The Real Reason the Raiders (and others) Stink...
Posted by Trumpetbdw (1928 days ago)
View more blogs by this user
Interesting thought. In today's NFL, most revenue is split evenly amongst the teams, including ticket sales. The only extra source of income comes from seat licenses, luxery suites, concessions, etc. That's the biggest reason why most NFL teams have renovated/built stadiums over the past 10-15 years.
When Al Davis originally moved the Raiders from Oakland to Los Angeles, it was because he felt that in order to compete, you had to be in a big city. However, with the NFL's revenue sharing policies, which fully went into effect in 1994, that idea became obsolete, and Davis has been scrambling ever since. In 95, he negotiated with Baltimore to move the Raiders there, and get a new stadium, as well as other efforts, including a new stadium in Hollywood that he claims the NFL sabotaged. This was at the time when moving an NFL franchise was easy. Within the span of a few years, the Rams moved to St. Louis, Houston moved to Tennessee, and Cleveland moved to Baltimore. Each got new stadium deals, extra income, and each advanced to, or won at least one Super Bowl. At that time, with the riots, and earthquakes ravaging Los Angeles, there was no way the Raiders would get approval for stadium funding, and playing in the terribly run-down LA Coliseum, which had zero luxery suites was not an option. So they were stuck moving back to Oakland, where they thought they'd get a new stadium, but ultimately, it never happened. And while they made one Super Bowl since then, that was the start of their downward spiral. It is now vital for them, and any team in an older stadium to draft well, because if they don't, the money flow simply isn't there to pay the signing bonuses.
Here are the teams who are currently in an older stadium...
Oakland, San Diego, Kansas City, NY Jets, Buffalo, Miami, NY Giants, Green Bay, Minnesota, New Orleans, San Francisco
Since 1994, that group has totaled 7 Super Bowl appearances. The Giants have drafted well. Green Bay benefitted from great drafts in the 90's, but have been mediocre throughout most of the 00's. KC has recently renovated Arrowhead, and we'll see if that has an impact. Chicago is not on this list because Soldier Field received a massive renovation just a few years ago. SF and SD both had their only appearances during this time frame in the first year of the true parity era.
Some of these teams have drafted pretty well (SD, NY Giants, GB), and some have not (KC, Oak, Buf). All this does is force teams to be perfect, like the lower revenue teams in baseball. When you have bad leadership, if you have the extra money, you still have a chance to survive, but combine bad leadership with little extra revenue, and there's little chance for a revival.
My point is, there have been 14 Super Bowls since the rules have dictated "parity". That's 28 Super Bowl participants. Excluding the expansion Browns and Texans, who have only been in the league for 10 and 7 years respectively, that's 21 appearances, and 11 victories for the remaining 19 teams. In percentage terms, 63% of those teams accounted for 75% of the Super Bowl participants, and 79% of the wins. Eliminate the Chargers and Niners in the first year of my study, and that's 63% accounting for 81% of the appearances, and 85% of the victories.
That's the real reason why teams in Pittsburgh, Baltimore, and Nashville can compete financially with teams in Boston, New York, and Dallas while Los Angeles can't even handle one team in it's present state, despite handling TWO teams in each of the other major sports.
Moreover, over the past 10 years, here are the Super Bowl winners...
2001, 2003, 2004- Patriots
2005, 2008- Steelers
The only two teams who did not have a new stadium in place were the Colts and Giants. But both teams are known for their great drafts, with the Giants draft the year they won the Super Bowl considered maybe the best since the Steelers draft of 1974. And, of course, both teams had stadiums on the horizon, and the Colts already had the $121 million naming rights deal in the pot. And of the Super Bowl losers, only the Giants (2000) and Raiders (2002) didn't have a new stadium on the way, and both of those teams fell off quickly after their appearance.
You must be logged in to post a comment. Click here to log in or register with RotoWire.com.
Bush25 commented 1908 days ago
Colts got Lucas Oil Stadium in 2008, if that means anything. Giants will have a new stadium (as well as the Jets) in 2010. Maybe we should look out for teams who have new stadiums or are looking for a new stadium in the close future to be potential Super Bowl contenders.
According to some of the statements in your post, I would be under the assumption that it's possible that the Colts would probably win the AFC, while the Cowboys or Cardinals would win the NFC. Not completely impossible by any means, but it would be interesting to see if that occurred.
***Edited at 1/7/2010 1:33 PM PT***
Teams Tagged in this post:
Click on a team to be taken to other blogs about that team.