U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Sports > Pro Football
 [Register]
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.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
 
Old 07-30-2011, 09:21 AM
JJG JJG started this thread
 
Location: Fort Worth
13,247 posts, read 19,179,706 times
Reputation: 7005

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by pbergen View Post
nice attempted sidestep of my criticism.

this isn't the first time i've seen you write about how LA lost three pro football teams, with the sometimes implied, sometimes overtly stated declaration that LA isn't really worthy of another nfl team due to lackluster fan support. to be honest, i wouldn't have too much of a problem with it if you had your facts straight, but it's clear from your posting history on this topic that you don't. you're just trying to be a hater, and you've done it multiple times - that's why i called you out on it.

so you can claim all you want that you're merely "answering someone's question" and speaking about the "perception" that's out there, but come on...you're not fooling anyone. you've written too many posts about this for me to think otherwise.

in the future, i'd advise that you educate yourself on the history of pro football in LA and the pro sports culture in the city rather than repeating the same, tired mantra about LA losing its pro football teams. because then i'll have to remind you yet again about how Big D lost two of its own pro football teams back in the day...not that i'm even remotely insinuating that DFW is anything less than a great football market.

History = PAST

I'm not side stepping anything. Again, I've already heard about the situations in the city from other Angelinos.... on BOTH sides. There are those who will support a team, and those who wont.

So don't give me this "hater" b.s. I was answering a question and maybe if you looked at THAT, there'd be no need for you to question my understanding of why teams have left.
Like I said, I'm not saying L.A. shouldn't have a team and I could care less if they have one or not. Period.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 07-30-2011, 01:36 PM
 
16,527 posts, read 20,975,025 times
Reputation: 47970
Um, let's tone down the rhetoric a level or two, ok people?

Pbergen, keep in mind something here. This thread is four and a half years old. I was pretty sure you were a new name to this thread (not sure about the football subforum), after scanning it earlier I don't see you posting on it until yesterday. Fortunately this thread hasn't gotten too out of hand and quite honestly I thought about closing it a while back as I thought it was as far as we could go. But you made some good points in yesterdays posts and I thought I'd address them one at a time.

First off, my thoughts on the Los Angeles Chargers.

There was good reason for them to move to San Diego. While attendance was predictably poor as only one game in their initial season got over 20,000 in attendance (against Houston on 11/13-attendance was 21,805), it was still a letdown to owner Barron Hilton as the Chargers and the Oilers were the class of the league. These two clubs would meet for the AFL championship won by Houston 24 to 16.

Hilton conceded the city to the Rams but for reasons besides just money. The Chargers had an easy alternative that wouldn't hurt their identity with San Diego only 90 miles or so south. When they moved to San Diego and played their games at Balboa Stadium their attendance increased 50% right away. Hilton should have admitted he should have been in San Diego right off the get go.

But when the AFL first was created in 1959 the assumption was they wouldn't last long. The original eight owners were known at that time as the "Foolish Club". But the NFL owners didn't take anything to chance; they could laugh about the league in the papers but were wary of them because of one guy-Lamar Hunt.

As the league was getting closer to laying out where the eight clubs would be and that information was made public, the NFL decided to throw a monkey wrench in their plans. The AFL originally had their sights set on Minnesota for a franchise. In no time the NFL decided "Hey! How about expansion! Let's put a team there!" And they did. 1961 was the Minnesota Vikings initial year in the NFL.

The founder of the AFL in my view is Lamar Hunt. He originally wanted to buy an NFL franchise and no one wanted to sell him one. And the NFL owners were not bonkers on the idea about expansion. When Lamar Hunt came up with the idea that a second league would be doable, well, they changed their mind toot sweet. In addition to Minnesota landing an NFL franchise, the Dallas Cowboys came into the league the year before Minnesota did. It was clear that as far as the NFL was concerned, they were going to try to stop the AFL before they could even get started. There was another reason the NFL moved quickly on granting Dallas a franchise. Lamar Hunt was going to set up shop in Dallas with his team the Texans. And the owners knew Lamar Hunt had money. Lots of money. He was the guy the NFL owners knew about regarding starting the league in the first place. Hunt at first just wanted to buy a club or enter their league with an expansion franchise. The NFL said no. Big mistake. Hunt got to thinking that half of the United states only had two NFL clubs-the Rams and the 49ers. His thinking was that pro football would grow that much more if another league was created.

Back to the Chargers. The owners and commissioner Joe Foss felt keeping 8 clubs in the league would be critical to their survival. You could not have a league with four teams in one division and three in the other. You had to have eight. The owners were prepared to lose money those first few seasons. Some were losing much more than others. Barron Hilton in time might have won over the L.A. area as the Rams last few seasons were not good (4-7-1 in 1960, 2-10-1 in 1959). It wasn't that many years previous that the Rams were one of the best teams in the NFL with stars like Norm Van Brocklin, Dan Towler, Bob Waterfield, and Crazy Legs Hirsch. Still, Hilton moved to San Diego as the thinking was it would be better for the league. The size of Balboa park was adequate and the city of san Diego in time would build a bigger stadium and did-Jack Murphy Stadium.

I don't blame the Chargers for moving to San Diego. Not at all. League survival was at stake.



Last edited by DOUBLE H; 07-30-2011 at 04:10 PM..
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-30-2011, 03:27 PM
 
16,527 posts, read 20,975,025 times
Reputation: 47970
My thoughts on the Dallas Texans (the second version-Lamar Hunts version)

The Texans in their first couple seasons were average (8-6 in 1960, 6-8 in 1961) Their first couple games in the 1960 season saw attendance figures nearing 40,000. After several weeks the figures started slipping. By the end of the season they were down to drawing less than 15,000 for their games. There was good reason for it. The NFL had been around for 40 seasons or so. The AFL was a brand new league. The NFL had Jim Brown, Unitas, Lombardi and the Packers, and on and on. The AFL had retreads from the Canadian Football League, castoffs from the National Football League, and rookie players thought not to be any good whatsoever because if they were they would have signed with NFL clubs to begin with.

In 1961 their attendance figures were worse. In their first two games they got around 25,000 a game. And again the count nosedived because by the end of the season a grand total of 8000 people were on hand for the Texans final game against the Denver Broncos. They finished 6-8 for the season, but that wasn't what was troubling Mr. Hunt. By the time the 1962 season rolled around there were other clubs in big trouble. The New York Titans had problems paying their players and reports were that come payday the assistant coaches were sneaking out at practice break so they could cash their paychecks as Harry Wismer held his franchise together through mirrors, duct tape, and wishful thinking. And the players were having some problems cashing theirs.

The situation with the Oakland Raiders was worse. Management basically threw in the towel as the Raiders finished the season 1-13. It was thought that Lamar Hunt would get the owners to "pass the hat around" to try to help ownership. Ultimately it was Buffalo Bill owner Ralph Wilson would take care of this issue, bailing the Raiders out. I've heard of numbers of up to three quarters of a million dollars was lent, might check that figure later. That next year Al Davis got involved with rebuilding the franchise again as previously he was an assistant coach under Sid Gillman with the San Diego Chargers.

Back to Dallas and Lamar Hunt. By the third season, attendance figures had improved but not enough. Their final two games pulled in around 18 to 19,000 a game. That season they played the Houston Oilers for the league championship which Dallas won in overtime, the first time a championship game would go to six quarters. It was one of the memorable games in pro football history, with Dallas winning 20-17.

It surprised a lot of people to see Dallas pull up the stakes and move the franchise to Kansas City. But two teams almost folded. And though Denver had a 7-7 season that year, it was the only year that they would not have a losing season. They were the next club ready to fold as the next four seasons they would finish with a 12-42-2 record for the combined seasons.

In the meanwhile the Dallas Cowboys were slowly drawing better crowds. In fact, in one of their games in the 1962 season they drew over 40,000 (45,668 when they played the NY Giants on November 11th.) I'm sure Lamar Hunt was noticing the figures.

The American Football League was still alive. For a while they were on life support, but they were alive.

I don't blame the Texans for moving to Kansas City. Not at all. Like the situation in Los Angeles, the league survival was at stake.

Last edited by DOUBLE H; 07-30-2011 at 05:36 PM..
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-31-2011, 02:04 PM
 
16,527 posts, read 20,975,025 times
Reputation: 47970
And then my thoughts on the other Dallas Texans (the 1952 version)

If you talk to any long time (and I mean long time) Dallas pro football fan, to a man they'll hang their Stetson hat on the Dallas Texans 1962 team that won the AFL championship. They don't want to talk about the 1960 Dallas Cowboys other than Tom Landry having to work from scratch to at least field a team. Until the Tampa Bay Buccaneers went 0-14 in their first season and the Detroit Lions going 0-16 just a couple years ago, the Dallas Cowboys formerly held that honor with an 0-11-1 record, the tie was against the New York Giants in week 11 of that season.

And they certainly don't want to talk about the 1952 Dallas Cowboys. At least in the modern era of the NFL they were the only team who had to relocate their team to a different state to finish a season. In the tenth week of that season the club was declared bankrupt as paychecks started to bounce with the players. Fortunately three of their last four games of the season were away games. Their home game was played, of all places in Akron, Ohio in a stadium called the Rubber Bowl. And that game drew a crowd of only 2500 people. The game played against the Chicago Bears was the only game they won. It was at this time that the team technically folded and the club was wards of the league. But fortunately money wasn't a problem as the league paid the players and coaches salaries. They finished the season 1-11. On paper one would assume that Dallas would have been a poor choice to have an NFL franchise with this being their first and only NFL season at that time.

But there is more to it than that. The Dallas Texans were not an expansion franchise at all but instead was a club known as the New York Yanks. Their season finished at 1-9-2. They saw crowds ranging from about 8000 (season opener) to 16,000 (season finale.) The Texans attendance figures on the other hand were around the 15,000 range with their last home game in Dallas being in the 10,000 range. BTW, this club just a few seasons before that was known as the Boston Yanks.

Now on the surface those are puny attendance figures but keep in mind one thing here. Not all the teams in the NFL drew those type figures but a lot of them did. Not all six home games of their season, mind you but some of them did. In those days who was drawing good crowds over most of the other clubs? The Los Angeles Rams were one of them. Other financially stable clubs would be the NY Giants, Cleveland Browns, Detroit Lions, and the Chicago Bears.

I don't blame the Texans for moving to Baltimore to become the Baltimore Colts. The NFL ran the clubs operations toward the tail end of that season. Crowd and city support had nothing to do with it. They had nothing to do with that decision because the NFL owned that club by that time.And judging by attendance figures from other teams in the league in those days the Dallas Texans could have done worse. Much worse.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-31-2011, 02:09 PM
 
1,538 posts, read 5,280,088 times
Reputation: 1659
Quote:
Originally Posted by JJG View Post

History = PAST

I'm not side stepping anything. Again, I've already heard about the situations in the city from other Angelinos.... on BOTH sides. There are those who will support a team, and those who wont.

So don't give me this "hater" b.s. I was answering a question and maybe if you looked at THAT, there'd be no need for you to question my understanding of why teams have left.
Like I said, I'm not saying L.A. shouldn't have a team and I could care less if they have one or not. Period.
i stand by everything i wrote earlier. and yes, i know exactly which question you were answering, as i've literally read every post in the entire thread. i've also read numerous other threads in the football forum in which i did not participate - this is how i noticed your thoughts on LA and the nfl in the first place. only this time, i finally decided to respond.

btw, you still haven't addressed several specific points i made. but given double h's comments above, i think it's best to heed his request and drop the matter. you can always DM me if you want to discuss it further.

Quote:
Originally Posted by DOUBLE H View Post
First off, my thoughts on the Los Angeles Chargers:
Quote:
Originally Posted by DOUBLE H View Post
My thoughts on the Dallas Texans (the second version-Lamar Hunts version):
thanks for the background info about the early days of the AFL - truly fascinating.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-31-2011, 04:17 PM
JJG JJG started this thread
 
Location: Fort Worth
13,247 posts, read 19,179,706 times
Reputation: 7005
Quote:
Originally Posted by pbergen View Post
i stand by everything i wrote earlier. and yes, i know exactly which question you were answering, as i've literally read every post in the entire thread. i've also read numerous other threads in the football forum in which i did not participate - this is how i noticed your thoughts on LA and the nfl in the first place. only this time, i finally decided to respond.

btw, you still haven't addressed several specific points i made. but given double h's comments above, i think it's best to heed his request and drop the matter. you can always DM me if you want to discuss it further.
...alright. I'll address it and then drop it, since supposedly I'm the one started the trashing of L.A. having an NFL team.

ALOT of people in this country have the perception that because L.A. (as big as it is) lost its NFL franchises they shouldn't be considered for another. There's the thought of "give someone else a chance". And while the subject on the original Dallas Texans are all good points, there's still one obvious difference between the two cities and it's the fact that Dallas still has A team.

And if we're gonna talk about ownership, it hasn't been much to brag about even after the '95 season when the Rams and Raiders left. Those Houston Texans of today are supposed to be in L.A. right now. But they had stadium issues, just like all of California. Even now with the City of Industry and Downtown Farmers Field proposals, there's still some hurdles to jump over. Nothing is certain.


I'll admit I didn't care too much for another team in L.A. BECAUSE of that reason, but over time I realized that wasn't the issue. Just the perception. I still wouldn't care too much to see it since the NFL doesn't have to have a team in L.A. (less we forget that another of the top 5 metros in this country, Houston, also didn't have a team not too long ago), but it doesn't matter. Eventually, it'll happen anyway.

So, if anyone else here thinks I don't want a team in L.A., then just forget I even put them on the list in the first place.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-31-2011, 04:26 PM
 
16,527 posts, read 20,975,025 times
Reputation: 47970
Now, lets fast forward this a few years up to 2011. There is one name I'm going to toss out here that is a name to be remembered. That individual's name is Philip Anschutz.

I don't know if his name means very much to people who post on city data, but I'm sure that no one on the football forum has commented on him. Well, you're going to be hearing about him for a good long time because Mr. Anschutz is one of the individuals, perhaps the key individual, who is behind the construction of the new L.A. stadium. Or better yet his company AEG enterprises is the one behind this. AEG stands for Anschutz Entertainment Group. I could make a laundry list of his entertainment involvement in a variety of sports and entertainment ventures. Go to Wikipedia and google in AEG. They give a pretty good overview of all things he is involved with.

This is probably the type of guy NFL commish Roger Goodell has been seeking out all the time because of one simple but huge reason-BUCKS. He has those. I'll have to look this up but the last time I looked this up, Philip Anschutz is one of the fifty richest people in the United States, I believe he is 34th. He is a multibillionaire. So if it is a matter of stadium financing, a matter of commitment, or what have you, I believe this guy qualifies.

Now while I'm not sure what is going with the L.A. stadium issue right this minute, it still is going to be three, maybe four years before anything happens in the Los Angeles area. But one thing I'm fairly certain of is that the stadium will be known as Farmers Field. Farmers Insurance has an inside track to naming rights to the stadium. Philip Anschutz knows something about farms. He was born in Russell, Kansas. His Grandad emigrated into the States from Russia around the time of the Civil War. And years later started the Farmers State bank in Russell. He was involved in farming operations when their family moved to Hays, Kansas which is about an hours drive east of Russell. Needless to say, Philip Anschutz has a rural background to him.

Last edited by DOUBLE H; 07-31-2011 at 04:55 PM..
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-09-2011, 11:24 PM
 
Location: Somewhere
213 posts, read 377,997 times
Reputation: 166
If any city, it should be Toronto! Next in line would be:
2.) Las Vegas
3.) Orlando
4.) LA
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-10-2011, 07:36 AM
 
Location: San Antonio
927 posts, read 1,209,428 times
Reputation: 476
Quote:
Originally Posted by BuffalonianPride View Post
If any city, it should be Toronto! Next in line would be:
2.) Las Vegas
3.) Orlando
4.) LA
You're kidding right? Las Vegas? Orlando? C'mon. Orlando already sits between two teams Tampa and Jacksonville. And Las Vegas is the gambling, football betting hub of the country. San Antonio is way ahead of either of those places.

And Los Angeles? Even that's not a done deal. I'll believe that they are building a new stadium when the shovels break ground. And even that doesn't guarantee that it will be completed.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-10-2011, 08:03 AM
 
Location: NE PA
7,936 posts, read 13,863,763 times
Reputation: 4382
I just hope that a team does not move to LA, I hate when teams move and abandon their existing fans. Football has failed in LA twice, I would hate to see an established team relocate there. I'm really hoping the Chargers don't abandon San Diego.

If LA is to get a team, I guess the Raiders would be the best fit though...they don't get great support in Oakland, they do have a fanbase in LA, and were already there.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
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.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:

Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Sports > Pro Football
Follow City-Data.com founder on our Forum or

All times are GMT -6.

2005-2019, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35 - Top