The NFL in Los Angeles Again?
366813
Yes, it's true. The NFL is considering putting a team in LA or perhaps moving a team to LA. Also, the NFL has been faced with suggestions such as putting a team in Las Vegas.\n\nTo answer your question, I think the Los Angeles Stars is a good option, however, it is also the name of a NHL team in Dallas. Professional leagues do not like to double up on team mascots because they want all the revenue for themselves. Additionally, Los Angeles is known as the City of Angels. However, MLB just added LA to the name of the Angels... they are now called the Los Angeles Angels of Anaheim (also for revenue purposes). \n\nTo sum up, the idea of having a football team in LA is good, however, I believe that it is not a venue in which fans would fill the stadium. As with most expansion teams in large metropolitan areas (such as the Houston Texans), it is very hard to start from brand new.
158829
Like everyone else said, they don't want any team to have a home-field advantage. Also, you are talking about tens of thousands of people coming to the site of the Super Bowl. These people all need hotels, airfare and othere accomodations. Trying to plan something this big with only one or two weeks notice would be a complete disaster. There are some NFL cities (like Green Bay) that simply could never handle that many people at once on short notice. Jacksonville had trouble with it a few years ago, and they had plenty of warning. This needs to be planned out years in advance. Plus the NFL likes to reward cities (like Detroit, or Houston last year) that build shiny new stadiums for their teams. They don't want the Super Bowl to be played in a dump.
542606
Each city puts in a bid to the NFL to host a future Superbowl. The list plans for where the game will be, security, improvments, city life, how the city economy will be affected. ect. Then, when a certain time has elapsed, the NFL commission chooses a place,and thats it, theres a superbowl
150541
Detroit is NOT the only northern city to host a Superbowl. Minneapolis hosted SuperBowl XXVI.
949937
No they prob wont because there is not enough interest in it...\n\nWhen Arena Football is able to be seen on TV ... that is when they will prob list it on Yahoo...\n\nIt is fun to go to a game ... especially in the off season of the NFL\n\nGood luck...
255705
The schedules for next season haven't been released yet. but here are the reg. season matchups for next year:\nhttp://www.nfl.com/schedules/tv/2006_opponents\nhope this helps!
544836
Los Angeles failed, not the NFL.  They had two good teams, but the fans wouldn't support them, buy tickets, and the other things that people in San Antonio and lots of other cities would definitely do for their team.  The teams had lousy stadiums, but LA refused to build a new one like other cities had.  When the NFL explored going back to LA in the late '90s, they got involved in a lawsuit with the Raiders' owner, Al Davis, who basically claimed that the Raiders still had a claim on LA and fought the NFL to keep other teams out.  The problems are all on the LA / California side, not the NFL.\n\nAnyway, it sounds like the Chargers might be moving, so they might end up back in LA, where they began.  If they think they need a second team there, let them go beg Al Davis to bring the Raiders back again.  Hands off the Saints, though, you flaky Californians!  No one tried to steal the 49ers from you after your last big earthquake!
1091054
LA doesn't have a team now, but that doesn't mean the it won't have a team for ever.\nmany of the most successful teams we see today, were not in the cities that they represent today.\nnational football is a sport that has a long history and will have a longer future.\nand I think that LA will have a team in time.\nand I suggest calling it:  LA illegal immigrants.
206987
Because there just are not enough true NFL fans in LA LA Land.  \nAccording to NFL blackout rules, if the game does not sell out, it is not televised in the home territory.  When the team was in LA, they would not sell out.  Al Davis used to have to cover part of the bleacher section to reduce the number of salable seats in order to keep the games televised.  Therefore, owners conclude they can make more profit in other areas with a stronger fan base.
256624
There has been a lot of debate about this topic in the past 5 years. As you know, Houston was the last city to recieve a nfl football team. First off, there has been talk about relocation of the St. Louis Rams. If this happens to be true, the primary locate of re-expansion is Los Vegas, Nevada. Los Vegas is number one on most lists. However, the actual staduim would be out of city limits. The next place that an nfl team could be molded is Lincoln, Nebraska. Thank you.
554280
Los Angeles needs a footbll team not Orange County whom used to host the Rams, LA is the place and they should build a new Stadium in Santa Monica near Venice that way people wont be hot>
862677
you can go to nfl.com and "watch" the game, but its just whats going on. i think their is a link there to where you can stream it, but they are all subscription services, so you have to pay. sucks, man, i know.
165619
It's not uncommon for one or two major games a year to be played on Sundays, especially at the beginning of the season when the NFL hasn't really started up yet. I remember a Purdue game last year, and I thought there was at least one other one.
381823
2011 – Indianapolis - maybe it will happen with new stadium, but it shouldn't, indy is too small and too cold\n\n2012 – Atlanta - not unlikely, but again, it shouldn't.  atlanta can be cold in january/february, and it is a fairly small market\n\n2013 – Los Angeles - ok, but i assume you mean pasadena, and the rose bowl would need renovation.  as it stands now, no chance for the colloseum, unless la gets a team and renovates it or builds a new stadium.\n\n2014 – Chicago - no chance.  i live in chicago, and i think it's the greatest city in the u.s., and new york is it's only real competition.  but there's no way this will happen, it's too cold, too outdoors, and too small.  after indy builds a new stadium, soldier field will be the smallest in the country, and there's no new stadium coming anytime soon after spending half a billion or so on renovations to soldier field 2 years ago.   \n\n2016 – Detroit - i hope not, too soon, and a bad idea anyway.\n\nas for 2015, kc is probably out, the rolling roof was voted down last week, and the superbowl will not come to an outdoor arrowhead.  also, i am originally from the kc area and a chiefs fan, and i think hosting a superbowl there would be a disaster; there is not enough hotels, there is not enough to do, and the weather in february sucks.    \n\nto paraprase espn.com's bill simmons, the superbowl should just rotate between san diego, new orleans, and miami.  these are the only warm weather cities in the country with the hotel space, the stadium and convention facilities, and also the fun factor stemming from centralized downtowns and no shortage of bars.  the superbowl is the biggest u.s. sporting event of the year, except for the occasional hosting of a summer olympics.  it is also a week-long party.  thus, it should be played only in places that people want to go, and unfortunately since it is a winter event, this excludes cold climates.  should the chiefs ever make the superbowl, i fully intend to attend by any menas necesary, selling my car, maxing out credit cards, whatever.  and in such a case, i would hate to do so to spend a week in houston, jacksonville, or detroit.
708129
They don't. Owing to a lottery system, the general public doesn;t get much of a shot at tickets anymore.\n\nYou should contact the NFL regarding proper procedures to get an opportunity for tickets
617927
I think you have the stadium in Irving, Texas confused with another. Are you sure you aren't thinking of the superdome in New Orleans??? That would be the home of the Saints. I haven't seen or heard anything about the Cowboys getting a new stadium.
634604
Sure they should...\n\nYes, they had two teams. Two teams that made no effort to improve themselves, yet wanted the city to pay millions in taxpayer revenues to build stadiums that the team owners would get to use FOR FREE....And frankly, the loss of the Raiders was no loss...the fights in stands were more entertaining than the team...\n\nYes, it would be different now because the league would fund a great deal of the construction costs, the NFL has \nnot had a team in the 2nd largest media market in the country for over a decade, which has cost the league MILLIONS in advertiser revenues and TV contact money. All a owner has to do is put a decent product on the field and fans will come. With a new stadium, this should be a lot easier. Just look at the Lakers and Clippers!\n\nLA is NOT a soccer city, you forget about USC & UCLA! Their teams draw huge crowds, so can a Pro football team.\n\nAnd a far as the blackout argument, you wanna watch other games? Great, buy NFL Sunday ticket through your Direct TV and watch what you want....