Paul is the reason we have one instead of zero teams. I don't see any reason to believe he's the reason we have one instead of two.
barfo
Unless Uther was referring to PA going to the NFL head offices and requesting that Portland be part of the Seattle Seahawks market. It's absurd. Should Boston and Philly be part of New York's market? Should Baltimore and DC be part of Philadelphia's?
But to answer the root question, I'll list a few reasons:
1. An unwillingness for the citizenry to publicly finance a facility. If we would have passed the Delta Dome bond measure, we'd be talking about the Portland Seahawks.
2. A lack of corporate sponsors. Nike is a bad corporate citizen in terms of sports because they can't favor one team over another. Phil Knight can, but Nike can't. If Nike were in the potato peeling business, we may have another team.
3. Our leadership wins votes by being anti-business. You don't get re-elected in Portland by choosing to subsidize sports over schools, parks or bike paths.
4. We're in the hinterlands. We're the West Coast equivalent of flyover country. The perception way over in New York is that one team is sufficient for the entire Pacific Northwest. Hence, the Seahawks, Ms, Canucks and Blazers.
5. We're a relatively newer city in terms of being big. Charlotte has gotten over it by having large corporate sponsors. Buffalo, Cincinnati, Cleveland, Milwaukee, Kansas City, Pittsburgh, Baltimore, etc. all have a history.
6. The perception is still that we're a minor league town, kind of like Hartford, Raleigh or Jacksonville. We're fine for sports like lax or soccer, but not worthy of more than one of the Big Four.
