Chaka
Footballguy
Vegas is a significantly longer drive than SD, 5 hours vs 2 hours, and there is no train option (and spare me the "not the way I drive" shtick there is always traffic and construction on those routes). However flights are cheap, fast and frequent from LA, SD and Oak/SF. Plus there are 2+ million people who live in Vegas and they have never had a team to split allegiances with, unlike LA fans who have had both the Rams & Raiders. It's also easier to get around Vegas, relatively, than Los Angeles.I agree with this.
Not sure if Las Vegas would keep the "enter at your own risk" for opposing teams as it did in L.A. and does in Oakland but I am thinking it will keep a little bit of that nastiness where there is a reputation to not go unless you are a Raider fan. Sure, that is at odds with the "let's go to Vegas and then see an NFL game" attractiveness that other cities don't have but I think most of the fans for teams like the Chefs and Donkeys live near their teams- so a Vegas road trip to see a road game may not be as appealing. Now, for the random Chef fan living in Wyoming... sure. But as Mass said.... enough to really matter? I am not convinced.
There is a huge fanbase in L.A. that will never move loyalty to the Rams and HELL no to the Chargers. Vegas is only a slightly longer drive than going to SD and we know how we fill those Charger games up. Oakland is not all that too far either. So, a lot of the traveling fans will be Raiders fans. I also think you will build a fanbase in Vegas as well from the locals. It is not a huge market but it is bigger than several other markets without any historical ties to any other teams.
San Antonio is a horrible idea. First, the likelihood of two of the more powerful owners letting a new Texas team come is in almost non existent. Second, you think you can grab "Cowboy and Texan" fans away from people in SA? Third, it is a small market to begin with while having that uphill battle to gain new loyal fans. Finally, I think you will lose fanbase that you otherwise wont lose.
For L.A., I don't want to be a tenant as much as Davis doesn't want to be. I can't foresee getting terms anywhere near being 'good' from that bloodsucker Rams owner because he has not need to give us good terms and he ought to know that the Raiders back in LA mean that we own LA and the Rams become second fiddle even as they own the stadium. But, all in all, I would say L.A. would be the second best option from what I have seen (next to Vegas).
Vegas would likely draw more opposing fans than, say San Antonio, Los Angeles or Oakland, but I don't think it would compromise the home field advantage significantly. Heck, it can't be worse than San Diego where you often see almost as many, or more, opposing fans than Charger fans.
And just wait until the new LA Rams novelty has worn off. If that team doesn't contend regularly you will see plenty of opposing fans filling the stadiums as the Rams fans pawn their tickets on the secondary markets because they just have to make it to the new pasture raised, gluten free ashtanga yoga class in West LA.