The L.A. Jaguars?

So, Ahnold signed a bill today that will allow construction on a new football stadium in Los Angeles pick up momentum. The Los Angeles Times reports that the stadium will seat 75,000 and cost a cool $800 million. Ahnold's John Hancock on legislation that exempts the stadium from California's environmental laws is all that the construction company needed to get things moving.

Which brings us to our next question: Who's going to play there?

You'll notice the headline of this post is "The L.A. Jaguars?" and the photo is just a giant Jaguars logo. That's because the Jags are one of the seven teams mentioned in the Associated Press article discussing the bill's signing. The other teams listed? Buffalo, Minnesota, St. Louis, San Diego, Oakland and San Francisco.

Now, the most important part of this process isn't which teams are bad and which teams are good, although competitiveness does (obviously) play a major role in how well a team does financially. But let's just toss Minnesota, San Fran, Oakland and San Diego out right away. Why would any of those franchises do that?

There's this line in the AP article:

The firm has said the teams are in stadiums that are either too small or can't be updated with luxury box seats or other revenue sources an NFL club needs to thrive.

But I'm not buying the Vikes leaving MPLS. No way. The Twin Cities love their sports too much to let that happen. The three California franchises are so entrenched in their identities that I can't see them moving to L.A. Plus, the Raiders have already done it 17 times. Why would they want to do it again?

I think we'd see the host cities of those teams build or renovate stadiums before we'd see those teams move, especially in Minnesota, San Diego and San Francisco.

That leaves us with the soon-to-be-coachless Bills, the worst-team-possibly-ever Rams and the no-one-who-lives-in-Jacksonville-even-knows-they-are-in-Jacksonville Jaguars.

But again, we aren't going by records. If we did, the Lions would be in San Antonio by now.

Look, people in Buffalo love the Bills, good or bad, and show up at games. But the Bills are barely hanging on in Buffalo. I spoke to a sports media member in Buffalo two years ago and he said he'd be shocked if the team was still there in 10 years. Ralph Wilson's 91, and who knows what the mindset of the Bills' next owner will be. And that decision could come sooner rather than later.

The Rams are still new to St. Louis, but a bigger factor in this is that they are up for sale, at a cool cost of more than $900 million. If a deep-pocketed owner comes along and buys the team, who knows if they'll want the team ... and a new city.

And then we have the Jags. They are always the first team mentioned when people talk about NFL franchises moving. And although I realize it's not the first or last place you should go for information, the Jaguars' Wikipedia page isn't too promising. Low ticket prices, lower fan interest, blackouts in the region and slow business growth in and around Jacksonville all have major parts in possibly undoing the Jags as a Jacksonville-based franchise.

So, that's why the Jags seem most likely to move Los Angeles. The Bills will end up being the Toronto Bills soon. The Rams ... well, who knows what will happen to them. We'll find out, I guess.

Just don't expect the Jags to be a smash hit in Los Angeles, either. Seems like teams have trouble sticking around ...