As a San Francisco (or Bay Area) resident sports fan, which team (above poll only) are you most loyal to?

Since this is regarding the whole Bay Area shouldn't the Oakland Raiders, Oakland Athletics, San Jose Sharks, and the San Jose Earthquakes also be included to the poll?

Since this is regarding the whole Bay Area shouldn't the Oakland Raiders, Oakland Athletics, San Jose Sharks, and the San Jose Earthquakes also be included to the poll?You should go ahead and post that poll before I do. I was only curious about the popularity of the San Francisco teams. Had there been a forum exclusively for San Fran, I would've posted the poll there.

Considering the 49ers are pulling out of San Francisco, you may have only a single option based on your criteria within a few years.

Considering the 49ers are pulling out of San Francisco, you may have only a single option based on your criteria within a few years.As long as the Niners retain the city name (e.g. NYC NFL teams play out of state) - which they plan to - they retain their San Francisco identity and my criterion remains beyond reproach. Furthermore, as of today, the aforementioned "pulling-out" is far from a done deal...

Once upon a time, the SF Giants were about to wind-up in Toronto and Tampa (or was it Jacksonville?), respectively...

And while I'm on a roll, forget about the A's in San (no way) Jose!

As long as the Niners retain the city name (e.g. NYC NFL teams play out of state) - which they plan to - they retain their San Francisco identity and my criterion remains beyond reproach. Furthermore, as of today, the aforementioned "pulling-out" is far from a done deal...

Once upon a time, the SF Giants were about to wind-up in Toronto and Tampa (or was it Jacksonville?), respectively...

And while I'm on a roll, forget about the A's in San (no way) Jose!

It was Tampa. The only thing that allowed them to stay was the construction of AT&T Park.

I wouldn't count out the A's moving to San Jose just yet. True, Bud Selig moves like a dead slug when it comes to making decisions, but unless Oakland ponies up for a new stadium they really don't have a choice but to move.

The 49ers are a poorly run team. The Giants are a well-run corporation.

It was Tampa. The only thing that allowed them to stay was the construction of AT&T Park.

I wouldn't count out the A's moving to San Jose just yet. True, Bud Selig moves like a dead slug when it comes to making decisions, but unless Oakland ponies up for a new stadium they really don't have a choice but to move.It was the Tampa Bay area anyway and when I asked about Jacksonville, I meant St. Petersberg.

It wasn't the construction of the China Basin yard that kept the Giants in town, it was the acquisition of the franchise by the ownership group led by managing general partner Peter McGowan from then owner Bob Lurie, who bought and saved the team from moving to Toronto.

Whew...

My "no way, Jose" regarding the A's' move is mostly rhetorical, but if you believe the Giants' ownership, they firmly refuse to concede their territorial rights to the Southbay, which - ironically enough - was granted to them by then A's owner Wally Haas to keep 'em (Giants) in the Bay Area.

Bud Selig's foot-draggin' can be read as permission delayed is permission denied. However, from what I understand, the MLB owners' vote is pending on the issue and they have a history of voting in the Giants' favor, witness their vote to deny the move to Tampa Bay.

The 49ers are a poorly run team. The Giants are a well-run corporation.I long for the good ol' (Eddie DeBartolo) days when the Niners were the envy and class of the NFL.

I wouldn't be so sure about that. I think there is definitely a solid chance the A's will move to San Jose. If it was an easy no, it wouldn't have taken all of this time. I'm sure the committee is split and they're going back and forth on this one.



It was the Tampa Bay area anyway and when I asked about Jacksonville, I meant St. Petersberg.

It wasn't the construction of the China Basin yard that kept the Giants in town, it was the acquisition of the franchise by the ownership group led by managing general partner Peter McGowan from then owner Bob Lurie, who bought and saved the team from moving to Toronto.

Whew...

My "no way, Jose" regarding the A's' move is mostly rhetorical, but if you believe the Giants' ownership, they firmly refuse to concede their territorial rights to the Southbay, which - ironically enough - was granted to them by then A's owner Wally Haas to keep 'em (Giants) in the Bay Area.

Bud Selig's foot-draggin' can be read as permission delayed is permission denied. However, from what I understand, the MLB owners' vote is pending on the issue and they have a history of voting in the Giants' favor, witness their vote to deny the move to Tampa Bay.

1. California Golden Bears
2. Oakland Raiders
3. Oakland A's

Not a fan of the Niners nor the Giants.

1. California Golden Bears
2. Oakland Raiders
3. Oakland A's

Not a fan of the Niners nor the Giants.If I didn't know better, I'd take that for an understatement... :shifty:

Deleted.

The 49ers are a poorly run team. The Giants are a well-run corporation.

+ 1

I voted for the Giants since I never really understood American football. ;)

+ 1

I voted for the Giants since I never really understood American football. ;)You did?! No one's voted since the first hour of the poll...

I think you'd love it if you understood it. When I first came to this country, I didn't understand it either, but I got caught-up in the 49ers hoopla of '85 and learned it.

And to those inclined to dump on the Niners for their recent futility, bare in mind that they own 5 Lombardi Trophies and the best (5-0) Superbowl record in the NFL, 1st. to win 5. I'm just sayin'...

As for the Giants, I bled Dodger blue in my native land, after a few years of being here, I converted to the orange and black ("root root for the home team").

I'm equally loyal to both teams (that single vote above is mine, BTW)

Giants , but I am Argentinian and I do not Understand nothing about American Football , we love the soccer :D

Furthermore, as of today, the aforementioned "pulling-out" is far from a done deal...

Oh, it's such a done deal it's not even funny. I'm really enjoying driving by the construction site every day on the way back from work to check out their progress.

The good news for San Franciscans is that the stadium may end up being more convenient to get to than candlestick if they are able to get Caltrain there via the ACE tracks.

Considering the 49ers are pulling out of San Francisco, you may have only a single option based on your criteria within a few years.

Lose a Giant, gain a Warrior:

Warriors owners meet again with Mayor Lee, serious about S.F. arena (http://blog.sfgate.com/cityinsider/2012/05/15/warriors-owners-meet-again-with-mayor-lee-serious-about-s-f-arena/?tsp=1)

It's a fine trade-off by me.

Lose a Giant, gain a Warrior:



It's a fine trade-off by me.

Agreed. While I'm sad to lose the 9ers, I'd gladly take the ~45 basketball games/year in a new waterfront arena over the ~10 football games/year any day. Bring it on!

It's currently a wonderful time to be a Giants fan. If this trend continues in September, we could have both teams (incl. 49ers) performing at the top of their game simultaneously...

The 49's are pretty iconic to the big world outside America so I voted for them ..

^^The 49ers will soon be lying about being a "San Francisco" team so I would never vote for them. Of course, if they just called themselves the "Santa Clara 49ers" the big world outside America would say,"Who??"

^^The 49ers will soon be lying about being a "San Francisco" team so I would never vote for them. Of course, if they just called themselves the "Santa Clara 49ers" the big world outside America would say,"Who??"

:ohno:

I guess you also consider the Dallas Cowboys to really be the "Arlington Cowboys"? And the NY Giants are the "East Rutherford Giants?" And the Washington Redskins are really the "Landover Redskins?"

That type of logic is stupid as hell. So the 49ers will be playing in a suburb instead of SF city-proper...so what? They're far from the only major league sports team to do so. They're retaining the SF 49ers name, and staying in the Bay Area. It's silly to claim that they will no longer be the "San Francisco" 49ers just because the new stadium will be in Santa Clara.

^^The 49ers will soon be lying about being a "San Francisco" team so I would never vote for them. Of course, if they just called themselves the "Santa Clara 49ers" the big world outside America would say,"Who??"

No doubt SF is a better known brand than SJ or Santa Clara. But just to clarify, the City of SF was named after the SF Bay; that name had been in use for a couple of hundred years. SJ and Santa Clara are also on the SF Bay, as is most of urban Santa Clara County, so there is nothing odd in continuing to use "SF". Certainly no more so than the many other teams who play outside their name city limit.

^^The 49ers will soon be lying about being a "San Francisco" team so I would never vote for them. Of course, if they just called themselves the "Santa Clara 49ers" the big world outside America would say,"Who??"

I would have went with the Bay Area 49ers, seems to make the most sense and includes everyone.

No doubt SF is a better known brand than SJ or Santa Clara. But just to clarify, the City of SF was named after the SF Bay; that name had been in use for a couple of hundred years. SJ and Santa Clara are also on the SF Bay, as is most of urban Santa Clara County, so there is nothing odd in continuing to use "SF". Certainly no more so than the many other teams who play outside their name city limit.

I believe it was named for Mission San Francisco de Asis, one of the original missions (like Mission San Jose) founded by Father Serra.

If they chose to call themselves the "San Francisco Bay 49ers" you might have a point. In any case, Oakland Coliseum is reachable by BART (FYI, that's a heavy rail system that doesn't yet make it to Santa Clara).

Go, Raiders!

There's nothing wrong with people up north being mad about the 49ers move because there was no need to move in the first place. Santa Clara was chosen not because of season ticket holders or South Bay demographics, but because city officials were easily corruptible. Unlike the A's, the 49ers have plenty of fans packing the stadium. Unlike the Giants, the 49ers are native to SF. They're also the most successful team in this half of the state and one of the most prestigious in their sport.

San Francisco is how the world sees this part of California..

Unlike the Giants, the 49ers are native to SF. They're also the most successful team in this half of the state and one of the most prestigious in their sport.

But their owners aren't native and therein is the crux of the issue.

Retaining the San Francisco "brand" is analogous to an established actress retaining the use of her maiden/stage name despite marriage.


In the case of the New York Giants/Jets, despite the proximity, they actually play in another state (NJ).


I have several Giants/Niners caps and jackets. I usually wear mixed logos thereby demonstrating my equal loyalty to both.

There's nothing wrong with people up north being mad about the 49ers move because there was no need to move in the first place. Santa Clara was chosen not because of season ticket holders or South Bay demographics, but because city officials were easily corruptible. Unlike the A's, the 49ers have plenty of fans packing the stadium. Unlike the Giants, the 49ers are native to SF. They're also the most successful team in this half of the state and one of the most prestigious in their sport.

Not so sure, I think the city of Santa Clara is going to make a killing off the 49ers. Also the number of non-football events is likely going to be higher than other stadiums in the US. The location is very desirable.

San Francisco is how the world sees this part of California..

I think the term Silicon Valley has likely become just as well known around the world.

There's nothing wrong with people up north being mad about the 49ers move because there was no need to move in the first place. Santa Clara was chosen not because of season ticket holders or South Bay demographics, but because city officials were easily corruptible. Unlike the A's, the 49ers have plenty of fans packing the stadium. Unlike the Giants, the 49ers are native to SF. They're also the most successful team in this half of the state and one of the most prestigious in their sport.

You might want to cite some specifics on the corruption. The whole process was open, extensive hearings held, the deal negotiatied so that SC had essentially no exposure unless the 49ers went bankrupt, public council votes held, a public referendum won easily. Law suits were dismissed at every court level.

If you want to say that the 49ers moved to make themselves richer, I could certainly agree.

I'm not sure what fans you are mourning for. Season ticket sales in SC were strong. It was noted during the negotiations that SF only constituted 10 percent of season ticketholders (fewer than from Sacramento County). The SF demographic is in fact very poor for football fans. The 49ers claimed the average ticketholder would have a 20 minute shorter drive to the game in Santa Clara. Weather is far better; the population is larger and growing; gameday traffic and transit is better. The 49ers already had their corpoate offices and practice facilities next door.

I believe it was named for Mission San Francisco de Asis, one of the original missions (like Mission San Jose) founded by Father Serra.

If they chose to call themselves the "San Francisco Bay 49ers" you might have a point. In any case, Oakland Coliseum is reachable by BART (FYI, that's a heavy rail system that doesn't yet make it to Santa Clara).

Go, Raiders!

OK; then the Mission was named after the Bay. You do admit the Bay was here first, right? And that all the cities in question are on the SF Bay?

If they called themselves the "City of San Francisco 49ers" you might have a point. But I'm OK with them changing the name to San Jose 49ers or whatever if that floats your boat.

I'm not sure what the relevance of O.co is. Candlestick is not reachable by any rail transit I am aware of. Santa Clara has VTA (lighrail), which covers the most populated areas of SCC. There are also heavy rail connections via ACE and Amtrak within easy walking distance. Of course, as a stadium there is no comparison between Santa Clara and Candlestick that isn't embarrassing to Candlestick.

You might want to cite some specifics on the corruption. The whole process was open, extensive hearings held, the deal negotiatied so that SC had essentially no exposure unless the 49ers went bankrupt, public council votes held, a public referendum won easily. Law suits were dismissed at every court level.

If you want to say that the 49ers moved to make themselves richer, I could certainly agree.

I'm not sure what fans you are mourning for. Season ticket sales in SC were strong. It was noted during the negotiations that SF only constituted 10 percent of season ticketholders (fewer than from Sacramento County). The SF demographic is in fact very poor for football fans. The 49ers claimed the average ticketholder would have a 20 minute shorter drive to the game in Santa Clara. Weather is far better; the population is larger and growing; gameday traffic and transit is better. The 49ers already had their corpoate offices and practice facilities next door.
If it was so open, why were TV spots for Measure J all about schools and children, not a football stadium? If it's such good business, why was the city tapped for money at all? Why was James Rowan, an internet troll that harassed all dissenters, a paid consultant to several SC pols?

...There are also heavy rail connections via ACE and Amtrak within easy walking distance. Of course, as a stadium there is no comparison between Santa Clara and Candlestick that isn't embarrassing to Candlestick.Except one: Candlestick's in San Francisco. There's nothing embarrassing about that...

Except one: Candlestick's in San Francisco. There's nothing embarrassing about that...

Agreed; SF is a beautiful and fun city. My comments are not about cities or people or anything except as it relates to football stadiums and economics.

If it was so open, why were TV spots for Measure J all about schools and children, not a football stadium? If it's such good business, why was the city tapped for money at all? Why was James Rowan, an internet troll that harassed all dissenters, a paid consultant to several SC pols?

That's sort of like asking Apple "if business is so good why don't you give away your phones and tablets?" Santa Clara saw economic benefit from the 49ers proposal to move there and was willing to contribute very minor amounts for land prep and a shared parking structure. Just to repeat, this was voted on multiple times in open council meetings and passed by popular vote.

Btw, the local hotels agreed to tax themselves extra to help fund the stadium since they could see the obvious boom in guests, meals, meetings, hospitality suites, etc. At least two new facilities (hotel, bar, restaurant) are proposed last I heard. It seems like a clear winner not only to the city but to local businesses.

Yay, party in The City!!! Super Bowl FTW! :D

Don't look now, but Niners are in the Superbowl after an 18-year absentia. Will they make SF "Titletown USA?"

Don't look now, but Niners are in the Superbowl after an 18-year absentia. Will they make SF "Titletown USA?"

Well, no. But they wouldn't have anyway because they soon won't play anywhere close to San Francisco.

Meanwhile, San Francisco's appropriate response: BLOW UP THE STADIUM.

Candlestick to get a smashing farewell
Phillip Matier and Andrew Ross, Chronicle Columnists
Updated 11:14 pm, Sunday, February 3, 2013

It hosted two World Series, The Catch and the Beatles' last concert. Now it looks like Candlestick Park will go out with a blast next year to make way for a shopping center.

Plans are to blow up the 69,000-seat stadium with a 30-second implosion, possibly within weeks of the 49ers' final touchdown next season . . . .
http://www.sfgate.com/bayarea/matier-ross/article/Candlestick-to-get-a-smashing-farewell-4247560.php#photo-4134716

Good bye guys (and don't even think about coming back because there'll be no "back" there).

I'm sitting here at my desk on my day off instead of being downtown amid the multitude at the Niners' Superbowl victory parade...



BUMMER!

At least I can continue to bask in the glory of the Giants' World Series victory at Saturday's (2/9) fanfest at AT&T Park.

Well, no. But they wouldn't have anyway because they soon won't play anywhere close to San Francisco.

Meanwhile, San Francisco's appropriate response: BLOW UP THE STADIUM.


http://www.sfgate.com/bayarea/matier-ross/article/Candlestick-to-get-a-smashing-farewell-4247560.php#photo-4134716

Good bye guys (and don't even think about coming back because there'll be no "back" there).

Interesting. SF and the N. Peninsula could use some decent shopping away from the crowds of Union Sq. This could become huge if there are office buildings and thousands of people living there.

This is the great question on stadiums: how much is lost in having a place that's empty 90 percent of the time when it could be a thriving area 18 hrs. a day.

Well, no. But they wouldn't have anyway because they soon won't play anywhere close to San Francisco.

Meanwhile, San Francisco's appropriate response: BLOW UP THE STADIUM.


http://www.sfgate.com/bayarea/matier-ross/article/Candlestick-to-get-a-smashing-farewell-4247560.php#photo-4134716

Good bye guys (and don't even think about coming back because there'll be no "back" there).

This cracks me up. It's been stated several times - the Cowboys don't play in Dallas. The Giants and Jets don't play in New York. The Redskins don't play in D.C. The Dolphins don't play in Miami. The Dodgers don't play in Los Angeles.

The fan base for the 49ers is more concentrated in Silicon Valley than in The City itself. I've been a 49ers fan for 35 years - I have no issues with the team being the San Francisco 49ers and playing in Santa Clara. If SF wanted to keep the 49ers in SF, they would have. 4 times a stadium referendum was VOTED DOWN by the City - 4 times. There's the answer to why the stadium is in Santa Clara. The grandiose plans for Hunter's point were NEVER about a new stadium for the 49ers - that was thrown in at the last minute as a sop to the organization. Notice how fast the plans accounted for no stadium? What does that tell you?

This cracks me up. It's been stated several times - the Cowboys don't play in Dallas. The Giants and Jets don't play in New York. The Redskins don't play in D.C. The Dolphins don't play in Miami. The Dodgers don't play in Los Angeles.The statement in bold is correct only when the Dodgers are on the road. When they're at home they play at Dodger Stadium, at Chavez Ravine, in the City of Los Angeles.

The statement in bold is correct only when the Dodgers on on the road. When they're at home they play at Dodger Stadium, at Chavez Ravine, in the City of Los Angeles.

Okay, I made a mistake on that one. Having said that, the rest of my statement is true.

4 times a stadium referendum was VOTED DOWN by the City - 4 times.

It was voted down to build a Giants Stadium, just like in Santa Clara/San Jose. The one and only time to contribute 100 million toward a new 49ers stadium was approved by the SF voters.

Okay, I made a mistake on that one. Having said that, the rest of my statement is true.

And for years the Lakers didn't play in LA City and the LA Angels don't even play in LA County. It is odd how narrow some people's view of this is.

And for years the Lakers didn't play in LA City and the LA Angels don't even play in LA County. It is odd how narrow some people's view of this is.

Couldn't agree with you more, Pesto. It's just dumb.

No surprise. Santa Clara is waving hotel taxes and offerring other waivers and perks to try to lure the 2016 Super Bowl. They should be in-line that year or next.

I guess the good news is that there will be some frantic construction and spiffing up going on both there and in SJ. Would be nice if the visitors had a chance to see Cisco Field under construction as well as the some of the nice campuses.

Going to be an interesting struggle between hotels in SF and the South Bay.

No surprise. Santa Clara is waving hotel taxes and offerring other waivers and perks to try to lure the 2016 Super Bowl. They should be in-line that year or next.

I guess the good news is that there will be some frantic construction and spiffing up going on both there and in SJ. Would be nice if the visitors had a chance to see Cisco Field under construction as well as the some of the nice campuses.

Going to be an interesting struggle between hotels in SF and the South Bay.Cisco Field?!

http://www.bizjournals.com/sanjose/news/2013/05/14/big-local-companies-put-up-30-billion.html?iana=ind_sports

Local tech companies kicking in for part of the costs of staging the Super Bowl.

http://www.bizjournals.com/sanjose/news/2013/05/14/big-local-companies-put-up-30-billion.html?iana=ind_sports

Local tech companies kicking in for part of the costs of staging the Super Bowl.
It's good that no brand-name San Jose-based tech companies signed up for this.

No Ebay, no Adobe, no Cisco..yay!!!! Oh wait, there's Brocade. Damn it Brocade, you traitorous bastard!!!!