Kirk Cousins once tweeted he was listening to Creed's Greatest Hits.
a.) They have greatest hits and b.) They're old enough to have them if they have them at all?
Edit: Blech, between this and finding out Paul Ryan's taste in music yesterday, my brain's been flooded with horrible and horribly dated earworms.
Owners approve of the Raiders' move to Vegas by a vote of 31-1. The lone dissenter? Miami. I guess they didn't want to have Vegas' reputation competing with South Beach.
I have zero memory of when the Raiders moved to LA, but the reaction to this move to Las Vegas among Oakland fans sounds worse. And again, the idea of staying in Oakland for at least the next two seasons with the move in the works sounds colossally stupid. Do they not remember what happened in Cleveland when the original Browns moved to Baltimore? No one attended the remainder of their home games until the final one, where everyone proceeded to get so drunk like they were afraid Art Modell was going to take the beer with him and then proceeded to trash the stadium in a fit of drunken rage. Maybe the A's ought to get on with their new stadium plans because I'm not sure the Coliseum's going to be intact in early 2019.
The Oilers came to a bad end in Houston, too. I had left town by the time Bud Adams announced the move to Nashville, but I was still following the team, and the 1996 season (the team's last in Houston) was a sh!tshow, attendance-wise. It wasn't drunken outrage; it was more like you're-dead-to-me apathy.
If Wikipedia is correct (maybe it is!) the Oilers got 15,000 for their last home game in the Dome.
I don't think Raider Fan is going to wear apathy well, tbh.
I know 3 Raiders fans all up here that do a yearly trip to go see a game.
I haven't asked them yet but as fans that are not in Oakland but long time fans they must be conflicted.
Wouldn't be surprised if their yearly Raider game becomes an away game.
It sucks for Oakland fans in the sense they're losing the team, but it's great for fans in Oakland because they don't have to pony up a billion dollars for a stadium. Las Vegas is getting utterly screwed in this deal.
That might end up the worst home field advantage in football. Sure they will pull some so-cal fans who will drive the 4 hours back and forth to watch the game. But I suspect it will be mostly filled with away fans making a trip to Vegas to see their team and eat some crappy Bobby Flay food.
It sucks for Oakland fans in the sense they're losing the team, but it's great for fans in Oakland because they don't have to pony up a billion dollars for a stadium. Las Vegas is getting utterly screwed in this deal.
Are they? I thought I saw that basically every hotel room costs $1.50 more a night so in reality travelers are paying for it not Las Vegas residents.
I think its a great move for LV.. Tourism will go up as many people make it long weekends to stay and catch a football game on Sunday. I agree Oakland though ends up a winner as they don't have to foot the bill for another Stadium only to be held hostage again before that stadium is paid off.
Do they not remember what happened in Cleveland when the original Browns moved to Baltimore? No one attended the remainder of their home games until the final one, where everyone proceeded to get so drunk like they were afraid Art Modell was going to take the beer with him and then proceeded to trash the stadium in a fit of drunken rage.
You have to remember that it's Cleveland. That's the only way they can feel.
I'm not particularly happy to see the Raiders leave for Las Vegas, but four NFL teams in California seems a bit much. It would've made a ton more sense for the Rams to move to Vegas but call themselves Los Angeles Rams anyway. Or, better yet, bring the Rams to LA and move the Chargers to Vegas. Instead we now have three teams in LA, essentially: Chargers, Raiders and Rams. LAX is gonna be even busier, if that were possible.
These two tweets are interesting:
Friendly reminder that the Raiders increased ticket prices in Oakland 40% for next year, on their way out the door https://t.co/KlK7Sti7fq pic.twitter.com/dITBOzy6Tv
— Mike Rosenberg (@ByRosenberg) March 27, 2017
days like today are why I always chuckle when fans side with ownership and blast players for wanting to get paid
— Mike Golic Jr (@MGolicJR57) March 27, 2017
Rat Boy wrote:Do they not remember what happened in Cleveland when the original Browns moved to Baltimore? No one attended the remainder of their home games until the final one, where everyone proceeded to get so drunk like they were afraid Art Modell was going to take the beer with him and then proceeded to trash the stadium in a fit of drunken rage.
You have to remember that it's Cleveland. That's the only way they can feel.
Even when its the Raiders who suck the Browns still get dog-piled.
Las Vegas is probably the one city in the US where they could pay for a bazillion dollar stadium with a hotel/motel tax.
The Vegas stadium deal isn't such a horribad deal as you'd think because tourists, not locals, are paying for it. Plus the construction industry is going to see a lot of jobs here.
But as opponents point out, they could have used the money for schools or other public services, and Clark County Schools are horribly overcrowded.
But, hey, it's football. Gotta open your checkbook for that, right?
(To be clear, I think it's a lousy choice of how to spend tax dollars. Vegas residents won't pay higher taxes for this thing unless the tourist business bottoms out or revenue projections turn out to be bogus. In that case, Vegas Resident is screwed. It's also terrible public policy to give expensive sh!t to rich people.)
You are against replay?
Nothing better than a playoff game where a team wins but we have to sit around waiting for the officials to review it. The best!
I'm of a mind that the only place I care about accuracy is the end zone. Let's make it so we can tell if the ball breaks the plane or not with lasers, NFC or some other magic.
Other than that, I'm okay with human error. We wouldn't ever have a perfect game in baseball without human error from the umpires.
karmajay wrote:You are against replay?
I don't consider human error from officials an evil that has to be stomped out.
Let the official make the best call he or she can and move on with the game.
Sport isn't "real". It's not like a missile strike where information had better be right. Blown calls are fine. Female Doggoing about them is part of sports. Dragging games to a halt to stare at tiny screens is worse.
I'm so tired of every big play in an NFL game having this delayed impact, where everyone stops and wonders if it's going to count or not. Then you watch NFL Films of some old game and something crazy happens and the official just makes the call and that's that.
Is there an infinity like button?
Replay is a good thing, because having critical games decided by blown plays sucks.
Meh I'm on the side of get the call right on easy things like out of bounds, fumbles and scores. Obviously, the real subjective stuff like interference has to be seen in real time because everything looks like interference in slo-mo.
I think rose colored glasses are used to much when talking about some "great" moments from old school.
TheGameGuru: If you are so ok with subjective calls I guess we won't ever see another post on Brady's tuck then, eh?
Nothing better than a playoff game where a team wins but we have to sit around waiting for the officials to review it. The best!
I'm of a mind that the only place I care about accuracy is the end zone. Let's make it so we can tell if the ball breaks the plane or not with lasers, NFC or some other magic.
Other than that, I'm okay with human error. We wouldn't ever have a perfect game in baseball without human error from the umpires.
So you mean what didn't happen when the Pats won this year? ;D
Atlanta's new stadium is facing construction delays. As a wise man once said, "The more you overthink the plumbing, the easier it is to stop up the drain."
Even though it has been established that there is not any value in a 1st round RB any more, no way Cook is around at 19 for the Bucs, right?
Pages