NFL Team moving to LA (Los Angeles, San Diego: college, stats, train)

[pbergen]

Originally Posted by JJG

You just skipped the parts where I said "Not saying there are no die hard fans..."

But whatever. It's just something we're gonna have to wait and see.

no, i didn't skip anything; i understood what you were trying to say the first time. it's just that i totally disagree with your original point.

i do agree with your second sentence, though.

[MattClyde]

Originally Posted by pbergen

once again, your experiences with a limited number of people from LA says nothing about the viability of the LA market or overall desire for pro football in the region. neither does it really suggest that "the NFL wants a team in L.A. more than L.A. does." it's merely an assumption on your part based on interactions with a very limited sample size of people.

But if you are saying that JJG is assuming most don't want a team in LA based on his "limited number of known people" then you are assuming that most in LA do want an NFL team based on your "limited known peeps. It goes both ways, not just his.

Besides you don't know what connections JJG might have.

[pbergen]

Originally Posted by MattClyde

But if you are saying that JJG is assuming most don't want a team in LA based on his "limited number of known people" then you are assuming that most in LA do want an NFL team based on your "limited known peeps. It goes both ways, not just his.

Besides you don't know what connections JJG might have.

my belief that LA is a viable nfl market is not really based on what my circle of native LA friends and acquaintances tell me - i mean, i'm not naive enough to assume that such a small sample size says anything meaningful about the region as a whole.

the reasons why i feel the nfl would work in LA are market size (a huge consideration that cannot be dismissed), income levels, a sufficient corporate base to fill the luxury boxes and other super expensive seats, and a long history of pro football in the region. remember, the rams played in LA for nearly 50 years - and in many of those years, they were apparently very popular.

yes, the rams and raiders left town, but that was primarily because of stadium issues as well as crazy and/or carpetbagging owners who didn't get a you-know-what about screwing over their local fanbases. sure, attendance sagged toward the end, especially as the relocation rumors swirled in the media, but that also happened in highly respected football markets like cleveland and houston, too. who wants to support a team when your owner is threatening to move it somewhere else?

also, neither team ever played in a brand new, state-of-the-art, revenue-generating facility - and you better believe that not having a new/updated stadium in a good location can have a negative affect on attendance in the majority of nfl markets. instead, the rams played in a crumbling facility in a rough, declining neighborhood with much higher ticket prices than for usc games, then they moved to orange county around the same time the raiders moved to town, which effectively cut their fanbase in half. at the same time, raiders games had a bad rep of not exactly being fan-friendly, which probably made it difficult for the team to attract the casual football fan to their games.

i don't know how far you go back, but if you look at historical attendance records for all 4 major sports, they were generally much lower across the board back in the '70s and '80s, even in large markets and even for some successful teams. my hometown ny giants, one of the most historic teams in league history, had tons of games blacked out in the '70s due to having non-sellouts at crumbling yankee stadium (not coincidentally located in a rough neighborhood in steep decline), but once giants stadium opened in safe, suburban nj in 1976, the team started selling out again for the first time in what seemed like forever, despite the fact that the team was still non-competitive. just goes to show how important a new facility in a good location can be for attendance. by contrast, neither the rams nor the raiders ever had the benefit of a new facility to help with attendance.

i really don't think there's any question about LA's viability as an nfl market. there are a lot of people who say otherwise based on their personal biases against angelenos or the city itself, but i don't think the factors i mentioned above can be ignored.

[Dub D]

From the poll, its 55% for a team. Do you seriously think if the Vegas, Orlando, Oklahoma City, Portland, or any other decent sized city would be anywhere near that? Those cities as a whole would love to have an NFL team. Thats enough not to have a team.

[MattClyde]

Originally Posted by Dub D

From the poll, its 55% for a team. Do you seriously think if the Vegas, Orlando, Oklahoma City, Portland, or any other decent sized city would be anywhere near that? Those cities as a whole would love to have an NFL team. Thats enough not to have a team.

yes but this is specifically for LA, if we were discussing those cities, I would have put this in the sports section and have put more options

[Dub D]

Durrrrr, you didn't get my point. Nearly have of us don't think we should get a team. I guarantee it would be like 80/20 or so for other cities wanting a team.

LA has the worst fans in the nation.

[coo77]

Originally Posted by Dub D

Durrrrr, you didn't get my point. Nearly have of us don't think we should get a team. I guarantee it would be like 80/20 or so for other cities wanting a team.

LA has the worst fans in the nation.

L.A. is so big though that even if only 20% of people in Greater L.A. (population 18 million) watched a football game, it would be one of the largest fan bases in raw numbers in the country. The Los Angeles television market includes L.A., OC, Ventura County, and the Inland Empire. A 20% support rate is 3,600,000 people supporting the team.

ALL of San Diego County has 3 million people. Even if EVERY SINGLE person in San Diego watched the game, it would be less than 20% of Greater L.A. supporting a team.

20% of Los Angeles would be the 15th largest metropolitan area in the nation and larger than the metropolitan areas of places like Baltimore, Denver, Tampa, Portland, San Antonio, Cleveland, Austin, St. Louis, Pittsburgh, etc...

[majoun]

Originally Posted by Dub D

Durrrrr, you didn't get my point. Nearly have of us don't think we should get a team. I guarantee it would be like 80/20 or so for other cities wanting a team.

LA has the worst fans in the nation.

In terms of disinterest, yes.

In terms of bad behavior, Philadelphia and Boston take the cake with Oakland as 3rd.

[pbergen]

Originally Posted by coo77

L.A. is so big though that even if only 20% of people in Greater L.A. (population 18 million) watched a football game, it would be one of the largest fan bases in raw numbers in the country. The Los Angeles television market includes L.A., OC, Ventura County, and the Inland Empire. A 20% support rate is 3,600,000 people supporting the team.

ALL of San Diego County has 3 million people. Even if EVERY SINGLE person in San Diego watched the game, it would be less than 20% of Greater L.A. supporting a team.

20% of Los Angeles would be the 15th largest metropolitan area in the nation and larger than the metropolitan areas of places like Baltimore, Denver, Tampa, Portland, San Antonio, Cleveland, Austin, St. Louis, Pittsburgh, etc...

i totally concur with the above (can't rep you now, need to spread it around). LA's massive population is a major reason why the nfl wants to return a team to the region, and why i believe a local team will have plenty of support even if the per capita level of interest is not nearly as high as football-crazy cities like pittsburgh, cleveland, green bay, kansas city, etc.

in small-to-medium sized cities like the ones mentioned above, you have to have a very high per capita level of interest in order for the local teams to succeed. that's why transient sunbelt cities that are much smaller than LA like phoenix, tampa, and jacksonville are not particularly strong pro sports markets - any dip in the local economy is going to have an especially pronounced effect on game attendance, yet at the same time these regions don't have as high a percentage of natives with deep, multi-generational roots in their region who have undying loyalty to their city and local teams.

naysayers always want to point to angelenos they've spoken with or a silly internet poll as "proof" of LA's lack of interest in the nfl, as if such a small sample size means anything. but really, LA doesn't need to have a high level of per capita interest in a local nfl team for it to be successful. as coo77 said, 20% of LA's CSA population is still a huge raw total of fans. and while LA's percentage of die-hard fans may not be as high as the older, cold-weather cities, the absolute number is still quite considerable.

similarly, it isn't nearly as important that LA's overall median and per capita incomes lag behind nyc, dc, sf, etc since the raw total of people in the upper middle-to-upper class income bracket is still quite high.

Originally Posted by Dub D

LA has the worst fans in the nation.

Originally Posted by majoun

In terms of disinterest, yes.

In terms of bad behavior, Philadelphia and Boston take the cake with Oakland as 3rd.

while i agree that the per capita level of passion for pro sports in LA is not on the level of the older, cold weather cities of the northeast and midwest, i disagree that LA has "the worst fans in the nation". i can think of a number of areas that i feel have much lower levels of fan passion on a per capita as well as an absolute level: phoenix, miami, tampa, orlando, atlanta, charlotte, and san diego are prime examples. i'd probably throw in seattle (not because they lost the sonics - that's another story altogether) and the bay area as having somewhat lower per capita support, too. remember, the dodgers, angels, and lakers have historically destroyed the giants, athletics, and warriors in game attendance and tv viewership. even a place like dc which is very passionate about the redskins isn't necessarily a great sports town overall - i'd definitely rank it behind LA on a per capita basis, but i'm sure some will disagree.

in a nutshell, LA is not in the same league as a sports town (on a per capita basis) as many of the older, established sports towns, but is actually pretty good compared to many of the other sunbelt cities. so i'd say it's below the midway point of american cities as far as sports passion on a per capita level is concerned - maybe 20th or 22nd out of 32, something like that. not the best by any means, but certainly far from the worst.

[Dub D]

I lived in Orlando for 6 years. I know for a fact they LOVE the Magic. Hell, they LOVE their arena football team.

So, you done making stuff up now?