What's new
Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums

Welcome to Our Forums. Once you've registered and logged in, you're primed to talk football, among other topics, with the sharpest and most experienced fantasy players on the internet.

Before L.A. there was (1 Viewer)

Chase Stuart

Chase Stuart

Footballguy
Which current non-NFL city was the last to house an NFL team? While LA, of course. In recent years, cities that lost teams like Houston and Cleveland were then able to rejoin the NFL. But outside of LA, do you know the last city to lose an NFL team and not get one back?

 
Providence. Unless we're considering that Patriots country, in which case Newark.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
I had to do some research, but depending on your parameters, it might be Providence, Rhode Island. If you're including places like Brooklyn, Staten Island and Newark in the greater New York Metropolitan Area, and Boston=New England and such.

 
There's no "right" answer. You could say that Astoria lost the Jets to East Rutherford when they moved from Shea to the Meadowlands, that Tempe lost the Cardinals to Glendale when they moved from Sun Devil Stadium to UoP Stadium, that Dallas lost the Cowboys to Irving when they left the Cotton Bowl for Texas Stadium, that D.C. lost the Redskins when they left RFK for FedEx Field in Landover, Maryland. Personally, I wouldn't count those, because the fanbases still kept their teams and the move was a stadium upgrade and not a relocation.

Similarly, you could note that places like New Haven, Clemson, Champaign and Memphis had and lost NFL teams, but those were really just pit stops by teams in between stadium projects.

Personally, I'd vote for Brooklyn, New York. Dan Topping owned the Brooklyn Dodgers from 1934 to 1943; in 1944 they were renamed the Brooklyn Tigers, and in 1945 they merged with the Boston Yanks as a result of WWII. Brooklyn hasn't had a team since, while every other city that lost a team has since had one put back.

Before that, I believe the answer is Portsmouth.

 
CalBear said:
I had to do some research, but depending on your parameters, it might be Providence, Rhode Island. If you're including places like Brooklyn, Staten Island and Newark in the greater New York Metropolitan Area, and Boston=New England and such.
Click to expand...
I'm including places in the same area if a team was placed in city X to replace a team from city Y, with the intent to reach the same fan base. The Patriots moved around a bunch but they never were leaving their fanbase to move to a new city. When the Texans and Browns returned, they were replacing lost teams from Houston and Cleveland. I'd consider the Jets and Giants moving to Newark as similar to what the Pats did, but I'd say Brooklyn and Staten Island "lost" teams that weren't replaced. But that's just me.
 
I understand the logic behind saying Boston shouldn't be the answer, because a New England team exists, even if it's not specifically in Boston. But if that's the case, why would Brooklyn count for the purposes of this conversation? Aren't there two teams that just call themselves New York?

 
Chase Stuart said:
CalBear said:
I had to do some research, but depending on your parameters, it might be Providence, Rhode Island. If you're including places like Brooklyn, Staten Island and Newark in the greater New York Metropolitan Area, and Boston=New England and such.
Click to expand...
I'm including places in the same area if a team was placed in city X to replace a team from city Y, with the intent to reach the same fan base. The Patriots moved around a bunch but they never were leaving their fanbase to move to a new city. When the Texans and Browns returned, they were replacing lost teams from Houston and Cleveland. I'd consider the Jets and Giants moving to Newark as similar to what the Pats did, but I'd say Brooklyn and Staten Island "lost" teams that weren't replaced. But that's just me.
Click to expand...
90% of the football fans in Brooklyn and Staten Island are fans of either the Giants or Jets, so I don't see how you can consider them serving a different fan base than those who rooted for the Brooklyn Dodgers or the Staten Island Stapletons. Heck, they're officially part of New York City anyway.
 
CalBear said:
Chase Stuart said:
CalBear said:
I had to do some research, but depending on your parameters, it might be Providence, Rhode Island. If you're including places like Brooklyn, Staten Island and Newark in the greater New York Metropolitan Area, and Boston=New England and such.
Click to expand...
I'm including places in the same area if a team was placed in city X to replace a team from city Y, with the intent to reach the same fan base. The Patriots moved around a bunch but they never were leaving their fanbase to move to a new city. When the Texans and Browns returned, they were replacing lost teams from Houston and Cleveland. I'd consider the Jets and Giants moving to Newark as similar to what the Pats did, but I'd say Brooklyn and Staten Island "lost" teams that weren't replaced. But that's just me.
Click to expand...
90% of the football fans in Brooklyn and Staten Island are fans of either the Giants or Jets, so I don't see how you can consider them serving a different fan base than those who rooted for the Brooklyn Dodgers or the Staten Island Stapletons. Heck, they're officially part of New York City anyway.
Click to expand...
The Jets weren't created to replace the Brooklyn Tigers. The Giants were already there.I see your point, though. You'd probably consider Portsmouth to be the answer to this one.(Although, FWIW, Brooklyn has more residents than Houston or Philadelphia.)
 
Since no real answer, I'm tempted to vote for Milwaukee. Packers played several home games a year in Milwaukee until the early 90s.

 
I'm pretty sure the correct answer is Toronto, Canada. They housed the Buffalo Bills Week 13 of last season.

 
Chase Stuart said:
CalBear said:
Chase Stuart said:
CalBear said:
I had to do some research, but depending on your parameters, it might be Providence, Rhode Island. If you're including places like Brooklyn, Staten Island and Newark in the greater New York Metropolitan Area, and Boston=New England and such.
Click to expand...
I'm including places in the same area if a team was placed in city X to replace a team from city Y, with the intent to reach the same fan base. The Patriots moved around a bunch but they never were leaving their fanbase to move to a new city. When the Texans and Browns returned, they were replacing lost teams from Houston and Cleveland. I'd consider the Jets and Giants moving to Newark as similar to what the Pats did, but I'd say Brooklyn and Staten Island "lost" teams that weren't replaced. But that's just me.
Click to expand...
90% of the football fans in Brooklyn and Staten Island are fans of either the Giants or Jets, so I don't see how you can consider them serving a different fan base than those who rooted for the Brooklyn Dodgers or the Staten Island Stapletons. Heck, they're officially part of New York City anyway.
Click to expand...
The Jets weren't created to replace the Brooklyn Tigers. The Giants were already there.I see your point, though. You'd probably consider Portsmouth to be the answer to this one.(Although, FWIW, Brooklyn has more residents than Houston or Philadelphia.)
Click to expand...
FWIW- Brooklyn is NYC
 
Chase Stuart said:
CalBear said:
Chase Stuart said:
CalBear said:
I had to do some research, but depending on your parameters, it might be Providence, Rhode Island. If you're including places like Brooklyn, Staten Island and Newark in the greater New York Metropolitan Area, and Boston=New England and such.
Click to expand...
I'm including places in the same area if a team was placed in city X to replace a team from city Y, with the intent to reach the same fan base. The Patriots moved around a bunch but they never were leaving their fanbase to move to a new city. When the Texans and Browns returned, they were replacing lost teams from Houston and Cleveland. I'd consider the Jets and Giants moving to Newark as similar to what the Pats did, but I'd say Brooklyn and Staten Island "lost" teams that weren't replaced. But that's just me.
Click to expand...
90% of the football fans in Brooklyn and Staten Island are fans of either the Giants or Jets, so I don't see how you can consider them serving a different fan base than those who rooted for the Brooklyn Dodgers or the Staten Island Stapletons. Heck, they're officially part of New York City anyway.
Click to expand...
The Jets weren't created to replace the Brooklyn Tigers. The Giants were already there.I see your point, though. You'd probably consider Portsmouth to be the answer to this one.(Although, FWIW, Brooklyn has more residents than Houston or Philadelphia.)
Click to expand...
Out fo curiousity, why were the Jets created in the first place...to compete with the Giants of the NFL? Since LA lost both teams, NY (or whatever you want to call it) is the only city in the NFL with two teams. Because of the great product that the NFL is, they can support both teams very well (neither is ever rumored to move and it certainly won't happen now with the new stadium). The NFL is in a unique situation in major sports that they could go with more than 32 teams and find great support for all, given they move to the right cities. Will we ever see another city host two NFL teams in the future? I am not sure what it is like to try to get Bears tickets (for example), but couldn't Chicago support two teams?
 
Chase Stuart said:
There's no "right" answer. You could say that Astoria lost the Jets to East Rutherford when they moved from Shea to the Meadowlands, that Tempe lost the Cardinals to Glendale when they moved from Sun Devil Stadium to UoP Stadium, that Dallas lost the Cowboys to Irving when they left the Cotton Bowl for Texas Stadium, that D.C. lost the Redskins when they left RFK for FedEx Field in Landover, Maryland. Personally, I wouldn't count those, because the fanbases still kept their teams and the move was a stadium upgrade and not a relocation.Similarly, you could note that places like New Haven, Clemson, Champaign and Memphis had and lost NFL teams, but those were really just pit stops by teams in between stadium projects.Personally, I'd vote for Brooklyn, New York. Dan Topping owned the Brooklyn Dodgers from 1934 to 1943; in 1944 they were renamed the Brooklyn Tigers, and in 1945 they merged with the Boston Yanks as a result of WWII. Brooklyn hasn't had a team since, while every other city that lost a team has since had one put back.Before that, I believe the answer is Portsmouth.
Click to expand...
Brooklyn hasn't been its own city since 1898. Don't see how it could even qualify as being an answer let alone being the best one.
 
Sweet Love said:
Out fo curiousity, why were the Jets created in the first place...to compete with the Giants of the NFL? Since LA lost both teams, NY (or whatever you want to call it) East Rutherford is the only city in the NFL with two teams. Because of the great product that the NFL is, they can support both teams very well (neither is ever rumored to move and it certainly won't happen now with the new stadium). The NFL is in a unique situation in major sports that they could go with more than 32 teams and find great support for all, given they move to the right cities. Will we ever see another city host two NFL teams in the future? I am not sure what it is like to try to get Bears tickets (for example), but couldn't Chicago support two teams?
Click to expand...
Fixed.-QG

 
Sweet Love said:
Will we ever see another city host two NFL teams in the future?
Click to expand...
The Bay Area supports two teams, such as they are.The stadiums are probably closer together than the two "LA" stadiums were.
 
GregR said:
Chase Stuart said:
There's no "right" answer. You could say that Astoria lost the Jets to East Rutherford when they moved from Shea to the Meadowlands, that Tempe lost the Cardinals to Glendale when they moved from Sun Devil Stadium to UoP Stadium, that Dallas lost the Cowboys to Irving when they left the Cotton Bowl for Texas Stadium, that D.C. lost the Redskins when they left RFK for FedEx Field in Landover, Maryland. Personally, I wouldn't count those, because the fanbases still kept their teams and the move was a stadium upgrade and not a relocation.Similarly, you could note that places like New Haven, Clemson, Champaign and Memphis had and lost NFL teams, but those were really just pit stops by teams in between stadium projects.Personally, I'd vote for Brooklyn, New York. Dan Topping owned the Brooklyn Dodgers from 1934 to 1943; in 1944 they were renamed the Brooklyn Tigers, and in 1945 they merged with the Boston Yanks as a result of WWII. Brooklyn hasn't had a team since, while every other city that lost a team has since had one put back.Before that, I believe the answer is Portsmouth.
Click to expand...
Brooklyn hasn't been its own city since 1898. Don't see how it could even qualify as being an answer let alone being the best one.
Click to expand...
:boxing:
 
CalBear said:
Sweet Love said:
Will we ever see another city host two NFL teams in the future?
Click to expand...
The Bay Area supports two teams, such as they are.The stadiums are probably closer together than the two "LA" stadiums were.
Click to expand...
Oakland Coliseum to Candlestick Park: 21 milesAnaheim Stadium to L.A. Coliseum: 32 milesM&T Bank Stadium to FedEx Field: 33 miles
 
TommyGilmore said:
CalBear said:
Sweet Love said:
Will we ever see another city host two NFL teams in the future?
Click to expand...
The Bay Area supports two teams, such as they are.The stadiums are probably closer together than the two "LA" stadiums were.
Click to expand...
Oakland Coliseum to Candlestick Park: 21 milesAnaheim Stadium to L.A. Coliseum: 32 milesM&T Bank Stadium to FedEx Field: 33 miles
Click to expand...
Not too mention Philly is only about 100 miles from Baltimore. So that's 3 football teams in a 130 or so mile distance.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Sweet Love said:
I am not sure what it is like to try to get Bears tickets (for example), but couldn't Chicago support two teams?
Click to expand...
I think the aforementioned Chicago Cardinals are the answer to that question (maybe things have changed in the past 50 years, but owners are probably reluctant to take that risk--particularly because would probably need to pay a hefty sum to the Bears just for the right to be the second fiddle team in town).
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

U
Cleveland Browns road to the number 1 seed!
Replies
8
Views
737
Gatorman
Gatorman
joey
UFL spring football (XFL and USFL merge)
2
Replies
54
Views
1K
Bri
B
Joe Bryant
NFL Schedule and Rest
Replies
7
Views
616
BassNBrew
BassNBrew

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 2 (members: 0, guests: 2)
Top