[SI] Goodell Article; Football in Houston instead of LA = failure

Well, it seems like the article didn't even elaborate...

 

I guess they should have given LA a team regardless of if there were a reliable owner and/or stadium deal available. Houston had it's **** together, LA didn't. That's why we have a team and they don't.

 

I think the point was that Goodell's failure was his inability to help LA get their **** together. Interesting to see that he thought it would be better not to expand than to add a non-LA team. I'm assuming the idea was that 32 teams is the ideal amount, so they didn't want to close themselves off to LA, though now it appears that relocation could get them there anyway.

 

In the end it comes down to money -- the Texans are already the 10th most valuable franchise in all of sports. That is a stunning success that wouldn't have happened in LA.

 

I read it as he failed to put a team in LA.... I did not read it as "putting a team in Houston = failure".

I think everybody knew that the NFL wanted a team in LA... that's no secret. When it failed, and when Goodell said that "no deal is better than a bad deal", Houston got the nod.

IIRC, the NFL expanding to 32 was always the ultimate goal.

 

The failure is that there was no team in LA.

The 32nd team could have been anywhere... Oklahoma, North Dakota, San Antonio, Nebraska, Virginia.... the fact that he was unable to get a team to LA = failure.

Houston has nothing to do with it... except for the fact that they were the NFL's backup choice if the LA venture failed, which it did.

 

Re-read, cowboy. They didn't "boldly" disrespect Houston. It was failure for Goodel who didn't get the team to LA. That was the first choice, so that was the failure for Goodel who didn't get the deal done.

 

Houston is not the failure , it has been the Owner , GM , Coaching , Coordinators, Personnel on the field that has failed the city . Texas loves football as much as any state in the deep south. The team has had one winning season in what like 9 years ?

 

I think the problem is poor reading comprehension, not poor writing. The entire paragraph talks about Goodell's goal being to get a team in LA. He did not achieve that goal, thus he failed. It's obvious that the author is referencing Goodell's failure, not that the league failed by putting the 32nd team in Houston.

This city as a whole has an enormous inferiority complex.

 

I'm with pgab, that's how I read it. Why mention houston in the sentence if you're stating no franchise in LA is the failure. He may have not meant it that way, but the way he wrote it.....

 

Because its part of the story of the failure of Goodell to get a team in LA. Because he couldn't, Houston got one. Plain and simple.... its not dissrespect, its reporting the facts.

The 32nd team went to Houston, not LA. A failure since Goodell was charged with getting a team to LA, and that is all. He had nothing to do with trying to get a team in Houston.

 

The NFL is not in LA because it gives 30 other owners the continuing threat of LA to extort whatever they need from their community. That's value added to every team owner, effecting their bottom line more than actually having a team in LA ever would.

And it's 30 because Green Bay's team is not owned by a fat cat and can't be threatened.

GO PACK!

 

No franchise in LA is the failure. But the author doesn't say that the league failed because Houston ended up with the team, he's saying it was a failure for Goodell. Why? Because as the previous sentences point out, it was his goal to get a team in LA.

It's not saying that LA>Houston, it's saying that Goodell wanted LA to have a team and they did not get a team, therefore he failed. I don't see what's so hard to understand.