From: rhoads@riches.rutgers.edu (Glenn Rhoads)
Newsgroups: rec.sport.football.pro
Subject: Re: Why Baltimore? (was Re: Expansion franchises)
Date: 21 Jan 93 22:45:36 GMT
Organization: Rutgers Univ., New Brunswick, N.J.
Cc: rhoads

In article <1993Jan19.225925.29186@csrd.uiuc.edu>, grout@sp90.csrd.uiuc.edu (John R. Grout) writes:

> >> Please post (and email) REASONS, not flames!
> 
> >OK.  How about these reasons.
> 
> >1) The fans have already shown previous support for a football team.
> 
> >2) The city got shafted by Robert Irsay.
> 
> >3) There is a brand-new football stadium in Baltimore.
> 
> >4) Baltimore still has a fairly large metro area. (Granted, not the
> >   largest area without a football team)
> 
> >5) A Baltimore team would form a natural rivalry with both Washington
> >   and Philadelphia.
> 
> >A reasonable case could be made for a few other cities as well.  If
> >you think some other cities are more deserving of an NFL franchise and
> >you wish to say so on the net, then I'ld politely suggest that you
> >follow your own advice and provide REASONS why you think those cities
> >are more deserving than Baltimore.
> 
> Only one is necessary:
> 
> 1.  There are many larger cities with NFL Football MUCH farther than
> 60 miles away.

Well having a larger city located farther away from existing
franchises is certainly one reason.  Apparently, you feel that this
reason is of such a nature that it overrides all other reasons
combined.  I don't think so, but this is just a judgement call and I
can respect that.

There are some larger cities without NFL teams but I don't think there
are really that many.
(As recently as the 1970 census, Baltimore was the FOURTH largest city
in the U.S.  Since then Baltimore has lost some population while some
other cities have gained.  It is, however, still a fairly large city.
(I would be curious to know the population of the largest cities
without an NFL franchise according to the 1990 census.))
If you think that the distance between NFL franchises is the critical
factor, then I must point out that two different cities already have
two teams, namely Los Angelos and New York (or NJ if you prefer).  Or
perhaps you feel that each of these cities should lose one franchise.

Of all the cities without an NFL team, only Baltimore and Oakland have
a proven ability and willingness to support a franchise (sorry St.
Louis, you did not support the Cards).  To repeat myself, Baltimore
also has a brand new football stadium waiting for a team and would
form a good natural rivalry with both Washington and Philadelphia.
Not that I think it would be a terrible injustice not to grant an NFL
franchise to Baltimore.  Like I said, a reasonable case can be made for
a few other cities as well.  I've read the arguments for several
cities and based on what I've read, my personal ranking of the three
MOST deserving cities are;

1.  Charlettesville(sp?), NC
2.  Baltimore, MD
3.  Nashville, TN

The thing that I found somewhat annoying about the original post was
that you flamed Baltimore, implied that there are no valid reasons for
locating a franchise there, and challenged the net readers to post
reasons why Baltimore should have a franchise without posting a single
reason why they shouldn't.  Well at least now you have posted one
reason.  Again, the importance of that reason is a matter of
judgement.

-- Glenn Rhoads