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.
I'm on record in saying that I don't think it's near the worst but the using a bad area of town to explain low attendance for football games seems a little weak.
I'm a pretty big hockey fan, having attended both the Kings and Ducks games in LA, so I've had experiences with each fan base in the past. The Kings somewhat impressed me but it's still not a large fanbase that would make other cities envious. The Ducks fanbase was pretty weak. I try to get a souvenir at each new venue I see a game in, but outside the arena, it was near impossible to find a Tshirt of each team unlike most other cities I've caught a game in.
Since this thread was about pro sports, I've deliberately left off USC and UCLA. With them, I agree it would change things some.
I still maintain that hockey and NFL support is pretty weak, possibly the Angels as well (good attendance, terrible TV ratings) therefore it doesn't belong in the conversation for good pro sports cities.
Logically, LA would not be a top ice hockey city. But when considering the fact that many people from LA have never even seen natural ice or snow before, its attendance isn't all that bad. Definitely not a top hockey city, though.
As for TV ratings, I don't fully trust them. Not everyone watches cable TV anymore. A lot of people stream services.
YES! My god, there's nothing more annoying than people blaming the FANS on why the team is bad. Unless the fans own the team (sans the Packers, but lets be real about that...fans don't have any real say), its really not their fault the team is good or bad.
The Skins were one of the elite franchise in the 1980s. Then we got Snyder'd. Fans can only do so much against that.
Shoot, I don't think Red Sox fans really wanted to see Mookie Betts get traded, but here we are. A top 5 franchise trading a generational talent because they're cheap. How bout that? Not the fans fault though
It's C-D. Everything is serious here lol. If there's any way to boost you city, right down to how people shake their hands, it'll be boosted.
Yes, makes no sense. This thread has turned into a bash Boston thread.
Logically, LA would not be a top ice hockey city. But when considering the fact that many people from LA have never even seen natural ice or snow before, its attendance isn't all that bad. Definitely not a top hockey city, though.
As for TV ratings, I don't fully trust them. Not everyone watches cable TV anymore. A lot of people stream services.
Well using attendance when many people don't have the money or time to attend is the greatest way to measure fan support either. Attendance and TV ratings are both dated points to the larger picture.
Well using attendance when many people don't have the money or time to attend is the greatest way to measure fan support either. Attendance and TV ratings are both dated points to the larger picture.
Partially true, but I'd still say that the Dodgers being the #1 ranked in attendance year after year is still highly relevant. The only statistic that puts the Dodgers near the bottom of anything in fanbase is TV ratings. I think what's more relevant is stadium attendance year after year and attendance records and memorabilia sales and the actual vibe on the ground. The vibe on the ground is that people really do actually care about the Dodgers and the fans are not bandwagon fair weather fans for the most part. Idk how many people actually live in LA or have lived there who can accurately comment on the vibe on the ground in LA, but I can. I'm from there. I'm telling you LA absolutely loves the Dodgers...and the Lakers. And the Kings still have somewhat good attendance. And then you still have the Angels with massive turnout as well.
If attendance was low, ratings low, hate sales low, nobody in the city caring about sports, etc. than the ratings would matter. Here, it's the anomaly of everything else showing LA actually really does care a lot about its sports.
Partially true, but I'd still say that the Dodgers being the #1 ranked in attendance year after year is still highly relevant. The only statistic that puts the Dodgers near the bottom of anything in fanbase is TV ratings. I think what's more relevant is stadium attendance year after year and attendance records and memorabilia sales and the actual vibe on the ground. The vibe on the ground is that people really do actually care about the Dodgers and the fans are not bandwagon fair weather fans for the most part. Idk how many people actually live in LA or have lived there who can accurately comment on the vibe on the ground in LA, but I can. I'm from there. I'm telling you LA absolutely loves the Dodgers...and the Lakers. And the Kings still have somewhat good attendance. And then you still have the Angels with massive turnout as well.
If attendance was low, ratings low, hate sales low, nobody in the city caring about sports, etc. than the ratings would matter. Here, it's the anomaly of everything else showing LA actually really does care a lot about its sports.
Yeah, I distinctly remember after the 2017 World Series, reports from LA was that it sort of a graveyard for a few days after that loss. That's true passion right there - collective heartbreak. And the fact that even city council people care enough about the Dodgers to want the MLB to do something about the Astros cheating shows that there is a palpable emotion when it comes to them.
Makes our Nats title that much sweeter on the other end though. Beating actual cheaters.
And lets not get started on how LA has handled the whole Kobe Bryant death. It was more than a celebrity passing.
I won't say LA is near the top but its definitely not near the bottom. Places in Florida get that distinction by being completely transient, and having away fans take away games, along with shoddy attendance.
You mean because everyone from Boston is trying to prove Boston is the best sports city yet there is no actual proof that it is?
Settle down, I have never lived in Boston, nor plan to. It's obvious what's going on, if one can read. Why people feel that need, is beyond me. It matters not.
Partially true, but I'd still say that the Dodgers being the #1 ranked in attendance year after year is still highly relevant. The only statistic that puts the Dodgers near the bottom of anything in fanbase is TV ratings. I think what's more relevant is stadium attendance year after year and attendance records and memorabilia sales and the actual vibe on the ground. The vibe on the ground is that people really do actually care about the Dodgers and the fans are not bandwagon fair weather fans for the most part. Idk how many people actually live in LA or have lived there who can accurately comment on the vibe on the ground in LA, but I can. I'm from there. I'm telling you LA absolutely loves the Dodgers...and the Lakers. And the Kings still have somewhat good attendance. And then you still have the Angels with massive turnout as well.
If attendance was low, ratings low, hate sales low, nobody in the city caring about sports, etc. than the ratings would matter. Here, it's the anomaly of everything else showing LA actually really does care a lot about its sports.
I want to reiterate that I wasnt picking on the Dodgers nor really bashing LA (keep in mind I said many people want to label it among the worst sports cities when I don't think so) The Angels I was somewhat. The point I'm trying to make is there are other indicators to suggest LA is closer to the middle of the pack than either the top or bottom. But if you think differently then we shall agree to disagree.
I want to reiterate that I wasnt picking on the Dodgers nor really bashing LA (keep in mind I said many people want to label it among the worst sports cities when I don't think so) The Angels I was somewhat. The point I'm trying to make is there are other indicators to suggest LA is closer to the middle of the pack than either the top or bottom. But if you think differently then we shall agree to disagree.
I view LA closer to the top. We can agree to disagree on that. I'm happy with that. But people that totally write LA off as a pro sports city are just clearly biased and factually wrong. Especially when their support for that opinion is "too many transplants." I see that stereotype on here and all over social media all.the.time. and it's just such a wrong analysis that everyone believes. It does bother me when people who don't even know what they're talking about spread what is basically a lie about the LA fan base. I know I'm not a fair weather bandwagon fan. But I'd appreciate if I didn't have to fight that judgment off of myself from basically every person who learns I'm a Dodgers fan. Everyone just assumed I like them now because they're doing well. And especially as a gay man, it's added stigma that I'm gay and from LA so I don't know sports and only care about the Dodgers because they're good right now. It's so far from reality, but I've heard the lies about LA being a bandwagon city all over the country.
Meanwhile, SF is the biggest bandwagon fair weather fans I've ever met, yet everyone thinks it's some great sports city because their teams are doing pretty well since 2010. Similar to the Boston scenario. Titles don't count when analyzing the fan base. If your fans don't show out when you're not good, you're not a sports city. If your fans didn't even own a single team item...or better yet didn't even know you existed until you started playing well...you don't have a good sports city. Yet numerous people will put SF over LA for this and for the life of me I don't understand how or why. The only answer is LA bias and ignorance about the daily lives in LA and SF. I've lived in both. I know the fan bases of both. LA fan bases are much deeper, more knowledgeable, and more invested in the teams than SF fan bases. I know this from living in both.
The A's and the Raiders do not have good attendance in comparison to Dodgers/Angels. SF can't handle two teams per league. And it will not handle a series of poor seasons in all of its sports the way LA did and still kept its attendance high.
Well I guess SF doesn't have to worry about the Raiders anymore.
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.
My god, there's nothing more annoying than people blaming the FANS on why the team is bad. Unless the fans own the team (sans the Packers, but lets be real about that...fans don't have any real say), its really not their fault the team is good or bad.
