Another town similar to Austin, TX is Columbus, Ohio. Even if the Browns or Bengals win the Super Bowl, Cavs win the NBA title, Indians or Reds win the World Series, and the Blue Jackets win the Stanley Cup.........the people of Ohio will still talk about the Buckeyes.
How are people not mentioning Toronto? Larger metro area than Chicago. Not far away, already proven success with the Raptors selling out most games. Buffalo should have moved there at least 5 years ago. They already have the SkyDome which can be used for football.
I wouldn't want a pro team in Austin. I like that our town is a neutral site for dallas/houston rivalries. Also, why would Austin need another huge football stadium? Vegas and LA should get NFL teams.
The Bills have been playing 1 home game in Toronto for 6 years and attendance have been in steady decline. A pic of their most recent game vs. the Falcons.
To be fair, everyplace has a team before they get one of their own. I'm pretty sure the reception to the Saints when they played in San Antonio was good. After a decade, the new generation of sports fans would be a fan of the new team and I'm sure there would be a lot of converts. Even if they aren't "your" team, it's hard to turn down the allure of going to NFL games every year. If Austin had a pro team then I would get season tickets. Again, I'm really curious what people think UT would do to keep the team from coming? I mean like, practically what would they do. I'm not disagreeing with it. But think about how how they would throw around their weight seems unclear. I don't know how threatened the city would be especially with how fast it is growing. The much bigger issue is that the culture of the city will never allow to spend a single dollar on a football stadium.
Sorry for missing your question earlier. I believe that UT could flex its muscle in a number of ways. Presupposing that acquiring an NFL team would necessitate a new stadium (DKR couldn't be shared during the season), UT could finance anti-stadium efforts and blanket the city in negative ads. Considering that publicly-financed stadiums are both the norm and unpopular, the university could exploit this and pick an easy political angle, such as "The city of Austin refuses to address insufficient infrastructure, but finds taxpayer money for billionaire NFL owners." UT administrators are power brokers in the city, too. If the university came out against the expansion into Austin, they could withdraw political support from politicians that were for the team. Another reason why this would never happen is that an Austin-based team would dramatically cut into ratings and popularity of both the Cowboys and Texans. As it stands, Jerry Jones and Bob McNair each get air time every week in both Austin and San Antonio. How would an Austin impact not only Austin, but San Antonio? That's a pretty loyal Cowboys town, but what if they could no longer see the games on television?
Why is that? Financing ads was a point I brought up earlier. That would certainly work. I don't know if there would be a public backlash against UT for doing that. I don't think they could do it discreetly. Which politicians would be effected? City Council? Mayor? I guess they would find a way. Mcnair and Jones have a lot of power. I'm sure they could cry for profit loss. An NFC wouldn't be a problem since the Cowboys usually play late games anyway but that would mean this new team would be on at the same time as the Texans. Not sure there are any other teams that would be this close to each other. Lot of reasons it couldn't happen but I think Austin could easily support the team. It's expanding every day. People are moving there and to Round Rock in droves and the national prominence of Austin is growing exponentially. There just aren't too many business with HQs in Austin. Dell and Whole Foods are the only ones that come to mind. San Antonio could probably host it better but that city is just the worst. No one wants to go to San Antonio. They would also have to build a new stadium.
They have not done anything to convince the NFL when the opportunity presents itself. Besides being LA and good weather their presentation was lackluster and we now have the Texans.
The presentation doesn't matter. They either have a stadium or they don't. You deserve a team if you can provide a solid facility and a population base that will support it. They are one of the oldest markets west of the Mississippi. The Rams were also there longer than the Oilers were in Houston. They deserve a team and it sucks that the biggest reason they don't have it is that the public can't spend money to build a stadium for a privately owned team. I know that is required these days but it's still a ****ty reason why a city doesn't "deserve" to have a team. It's not a beauty pageant. Let's not forget that the Houston 2002s were the Los Angeles 2002s first. Their presentation was fantastic. They just couldn't get the stadium deal done. Plus, wan't Paul T pissed at Lanier?
The presentation most definitely matters. If you can't provide a way or explain how you will fund and build stadium in the presentation, you don't deserve it. Houston deserved it over LA, whatever political, finicial issues they have is their problem to solve. Sucks for them
If the NFL had purchased the land, and funded the stadium themselves... and gifted it to an LA owner... they would have already made that initial investment money back in spades by now. The NFL doesn't have to have LA... but its certainly more lucrative with a team there simply due to media market reasons alone.
