Article:How Pete Carroll Leaving USC Will Affect the NFL More Than Pete Carroll Coaching the Seahawks.

Pete Carroll Leaves L.A. to the NFL
USC is in shambles. The PAC10 has caught up and in some respects surpassed the mighty Trojans. I don't believe Pete Carroll is leaving USC because of the inevitable investigations, reports, findings and sanctions - although it's not exactly a reason for him to stay is it?

It's pretty ironic that he jumped ship for the NFL almost a year to the day after NOT supporting his QB Mark Sanchez for doing the same thing.

It doesn't really matter how Carroll does in Seattle. He's inheriting a franchise in shambles, he's not a great fit as an NFL coach to rebuild a franchise - although his previous tenures in New York and New England weren't as bad as remembered - and he's going to need to clean house and draft brilliantly in order to put his stamp on the team owned by an ever-increasingly impatient billionaire. It might take him 5 years to make the Seahawks worth watching (Hint: change the uniform scheme and you can bump it up a few years for the TV audience... the Seahawks have putrid uniforms)

Where the real impact occurs... L.A.
Now L.A. doesn't have its glittering beacon of football dominance in tact. Who knows what happens next to USC. Regardless of who takes the coaching job, it's a mess waiting to make itself apparent and the shine of THE only game in town is long gone... Hello, NFL. Now you can step it up! The clamoring will begin.

Who goes to L.A.??? The Bills spoke out this week denouncing an eventual move to L.A. (nothing said about Toronto, though). Forever it was believed the Cardinals would end up in SoCal but they're entrenched now. The Saints have cemented their status at least until the next Cat5 hurricane. A whole bunch of other candidates (Bengals, Colts as examples) have built new stadiums recently that lock them in place for a while. That narrows it down to the Jacksonville Jaguars (The NFL would need to declare themselves as having failed there - not likely), San Diego Chargers (less likely yet) or the Oakland Raiders (would L.A. even allow them to come back as long as Al Davis is alive?)...

It appears most likely that once a L.A. stadium deal gets done (with USC football dropping out of the National Consciousness, it will speed up dramatically) there will be another expansion.

But expansion messes up King Roger's perfect balance of 32 teams. And one new team REALLY messes it up! Two expansion teams will be necessary in order to make an NFL team in L.A. without relocating an existing franchise a reality. Gee, 36 teams would be so dreamy for his goal of an 18 week schedule.

What can and what will happen?
One thing we do know. The NFL definitely wants to be in the L.A. market. Not just for revenue but also exposure. A franchise with a shiny new stadiium in L.A. means having pristine Super Bowls in L.A. once again. It means celebrities and glamor and oh, let's face it... it is all about revenue!

If the NFL was as smart as they want us to think they are they would add TWO expansion teams to the L.A. market. That's right, North America's 3rd most populated city CAN absolutely handle 2 NFL franchises (Hello? Remember the 80's?)

Two new franchises retains balance, renews excitement and keeps the status quo relatively in tact while still adding the thrill of SoCal figuring prominently in the NFL landscape. There's also no reason some "advantages" can't be "worked out" in this new expansion round in order to get these teams as viable as possible as quickly as possible... unlike the slow boat in Cleveland and Houston.

There's a multitude of options with putting two teams into the L.A. market, too. It can be done like the two New York teams and the Lakers and Clippers- sharing a single stadium or like the MLB and NHL models - one team in L.A. one is a neighboring area (Anaheim, Pasadena, Riverside, Long Beach, etc.)

Most importantly... there's a ton of big money and bigger egos in SoCal. Definitely enough to support NFL franchises with a new beginning, new legacies and new opportunity.

Problem: Other viable options are pretty limited.
Let's face it... the NFL has pretty well saturated the geographical grid of America north, south, east and west - short of Boise, Idaho, Salt Lake City or Bismark, North Dakota (let's not kid ourselves with those tiny markets being the new Green Bays of the NFL minus the century of legends and full community ownership)

Sure, there is ALWAYS Las Vegas. The market could be magical, the space and facilities could be erected in a flash and the amenities and advantages are boundless. But there's that gambling thing the NFL pretends to shy away from - even though the NFL clearly draws the most peripheral fan interest from the gambling and sub-gambling (fantasy sports) industries.

San Antonio has the population and is the largest remaining U.S. market without an NFL franchise. It has natural rivals in Houston and Dallas as well as potentially in New Orleans. San Antonio proved itself fairly worthy while hosting the homeless Saints after Katrina and a usable facility is already in tact.

Toronto is probably the safest gamble with the largest possible long-term dividends of all for an NFL team to get into. It's a huge market about the size of Chicago. Toronto is also a very International kind of city with more than half of its population consisting of non-native Canadians. Succeed in Toronto and you open a gateway to the rest of the world. But the Bills have already begun to stake their claim.

There's also Mexico City - the second most populated town in North America. But it has problems with logistics, viable ownership, safety concerns and its ridiculous elevation. Everyone knows the NFL slobbers at the thought of going global but they have to take baby steps by dipping their toes in the water before leaping the pond.

There's also Oklahoma City. yeah, I said it. The recent foray of the NBA and WNBA into Oklahoma has broken the fertile sports-ground there and rabid fans abound. They also live and die for football, not just basketball. OKC is the new hotbed for business and the revenue can be generated there. There's natural rivals in Dallas and Kansas City. It might well be worth the risk; especially if the NFL is as immutable as it believes it is.

Few other markets are even worth mentioning unless entirely in jest. A second team in Chicago? The return of the Maroons to Pottsville, PA? Long live the Canton Bulldogs? Please...

Of course, none of this matters if...
The strike/lockout isn't avoided after next year.

The showdown is already setting its stage. An agreement MUST be made before things break down even a tiny bit if expansion is to succeed and the L.A. market is to finally be rescued.

It seems like an inevitable collapse is on course since the shakedown this year - salary cap going away, free agency rules changing, salary floors for teams being removed while revenue sharing issues wedges further the abyss between the have owners and the have-not owners.

If the owners can't agree on how to agree with the players and the players can't agree with either side of the owners... the future of the NFL is in jeopardy... at least the fortuitous run it has been on since MLB played Russian Roulette with its future the same way in 1994... with 6 bullets in their revolver.

The shift has begun, but can it be seem through?
L.A. is where the future lies for the NFL. It can buffer the tension, and share in its market's bounty to satiate the entire NFL landscape... or it can be left to fall into the ocean when the fissures begin to crack along the lines of fault.

Maybe one day we'll look back on the demise of the Trojans as the trigger to football returning to LaLa Land?