they are in is about as close to NY as you can get quite frankly!
The teams can afford it (see the Jets recent attempts to build in Manhattan). Money isn't the issue its land to build on. Where exactly would they put these new stadiums?
Los Angeles, CA  
1

#59 | 1867 days ago

 Gazzo wrote:
The teams can afford it (see the Jets recent attempts to build in Manhattan). Money isn't the issue its land to build on. Where exactly would they put these new stadiums?
Yeah i pretty much thought that went without saying lol
Louisville, KY  

#60 | 1867 days ago

 chad_is_god wrote:
Yeah i pretty much thought that went without saying lol
Most people have no idea how crowded the 5 boros are.
Los Angeles, CA  

#61 | 1867 days ago

 Gazzo wrote:
Most people have no idea how crowded the 5 boros are.
Well that's prob. because they live on the west coast lol unlike you and me.
Louisville, KY  


Post a Comment   Already a user? Sign in here
Join FanIQ - It's Free
FanIQ is the ultimate free community for sports fans.
•Talk sports with fans from all over - 1,649,417+ Comments
•Track your game picks - 38,670,182,382+ Sports Predictions
•Prove you know sports - 116,275+ Trivia Questions
•Find fans of your teams - 11,453,110+ New Friends
Polls You Might Like

if you had to start an NFL franchise and had your pick of any running back, rank your top 5 Choices.
Asked by jdoug | NFL | 5 questions asked 09/26/12
125 opinions | 6 comments | Last by elevenbravo138again
NFL Draft Busts - Past 5 Years
Asked by Kenne | NFL, DRAFT | 10 questions asked 04/05/13
140 opinions | 5 comments | Last by elevenbravo138again
Best NFL 1st Overall Draft Picks - Super Bowl Era
Asked by Kenne | NFL, DRAFT | 10 questions asked 04/02/13
110 opinions | 3 comments | Last by Dream_Machine
Has anyone else noticed that when the Panthers play a home game it is the same as an away game?
Asked by Khatulu | NFL, CAR | 1 questions asked 12/29/12
3 opinions | Last by Dream_Machine
NIners are gonna win the Super Bowl in 2014... LOCK IT UP
Asked by bayareabeast21 | NFL, SF | 1 questions asked 05/05/13
7 predictions | 2 comments | Last by Dream_Machine