The radio revenues in San Antonio would be a nightmare, especially considering that any franchise there would automatically be the fourth or fifth most popular football team in the market. Realistic or not, NFL owners are intelligent enough managerially to envision and model scenarios where TV deals shrink enough to bring box office, concessions, radio and other revenue they locally and incrementally control back to the fore; and just like turning down Tom Clancy because of his low net worth, they would consider remaining franchise markets like San Antonio too big of a risk in a weakened revenue environment and pass.
SA has 2.3 in metro area, OKC has 1.3 and the state of Oklahoma has 3.8 mil. A higher % of Oklahoma will drop the Cowboys, Chiefs, Broncos, etc to cheer for new team than SA. Many of them are going to stay Cowboy fans. Most of Austin is not going to drop their favorite team for a SA based team. OKC is a better option
Really the Sooners play in NFL? Per capita and median household income is about $3,000 higher in OKC plus its continued growth. Higher income and fanatics from Tulsa and other cities will also make the trip 8 games a year. Its not a pipe dream, the Texas Oilers playing in San Marcos is the pipe dream, OKC is just a better option than SA alone. Even with the Sooners & Cowboys (OKST) in the area.
For anyone saying that existing cowboy fans wont ditch that pitiful underachieving franchise for a winner is crazy. Put a winner on the field and you win over fans, Im just not sure if that can be done with that ownership.
http://espn.go.com/nfl/story/_/id/1...-san-antonio-officials-discuss-potential-move ALAMEDA, Calif. -- Oakland Raiders owner Mark Davis met with a delegation of officials from San Antonio on Friday to talk about a potential move for his franchise. Former San Antonio Mayor Henry Cisneros and other city officials traveled to the Bay Area for the meeting, which comes about four months after Davis and other team officials had met with the group in San Antonio. Raiders owner Mark Davis continued his meetings with San Antonio officials Friday. "We're going to present San Antonio's strengths and assets in the most persuasive way possible," Cisneros told the San Antonio Express-News before the meeting. "We have a very, very good opportunity to set it forth in a way the Raiders can digest." Team officials declined to comment on the meeting. The Raiders are in the final year of their lease at O.co Coliseum and are seeking a long-term deal. Davis has said his first choice is to remain in Oakland but he has been unable to reach a deal for a new stadium with local officials. The Raiders also could move back to Los Angeles, their home from 1982 to '94. The Raiders are the only NFL team that shares its stadium with a baseball team. The Athletics recently signed a 10-year lease to remain in Oakland, but that agreement includes a provision to allow the Raiders to knock down the Coliseum for a new football stadium. The Raiders left Oakland once before, when they moved to Los Angeles following the 1981 season. Late owner Al Davis brought the team back to Oakland in 1995. Raiders officials also attended a college football game earlier this year at the Alamodome in San Antonio to determine if it was suitable as a temporary home, should they decide to move there.
The NFL would be idiots to allow San Antonio to get a team before LA does. The only way this might work is if the Rams move to LA. Bottom line LA is getting a team. Goodell is the greediest commissioner in all of sports. He will always prefer where the money is and that is LA. Plus Jerry Jones would not enjoy seeing San Antonio Cowboys fans switch fandom to San Antonio Raiders.
It was the bottom line 15 years ago and every year since. They even got an expansion team until it was taken back and given to Houston. LA dodged a bullet there.
I seem to remember something about the USC Trojan's lease prohibiting a team from moving into the Coliseum.
Which is why there wont be an NFL team in LA antime soon... Any team that is looking to relocate is going to want a brand new, state of the art stadium and neither of those venues work for what NFL owners want/expect which is why there hasn't been an NFL team there for a long time. The Raiders have been in LA and they couldn't get a stadium because the city isn't going to foot the bill for a football team. If San Antonio or any other city in America can build a stadium and sellout games than go for it. Hell the midwest is empty! Every body from New Mexico to Montana is a damn broncos fan
I would probably go to a lot of games if they moved to San Antonio. I live in Austin. I wouldn't really root for the Raiders but it would be fun to see games. I would be more partial to it if they didn't have the name San Antonio for the team. Still, seems like posturing for a stadium in LA or Oakland.
"The San Antonio Strippers" - rolls off the tongue really well and much respect to their quality establishments especially of the Latina variety.
No they would stay. Geography in division's don't really matter since all the games are played at the same time no matter where you are. It's a bigger problem in baseball. Rivalries play as big a part as Geography. Just look at Dallas. They would have never separated the Oilers from the Bengals, Steelers and Browns if they would have stayed in Houston when the NFL re-alligned divisions like they did in 2002. The raiders have decades old rivalries with the chiefs, chargers and Denver.
