<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE </div><div class='quotemain'>NFL still looking closely at Los Angeles Click here to find out more! NFL.com wire reportsORLANDO, Fla. (March 28, 2006) -- Before he retires as commissioner, Paul Tagliabue would like to see the NFL get closer to placing a team back in Los Angeles.While Tagliabue plans to be gone from the league in July -- if the owners can get together and find a successor by then -- a solution to the situation doesn't figure to come that soon.Two sites are being considered, in Anaheim and at the current location of the Los Angeles Coliseum, each with cost estimates at $800 million, considerably higher than previous price tags. Tagliabue is eager to see a franchise return to Los Angeles, which was abandoned by the Raiders and the Rams after the 1994 season -- then failed to come up with public financing for an expansion team, which went to Houston beginning in 2002.The subject is being discussed this week at the NFL meetings, although it will be at the spring meetings in May that any concrete plans are developed."My guess is that we will be going forward with those presentations on behalf of the Coliseum and Anaheim so that we can make some decisions in Denver, to select one of the stadium projects and to go forward with the process of identifying a team and building a stadium," Tagliabue said.Tagliabue has told the 32 team owners that unless a plan for Los Angeles is formulated soon, getting a team back into the nation's second-largest market won't occur by the end of the decade. For now, a six-man committee is handling the issue.He admitted that the stadium situation in California is not a good one. The Oakland Raiders, San Francisco 49ers and San Diego Chargers all play in older ballparks and are seeking new homes -- with a large chunk of municipal funding. The league has the G3 fund that helps get stadiums built and has worked well in other cities.Looks like the Coliseum won't host another NFL game, even with a franchise in Los Angeles. Looks like the Coliseum won't host another NFL game, even with a franchise in Los Angeles. But it has not gotten anywhere on the West Coast, south of Seattle."They don't have the best stadiums in California," Tagliabue said, "and we're trying to work on that. Yes, it will be a priority."Another priority for Tagliabue is making sure the Saints get back to New Orleans. The league scheduled the Saints' first home game in the Louisiana Superdome since Hurricane Katrina hit last August for Sept. 24, the third week of the season. Tagliabue said he's been assured by Saints owner Tom Benson that the team is progressing well toward its return, and the commissioner will be in New Orleans next week to "identify progress made in critical areas."Tagliabue also dismisses the chance of a regular-season game outside the United States this year. In 2005, Arizona hosted San Francisco in Mexico City, drawing 103,467 people, the largest crowd in NFL history. The Cardinals won 31-14 and Tagliabue called the game "an element of legitimacy."Still, the NFL won't be going overseas in '06.The competition committee presented its proposals to the ownership and votes will be taken March 29 on the issues. They include: * Cracking down on end-zone celebrations. Players won't be allowed to do anything while on the ground, and also can't use props such as end-zone pylons. They can spike, dunk or spin the ball as long as they are standing in the end zone and it is not a group thing. * Allowing video reviews of down-by-contact plays; this proposal was defeated in an owners vote a year ago. Currently, a play is dead once the whistle blows and the ball carrier is ruled down by the officials. * Toughening enforcement on pass rushers who hit quarterbacks below the knees. "In five years, we won't be allowed to hit the quarterback at all," Chiefs coach Herman Edwards joked, then added he strongly supports the rule. "Hey, I went through five (quarterbacks with the Jets) last year."</div>http://www.nfl.com/news/story/9343707Would they want to make a new team and have 33 teams in the league or move an existant team there? I think having 33 teams would be stupid...
33 would ruin everything. They'd have to either add 8 teams, or just do the easy thing and move a team to LA.
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (BIZ @ Mar 30 2006, 06:07 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'>They shouldnt add more teams cuz they gonna suck...</div><span style="color:#993399">Brilliant....</span>
I think they should add two more teams. One in LA obviously, and the other in Toronto. I live in Toronto, and I think having a team in Canada would be a great idea. And where else in Canada then Toronto, the most-known city in Canada. A lot of people here support the idea, and a lot of people don't. Lots of people say that it'll take all the market out of the Argonauts in the CFL but who cares? You can get a lot more money in the NFL, I would definetly want a team here in Toronto.
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (JHair @ Apr 1 2006, 01:56 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'>Is making an expansion team in Canada even a possability?</div>Yeah it is, Tagliabue was considering it before, but not anymore. Maybe the new Commisioner will like the idea?By the way, anyone know who the candidates are?
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (ortiz34 @ Apr 1 2006, 12:03 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (JHair @ Apr 1 2006, 01:56 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'>Is making an expansion team in Canada even a possability?</div>Yeah it is, Tagliabue was considering it before, but not anymore. Maybe the new Commisioner will like the idea?By the way, anyone know who the candidates are?</div>Im not so sure it would be an option, just because of a possible conflict with the CFL.
