How different are people in SoCal versus NorCal? (Los Angeles, Oakland: credit, live)

[smdensbcs]

Originally Posted by Ceece

I didn't know there was a rivalry between SF and LA either. I'm so out of the loop!

Having grown up in West LA, I had no idea whatsoever there was a NoCal/SoCal "rivalry" until my freshman year at UCLA, when I discovered that every student from NoCal DESPISED SoCal and everything about it, except they loved UCLA. SoCal is only vaguely aware NoCal even exists.

A very non-scientific observation is that many SoCal folks can tend toward clueless superficiality and many NoCal folks can tend toward an exaggerated and unwarranted feeling of being superior to others. The common denominator of both groups, at least those living in the coastal areas, is materialism by necessity, and a strong desire to inherit money.

[analyze_this]

I have found people from NorCal far nicer than people from SoCal. As in Pacific Northwest nice.

[mstnghu2]

Having lived in the Bay Area my entire life, I've never even been vaguely aware of any NorCal/SoCal rivalry minus sports teams. I think the people perpetuating this non-existent hatred/rivalry only exist on this board and don't represent real life.

This entire thread should be re-done. I'd say people in CA who live in the small towns and rural areas have many more differences with people in the major metro areas than the northern/southern half have differences with each other...except for far Northern CA which has a lot less in common with the rest of the state.

While there are predominating stereotypes that exist in each part of the state, I don't think the people in NorCal or SoCal are that much different from each other.

[Ihatespoiledbrattypeople]

people in NorCal live and die with their Sports Teams, people in SoCal only care if you are winning, thats why the Lakers are a big deal, they matter so much because SoCal is always spoiled by them

[DynamoLA]

Originally Posted by Ihatespoiledbrattypeople

people in NorCal live and die with their Sports Teams, people in SoCal only care if you are winning, thats why the Lakers are a big deal, they matter so much because SoCal is always spoiled by them

You obviously haven't been paying attention to the attendance figures for the Oakland A's, Oakland Raiders, or Sacramento Kings.

[pbergen]

Originally Posted by Ihatespoiledbrattypeople

people in NorCal live and die with their Sports Teams, people in SoCal only care if you are winning, thats why the Lakers are a big deal, they matter so much because SoCal is always spoiled by them

the sf giants always had lousy attendance from 1958-1999 until their brand new stadium was built in 2000. now their stadium is filled with fairweather fans who text and yap on their phones all game and couldn't tell you the difference between barry zito and barry manilow. how is that die-hard?

how about the athletics, who routinely have some of the worst attendance in all of baseball, even when they're a playoff caliber team?

how about the lousy attendance of the raiders, where blackouts are a common issue despite being one of the most prominent franchises in all of american sports?

how about the dodgers, who historically have had some of the best attendance in mlb? even when attendance plummeted last year due to the unofficial boycott of frank mccourt's ownership, the dodgers still had decent attendance, which is amazing. typically, though, they draw over 3 million people, year after year.

you obviously don't know anything about the fan culture of either area, yet spout off uninformed opinions as if they're irrefutable fact.

please, just stop with the knee-jerk hatred of everything socal and take the time to actually a learn something about the area in which you live. Moderator cut: RUDE

[Ihatespoiledbrattypeople]

Originally Posted by DynamoLA

You obviously haven't been paying attention to the attendance figures for the Oakland A's, Oakland Raiders, or Sacramento Kings.

yeah but the Bay Area has never lost an NFL team, meanwhile L.A. lost 2 NFL teams in the 1990's and nobody in L.A. cares that they lack an NFL team, yes Oakland lost the Raiders to L.A.but the Bay Area still had the 49ers and at least they got the Raiders back, the Politics of building a new NFL stadium ridiculously insane in SoCal unlike the Bay Area

[pbergen]

Originally Posted by Ihatespoiledbrattypeople

yeah but the Bay Area has never lost an NFL team, meanwhile L.A. lost 2 NFL teams in the 1990's and nobody in L.A. cares that they lack an NFL team, yes Oakland lost the Raiders to L.A.but the Bay Area still had the 49ers and at least they got the Raiders back, the Politics of building a new NFL stadium ridiculously insane in SoCal unlike the Bay Area

so first you claim that the bay area never lost an nfl team, then you act as if the raiders leaving oakland after the 1981 season somehow doesn't count just because the team eventually returned?

i hate to break this to you, but that raiders relocation absolutely counts as the bay area losing an nfl team.

suppose the rams and/or raiders return to los angeles in the next few years (a very distinct possibility, btw) - does that erase the fact that the teams left LA in the first place? yeah, i didn't think so either.

not to mention, both the raiders and the 49ers have been mentioned as possible relocation candidates to los angeles once ground is broken on the new nfl stadium in downtown or the city of industry. personally, i can't see the niners ever moving from the bay area, but the fact that they're even being mentioned underscores the severe stadium issues they (and the raiders) have endured. that's because the politics of building a new stadium are just as difficult in norcal as in socal - it's just a california thing in general.

also, the sacramento kings came thisclose to moving to anaheim this past summer due to their inability to build a new arena, but were given a last minute reprieve. but if they can't come up with a viable plan by next summer, they're as good as gone. sure, sacramento isn't part of the bay area, but it is most definitely part of norcal.

and the oakland athletics have been trying for years to build a new stadium, to no avail. if things don't work out, they might end up in portland or san antonio.

so much for your theory that building a stadium is somehow easier or more politically viable in norcal compared with socal.

as i've mentioned many times in this forum, stadium issues and negligent/carpetbagging ownership are the primary reasons why sports franchises relocate to another market. that's why the rams and raiders left LA in the first place.

and for the record, there are many people in the LA area who were (and still are) upset that there isn't an nfl team in town. there are also plenty of people who don't care either way - but that's true in any market, including the most diehard sports towns such as boston, philly, nyc, chicago, etc.

[jeffredo]

There was something of a rivalry (at least on our end) when I was younger in the 70s and 80s. Now the state has changed so much - so many people have left and so many have moved here from the four corners of the globe that current residents don't care or aren't aware there ever was a rivalry.

[ferretkona]

Originally Posted by pbergen

suppose the rams and/or raiders return to los angeles in the next few years (a very distinct possibility, btw) - does that erase the fact that the teams left LA in the first place? yeah, i didn't think so either.

not to mention, both the raiders and the 49ers have been mentioned as possible relocation candidates to los angeles once ground is broken on the new nfl stadium in downtown or the city of industry.

I would like to think that if LA is going to bid for a team they might at least try to win over a winning team.