Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'Rival Team Forum' started by Aenir, Oct 26, 2013.
The Ducks have been there since ('93), and are doing quite well even.
I am opposed to ADDING teams to the NFL because it would dilute the talent pool even further
So dies San Diego and they still have the Chargers after 53 years.
San Diego also has less sporting attractions than LA
Supply and demand. With more demand for NFL players (via increased draft picks), that will increase the number of people who can make it pro, which will increase competition on the college level to compete for those jobs. More teams will only increase the quality of the current talent pool. You are under the assumption that the college ranks is some static factor, when it is anything but. This is why College Football programs now make hundreds of millions of dollars, the level of competition has increased dramatically over the decades as demand to make it pro in the NFL has increased as well.
I vote that as post of the year!
When did the ducks become a NFL team?
That and they've dumbed down the most important position of the game to the point that average qb's(Flacco/Eli/Alex Smith/Romo) are all viable starters and franchise guys. I think it would delute it some, but the NFL wants that anyways, they call that "parody".
I thought the argument was that LA hasn't brought in any franchises since the Rams and Raiders left, so i was using the Ducks as an example of one that was brought in, not only has done well, but won a Championship as well. So it IS possible for a new franchise to succeed in LA.
Not sure if you were trying to make a joke, but they call that "parity."
And parity does not exist when the talent is diluted, quite the opposite...parity can only happen when the talent is more evenly distributed (meaning there is more of it)
1st: No the argument is that LA has lost 3 NFL franchises, and hasn't had one since the Raiders left the last time, not just any pro franchise. I'd also contend that USC, and to a lesser extend, the Bruins are LA's football teams.
2) I disagree, depends on how you view evenly distributed, by there being more teams and more players, are all the teams really better 1-52, or by adding in lesser talent by adding more teams have you weakend the overall product? Maybe by limiting teams and therefore limiting the # of players, you removing weakest players from the mix and therefore making every team stronger, even if there are less teams.
Is watered down syrup better then Pure maple; or do you think it's better b/c their is more of it after it's watered down?
I think just the fact the Oregon Ducks were mentioned as a team LA supports over the San Diego Chargers or the San Franciso 49ers speaks volumes... It is me or did the Oregon Territory really shrink when it became a State?
And my argument is that they lost the teams over 20 years ago, times change, circumstances change, especially after 20 years. Just because they lost them in the past, that is not evidence that they will again.
Look at the NFL now...since they introduced the Salary cap, the NFL has become one of the most competitive of the pro leagues. We are halfway through the season, and only ONE team remains undefeated, and it is not the team anyone wouldve predicted in 2012 (Chiefs). Yes, you have your outliers, teams that always seem to be good or always seem to be bad, but for the most part, the league is rife with parity, teams that make the playoffs one year will many times fail the next, and vice versa.
Adding more teams will not dilute the talent pool, it will only create a demand for more NFL players, which means MORE competition at the college level to meet this demand. Sure, there would come a point where too many teams would dilute the talent pool, but that is a ways off yet.
I think you could argue adding more teams already has, I think you already had pretty high demand for college kids playing football, but at some point that you are dipping into the shallow end b/c there is nothing left at the deep end.
And you MIGHT be right about LA being different and the NFL being different, but after 3 times and 3 failures, I think you should be last on the list of expansion places and not at the top.
Well, i would argue the opposite, the overall talent of college players has skyrocketed in the past couple decades, they are ending up stronger, faster, and more athletic then rookies of the past. It used to be that a 4.4 times was simply phenomenal at the combine, but now...its pretty much expected for certain positions. Colleges are pouring hundreds of millions into their training and development programs, and recruiting in every corner of the country. Its just simple economics, as NFL players begin to make more and more money, and you add more teams (increasing demand), that creates more competition for colleges, since more HS grads want to play to get to the NFL.
Considering its the largest (or second, i forget) market...i think that bumps them up to the top of the list.
I don't know, the overall play of the NFL doesn't seem better then the last 2 decades, we can just agree to disagree b/c I don't know that there is a definitive way to prove it one way or the other.
They were the 2nd largest market the last 3 times, that point is now moot.
Definitive? Of course not. But there are plenty of other metrics to use. We think the 85 Bears team as one of the best of all time, and yet the Fridge was the only player on the roster over 300 lbs. How many players now are over 300, its pretty much standard for the entire OL and much of the DLs to be 300+. You can also use combine metrics to see the differences in speed.
Im not suggesting players themselves just got better, only that there is more emphasis on training in College now then there was in the 80s or before, and this produces players that are more prepared to enter the NFL, and are typically larger, faster, stronger then rookies of the past.
Not moot, since the market size is the main reason why the NFL wants (and will) put a franchise in LA.
What do you mean by 3 times and 3 failures?
Both Rams and Raiders left after the 1994 season.
Plus do you know the circumstances for both teams leaving?
Don't care, 3 teams where there, 3 teams left.
Do you know the circumstances for the packers sucking for the entirety of their existance?
LOT OF NUTCASES IN THIS WORLD.