Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
well there is more to do it than that, what I don't understand is that people in L.A. have choices but yet the Clippers have always had decent attendence, thats what pisses me off, what i find hypocritical, I don't get why people in L.A. go to Clipper games when there are better things to do, the Clippers have always been a sub-par product on the court.
Blake Griffin = new and improved product.
There is nothing "hypocritical" about sports attendance being high or low.
Is it hypocritical that many horrible movies are "hits" at the box office or that some very good movies are flops?
We live in a free society....people can spend their time and money as they choose. Just because they don't behave as you think they should does not mean it is hypocrtical or fake or phony. It is just what it is.....
There is nothing "hypocritical" about sports attendance being high or low.
Is it hypocritical that many horrible movies are "hits" at the box office or that some very good movies are flops?
We live in a free society....people can spend their time and money as they choose. Just because they don't behave as you think they should does not mean it is hypocrtical or fake or phony. It is just what it is.....
my whole point and argument is that how come L.A. will support, tolerate a losing NBA franchise like the Clippers but not a losing NFL franchise, it does not make sense to me.
my whole point and argument is that how come L.A. will support, tolerate a losing NBA franchise like the Clippers but not a losing NFL franchise, it does not make sense to me.
LA supported the rams for 49 seasons. your idea that the team was a failure that was not well-supported is completely off-base. not to mention, the raiders were quite popular in their own right during their 13 seasons in LA.
for a long time, the rams were actually the most popular team in the city and region. they were the first pro team in LA (arrived in 1946), won the first pro sports championship in LA's history (1951), had a number of celebrity fans, and featured star players who crossed over into the entertainment industry during or after their careers and/or dated hollywood starlets.
the dodgers and rams were both immensely popular from the 1950s through the 1970s. it wasn't until the 1980s that the lakers became the most popular team in LA. the dodgers still remained popular during this time, but the rams popularity started to decline due in large part to the cheap, carpetbagging owner, georgia frontiere.
eventually, the rams (and for that matter, the raiders too) left los angeles due to stadium issues and carpetbagging, negligent owners (frontiere and al davis, respectively) who took advantage of sweetheart stadium deals in other markets that the various LA-area governments were unwilling to give them. in other words, attendance had nothing to do with why either team left.
seriously, are you like 12 years old or something? because it sure sounds like it based on the lack of perspective and ignorance of local sports history you've demonstrated in your various posts.
There is nothing "hypocritical" about sports attendance being high or low.
Is it hypocritical that many horrible movies are "hits" at the box office or that some very good movies are flops?
We live in a free society....people can spend their time and money as they choose. Just because they don't behave as you think they should does not mean it is hypocrtical or fake or phony. It is just what it is.....
So what if Blake Griffin is an exciting player? the Clippers did not make the playoffs last season, and they never do, I don't get why the Clippers even had decent attendence before Blake Griffin arrived, is like a bad spoiled little kid, when they see a ball, they don't wanna play with the ball, but when somebody else picks up the ball, then they wanna play with the ball, I have this to back up my point, my argument, virtually everyone else makes those comments, argument, that the reason why L.A. is full of fairweather fans, bandwagoners, is because there are better things to do than go see a team constantly lose all the time, and I don't blame Angelonos for being like that, if that is the case, why did they never go to the Raiders or Rams games when they were losing but they have always gone to Clipper games before Blake Griffin arrived? because that is why the Clippers are still in L.A., they make too much money there, I was at a Sports Bar one time and one person who I could not agree with more, he said the Clippers should not exist anymore, they should become an NBA-Development League team or something, they are an ugly step-child of a Sports team.
LA supported the rams for 49 seasons. your idea that the team was a failure that was not well-supported is completely off-base. not to mention, the raiders were quite popular in their own right during their 13 seasons in LA.
for a long time, the rams were actually the most popular team in the city and region. they were the first pro team in LA (arrived in 1946), won the first pro sports championship in LA's history (1951), had a number of celebrity fans, and featured star players who crossed over into the entertainment industry during or after their careers and/or dated hollywood starlets.
the dodgers and rams were both immensely popular from the 1950s through the 1970s. it wasn't until the 1980s that the lakers became the most popular team in LA. the dodgers still remained popular during this time, but the rams popularity started to decline due in large part to the cheap, carpetbagging owner, georgia frontiere.
eventually, the rams (and for that matter, the raiders too) left los angeles due to stadium issues and carpetbagging, negligent owners (frontiere and al davis, respectively) who took advantage of sweetheart stadium deals in other markets that the various LA-area governments were unwilling to give them. in other words, attendance had nothing to do with why either team left.
seriously, are you like 12 years old or something? because it sure sounds like it based on the lack of perspective and ignorance of local sports history you've demonstrated in your various posts.
Don't blame me, in every debate, discussion, argument everywhere regarding bringing the NFL back to L.A., the overwhelming vast majority of people will say that L.A. does not deserve a team since they failed to support the Raiders and the Rams, since we live in the Digital age now, in most news articles nowaday's you can make comments on the bottom of the page, and whenever there is an article talking about L.A. and the NFL, most people will say "L.A. can't or won't support an NFL team", I literally hear that all the time, so i'm just believing that.
sorry, it's just because I'm part of Southern California's huge, giant Generation that grew up, was not old enough to remember when the Raiders and the Rams used to be here, and I would like a team here so I don't have to commute a long-ass distance to go to an NFL game in person, I also have this to back up my argument, John Singleton interviewed Ice Cube and asked him this question "
Q: So you’re an LA sports fan. Why do you think the city doesn’t support or can’t support an NFL franchise?
Ice Cube: Well, Los Angeles does support NFL franchises if they win, you know. Losers can't come to Los Angeles and expect to get any kind of fan base because we're so spoiled by the Lakers. I mean, we love the Dodgers, and we feel like they're on the cusp of winning and they'll get the city, too. But it's a winning town. If you're not winning, there's better things to do in Los Angeles than spend all that money on a ticket and then see your team lose. Ask the Clippers."
In fact, I don't blame Angelonos for not going to Sporting Events when the team is constantly losing, those are smart customers, so basically i'm saying that if L.A. is a Winning town, why do we tolerate the Clippers when we are spoiled enough by the Lakers already?
Don't blame me, in every debate, discussion, argument everywhere regarding bringing the NFL back to L.A., the overwhelming vast majority of people will say that L.A. does not deserve a team since they failed to support the Raiders and the Rams, since we live in the Digital age now, in most news articles nowaday's you can make comments on the bottom of the page, and whenever there is an article talking about L.A. and the NFL, most people will say "L.A. can't or won't support an NFL team", I literally hear that all the time, so i'm just believing that.
just because the "overwhelming vast majority of people" say something is true doesn't make it accurate. it's pretty clear that they don't know jack about the history of the nfl in los angeles, and neither do you.
are you seriously going to believe what random people on the internet claim about the nfl's history in LA rather than educating yourself about what really happened? and who exactly are these people, by the way - anonymous posters on the internet, i assume? you make a very unconvincing case that has absolutely no facts to back it up.
you're just choosing to believe what you want to hear rather than taking a moment to listen to what some of the posters in this thread are saying in response to your ridiculous, over-the-top rants. don't forget that a lot of outsiders hate los angeles and will not hesitate to bash anything related to the city, including the sports teams, even if it means bending the truth or flat-out lying. some of these people are willfully ignorant, while others genuinely have no idea what really happened.
again, here are the facts:
the rams and raiders did not leave los angeles due to fan apathy. the two teams relocated because they were unable to secure a modern, revenue generating stadium with luxury and club seating. not to mention, the two owners simply did not care about screwing over the local fans - when they couldn't get new stadia built, they decided to bolt to other markets where they were promised new or renovated stadia with sweetheart lease terms. by moving to st. louis and oakland, respectively, they traded in a huge sports market for short term gains, even if it meant screwing themselves over long term - really, it's no coincidence that the rams and raiders are two of the strongest candidates for relocation to los angeles if/when the new stadium is built.
finally, keep in mind that the nfl tried to block the rams and raiders from leaving los angeles, but were unable to do so because the league was threatened with anti-trust lawsuits by the rams' and raiders' owners. the league did NOT want to abandon the nation's second largest market for two much smaller and less profitable ones.
please take a moment to learn the historical facts rather than continuing to spew your over-the-top rhetoric that has no basis in reality.
and again, are you a little kid or something? because you seem to have ZERO understanding of the sports history in southern california.
I can't believe that the question is being asked. The Dodgers have lost support because of the drama that the owners impose on all of us. Get a new owner that will respect the franchise and I will head back down to Dodgers Stadium. Get a new owner that will not rape the ticket buyers for food and beverages. Get a new owner that cares about the Dodgers as a team and isn't trying to make themselves out to be bigger than the team.
sorry, it's just because I'm part of Southern California's huge, giant Generation that grew up, was not old enough to remember when the Raiders and the Rams used to be here
this explains everything - you're just a little kid who has zero perspective or understanding of the local sports history.
it's simply comical that a prepubescent boy like yourself who has very little life experience is posting these inflammatory little rants bashing the southern california sports fanbase. i mean, truly hilarious.
and seriously, you're going to base your opinion of why LA "doesn't deserve" an nfl team on the comments board of various news sites? seriously?
that is the weakest argument i've ever heard, and i've been on city-data for 4 years now. bulletin boards, blogs, and the comments section of newspaper websites are the last places you should look if you want to engage in intelligent discussion that's backed up with facts. they're no different than the crazy, uneducated yahoos who call talk radio shows to rant about anything and everything.
get over yourself, kid. stop creating these inane threads in which you have NO idea what you're talking about, and instead take a minute to learn about the sports history of the region in which you live.
and if people in L.A. have better, more important things to do than go to Sports events, then why do people go to Laker, Dodger games, Kings and Clippers games but never went to NFL games when the Rams and Raiders were here? especially when the NFL is the most dominant Pro Sports League in North America
If we're not winning..we're not interested.
East Coast people stick with their teams no matter how much of a bunch of losers they are.
..just a different approach.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
