Just how "major league" LA is…. (Los Angeles, Oakland: home, luxury)

[edsg25]

Just how "major league", the big time, is LA? I'd say that the answer to that question could be found in 1994. and all the years after.

In 1994, both the Rams and Raiders left town (technically towns, LA and Anaheim), leaving the city without a team in the NFL, football being the nation's biggest sport.

Now an incredible 20 years later, LA is still without an NFL so I'll ask the question again: exactly how "major league" is LA? The answer: as major league as it comes.

Virtually no US of any size would have gone 20 years without getting a new franchise in town. Virtually any city would have sold its soul and sent its taxpayers down the river to pay for a new public stadium with every bell and whistle to garner an NFL team. Virtually every other city in the nation would have looked at the NFL and town as a part of its reputation, one of the things that make it big and important.

But not LA. Not LA which could, in a heartbeat, have shelled out the big bucks for an NFL stadium and the league would have gladly come crawling back into town. Indeed the NFL would have given LA the biggest sweetheart deal in getting a return team and would have paid for a nice chunk of that new stadium.

but LA said: so what? we don't need you. We're as big league as it gets. This is not 1958 and we don't need the Dodgers to make us feel we are major league. We do it on our own.

So LA goes on, doesn't skip a beat (even though many fans would enjoy a new NFL team) and feels it hasn't lost one ounce of its prestige without an NFL franchise.

In contrast, think of New York and what a blow it would have meant to that city if it lost the Giants and Jets and realize that NYC's image would have put all the pieces in place in a New York minute to get the league back in town.

Never has what a city doesn't have spoken so highly of its importance and self-confidence than an NFL-less LA does.

[UKWildcat1981]

LA is more of an entertainment town than sports town.. even the Lakers created showtime to match the culture of the city.. Jerry Buss was a genius. LA has a lot of die hard sports fans like Dodgers, Lakers and USC fans but overall the vibe is about entertainment, your looks and money. I love LA culture most don't get it but its def different from most of the country. I never heard an LA native say their life was ruined when the Raiders left for Oakland and they haven't not had an NFL team in 20 years. Plus the USC vs UCLA football rivalry is starting to get good again.

[TheOldBear]

Originally Posted by edsg25

Just how "major league", the big time, is LA? I'd say that the answer to that question could be found in 1994. and all the years after.

In 1994, both the Rams and Raiders left town (technically towns, LA and Anaheim), leaving the city without a team in the NFL, football being the nation's biggest sport. . .

Never has what a city doesn't have spoken so highly of its importance and self-confidence than an NFL-less LA does.

Hard for me to hinge that “major league” moniker on whether LA has an NFL team or not. We have always supported our sports teams both in the stadium and in the community.


Georgia Frontiere took the Rams to St Louis because she couldn't get a new stadium with luxury boxes gifted to her by the taxpayers. Similar story with the Raiders although they also had trouble with the NFL broadcast rules for local games because of the size of the Coliseum.



In the last 20 years the Dodgers have put almost 70 million fannies into the seats at in Chavez Ravine. In that time they have their attendance has finished 1st seven times, 2nd five, 3rd and 4th three times each, and once each at 6th, 7th, and 8th. All that despite the greedy grasping McCourt scum. Looks like they'll finish in first again this year. The Angels attendance is up about 1,500 a game too as they finish over 3 million paid this year. Again.


Although they sagged a smidgen last year, Lakers home games have consistently sold out both at Staples and back at the Forum . . . looks like the Clips are there too, now.


Kings games? Yeah, try and find yourself a Kings ticket.


Not a big league town? I think not. No place in the country supports their local teams better than Los Angeles.

[edsg25]

Originally Posted by TheOldBear

Hard for me to hinge that “major league” moniker on whether LA has an NFL team or not. We have always supported our sports teams both in the stadium and in the community.


Georgia Frontiere took the Rams to St Louis because she couldn't get a new stadium with luxury boxes gifted to her by the taxpayers. Similar story with the Raiders although they also had trouble with the NFL broadcast rules for local games because of the size of the Coliseum.



In the last 20 years the Dodgers have put almost 70 million fannies into the seats at in Chavez Ravine. In that time they have their attendance has finished 1st seven times, 2nd five, 3rd and 4th three times each, and once each at 6th, 7th, and 8th. All that despite the greedy grasping McCourt scum. Looks like they'll finish in first again this year. The Angels attendance is up about 1,500 a game too as they finish over 3 million paid this year. Again.


Although they sagged a smidgen last year, Lakers home games have consistently sold out both at Staples and back at the Forum . . . looks like the Clips are there too, now.


Kings games? Yeah, try and find yourself a Kings ticket.


Not a big league town? I think not. No place in the country supports their local teams better than Los Angeles.

OldBear, I never questioned LA is highly supportive of its teams. and I have no question that LA would support an NFL franchise. My only point was saying that LA is so secure in itself that it doesn't need the NFL and won't give away the keys to the city to get a franchise….unlike virtually every other city out there. This is a case where the NFL needs LA far more than LA needs the NFL.

[TheOldBear]

Originally Posted by edsg25

OldBear, I never questioned LA is highly supportive of its teams. and I have no question that LA would support an NFL franchise. My only point was saying that LA is so secure in itself that it doesn't need the NFL and won't give away the keys to the city to get a franchise….unlike virtually every other city out there. This is a case where the NFL needs LA far more than LA needs the NFL.

Right you are edsg25 . . .re-read the OP two times and understood your point. Too much caffeine can be an ugly thing.

To your point, an NFL team would be great but to get there we need a modern, new stadium . . . and someone to pay for it.

[sydlee]

Originally Posted by TheOldBear

Right you are edsg25 . . .re-read the OP two times and understood your point. Too much caffeine can be an ugly thing.

To your point, an NFL team would be great but to get there we need a modern, new stadium . . . and someone to pay for it.

Yes -- and that someone better not be LA taxpayers. If a major league team wants a nice new stadium, they'd better pony. Pay for your own house.

(Guess this in some way supports OP's point. I'm fine if pro teams want to come to town. We don't particularly need them, though they are welcome as long as the pay their own way; we are not desperate for their presence. We are fine as-is.)

[marcopolo666]

People in L.A. are smart enough to realize that football sucks, and spurn the idea of the city or county shelling out big $$$ to 'entice' an NFL team. They got screwed twice by NFL teams. Ever hear the expression "fool me once, shame on you - fool me twice, shame on me" ??

[JohnSoCal]

Originally Posted by edsg25

Just how "major league", the big time, is LA? I'd say that the answer to that question could be found in 1994. and all the years after.

In 1994, both the Rams and Raiders left town (technically towns, LA and Anaheim), leaving the city without a team in the NFL, football being the nation's biggest sport.

Now an incredible 20 years later, LA is still without an NFL so I'll ask the question again: exactly how "major league" is LA? The answer: as major league as it comes.

Virtually no US of any size would have gone 20 years without getting a new franchise in town. Virtually any city would have sold its soul and sent its taxpayers down the river to pay for a new public stadium with every bell and whistle to garner an NFL team. Virtually every other city in the nation would have looked at the NFL and town as a part of its reputation, one of the things that make it big and important.

But not LA. Not LA which could, in a heartbeat, have shelled out the big bucks for an NFL stadium and the league would have gladly come crawling back into town. Indeed the NFL would have given LA the biggest sweetheart deal in getting a return team and would have paid for a nice chunk of that new stadium.

but LA said: so what? we don't need you. We're as big league as it gets. This is not 1958 and we don't need the Dodgers to make us feel we are major league. We do it on our own.

So LA goes on, doesn't skip a beat (even though many fans would enjoy a new NFL team) and feels it hasn't lost one ounce of its prestige without an NFL franchise.

In contrast, think of New York and what a blow it would have meant to that city if it lost the Giants and Jets and realize that NYC's image would have put all the pieces in place in a New York minute to get the league back in town.

Never has what a city doesn't have spoken so highly of its importance and self-confidence than an NFL-less LA does.

You have no idea what New York City would do. Believe it or not, there is a lot more to NYC than the Giants and Jets.

[JohnSoCal]

I can't believe the generalizations and stereotypes that people constantly make on City Data forums. It is laughable to read them.

[MordinSolus]

An NFL team would cost the city a lot of money and every business(including sports organizations) want little or no taxation. If a city doesn't let sports teams walk all over them then the threats of moving to other cities start.
And who the hell wants to deal with the additional traffic from NFL games?