It's a bad idea to get involved with Al Davis. |
"We have said repeatedly that we have an open mind with respect to our stadium solution," Raiders chief executive Amy Trask said July 18. "We've put our teams together," said 49ers Chief Executive Jed York, also on July 18. "It doesn't mean we're going to find the right deal that fits for both teams, but we're certainly going to get a look at those options."
The biggest issue remains the exact location for the stadium, but there are other problems here. First, the field would be used every, single week and would frequently be in poor condition as a result. Second, the traffic would be an absolute mess every, single Sunday (neither team should play on Monday night) if one proposed spot, an island in the middle of the S.F. Bay, is selected. Third, neither team would ever really feel at home in a shared space (are they going to swap out each team's banners and signs each week?) and extra offices and practice facilities/locker rooms would probably have to be built to accommodate everyone.
Beyond those logistical problems, have two crappier teams ever shared a stadium? Neither team has had a winning record or made the playoffs since 2002 and between them they have three playoff appearances in the last decade. The only current stadium roommates who are close to the same level of awfullness are the Dolphins and Marlins. They have only three combined playoff appearances since 2001, but the Marlins won the 2003 World Series and were frequently competitive until recently. Not since the New York Yankees and New York (baseball) Giants shared the Polo Grounds in the early 1920s have two really good teams called the same building home (the two met in the World Series from 1921-1923).
Since it's so rare for two good teams to play in the same stadium, the Raiders and 49ers should avoid shacking up at all costs. Even though these teams need new stadiums, it would be a doomed relationship. Let's just fire this before it goes beyond the rumor stage.
No comments:
Post a Comment