NFL: Seriously, why LA?

[flere-imsaho]

I think Paul Tagliabue has done great things for the league, but why does he (and the rest of the NFL hierarchy) have this thing about absolutely, positively, immediately needing a team in LA?

I don't get it. By all accounts there's not a lot of fan interest in LA, there isn't a great stadium package sitting out there, and there isn't a completely comatose franchise to move there.

LA, as a population, doesn't appear to care about having a NFL franchise, so what's the deal?

Someone explain this to me. Thanks. :)

[Lathum]

Maybe the NFL just wants to piss Al Davis off.

[MrBug708]

LA doesn't want a franchise? That's news to me. Unless LA has better things to spend their money on than the 1 billion dollars it takes to buy a franchise from the NFL, then yes, we aren't interested in an NFL team. I know having the best college program speaks volumes to football attendance however.

[SackAttack]

I think Paul Tagliabue has done great things for the league, but why does he (and the rest of the NFL hierarchy) have this thing about absolutely, positively, immediately needing a team in LA?

I don't get it. By all accounts there's not a lot of fan interest in LA, there isn't a great stadium package sitting out there, and there isn't a completely comatose franchise to move there.

LA, as a population, doesn't appear to care about having a NFL franchise, so what's the deal?

Someone explain this to me. Thanks. :)

Ratings. Folks in LA may not be willing to foot the bill for a stadium, but if you put an NFL team in LA, and put 'em on TV, people will watch. And, of course, higher ratings = the potential for greater advertising revenue for the broadcasting networks = more leverage for the NFL the next time the rights package is up for renewal.

[Honolulu_Blue]

Ratings. Folks in LA may not be willing to foot the bill for a stadium, but if you put an NFL team in LA, and put 'em on TV, people will watch. And, of course, higher ratings = the potential for greater advertising revenue for the broadcasting networks = more leverage for the NFL the next time the rights package is up for renewal.
Exactly. LA is the second largest TV market in the US.

[JonInMiddleGA]

To put the L.A. market in some NFL perspective ... it has roughly the same number of TV households as the entire NFC South combined.

[Lathum]

To put the L.A. market in some NFL perspective ... it has roughly the same number of TV households as the entire NFC South combined.
I may be wrong, but arent there local blackout rules if they don't sell out?

[BigJohn&TheLions]

Ratings. Folks in LA may not be willing to foot the bill for a stadium, but if you put an NFL team in LA, and put 'em on TV, people will watch. And, of course, higher ratings = the potential for greater advertising revenue for the broadcasting networks = more leverage for the NFL the next time the rights package is up for renewal.

Broadcasting the games in LA means nothing with the blackout rule. How many Rams games were on TV? You get more games now...

(Damn you Lathum!)

[Lathum]

Broadcasting the games in LA means nothing with the blackout rule. How many Rams games were on TV? You get more games now...

(Damn you Lathum!)
LOL

[SackAttack]

Broadcasting the games in LA means nothing with the blackout rule. How many Rams games were on TV? You get more games now...

(Damn you Lathum!)

How many games a year did the Rams win when they were in LA? :) I know there are cities in the NFL that sell out regardless of the team's success, but how many of those are in major metropolitan markets with as much entertainment competition as LA has?

[gstelmack]

How many teams have gone to LA and failed?

[BigJohn&TheLions]

How many teams have gone to LA and failed?

Not counting the Express, Dons, & Chargers?

Two.

Cleveland Rams

Oakland Raiders

[albionmoonlight]

Keeping LA as a viable option helps to scare the New Orleanses, Arizonas, and San Diegos of the world into building new stadia to keep their teams.

[DanGarion]

If a good stadium is put in place the the ownership puts out a team that competes, along with making the price of going to the game affordable then people WILL go to games. But in my opinion the stadium needs to be in a area that makes it easily accessible for both those in Orange County and Los Angeles.

[SackAttack]

How many teams have gone to LA and failed?

Comes right back down to that whole "competition" thing. LA is more decentralized than a lot of other cities. More sprawl. So teams like the Ducks and Angels end up being a draw during the seasonal overlap periods, plus you've always got the Kings, Dodgers, Clippers, and Lakers to contend with. That's just for pro sports.

Now factor in the college sports, which, as MrBug pointed out, have a fanatical following, and you're competing with USC and UCLA for disposable income. But there's more to it than that. You've also got the local theme parks - Six Flags Magic Mountain, Knott's Berry Farm, Disneyland, and those are all resource drains as well. And the list marches on.

Winning cures all woes, though. Put a winner on the field, and an LA team will sell out. Put a mediocre team, and the fans will pay you in kind with ho-hum interest. There's simply too much else to do here to get heavily emotionally invested in a football team that isn't going to be a contender.

[Lathum]

How many games a year did the Rams win when they were in LA? :) I know there are cities in the NFL that sell out regardless of the team's success, but how many of those are in major metropolitan markets with as much entertainment competition as LA has?
How many games a year will an expansion team win, or a crappy team that is relocating?

[SackAttack]

How many games a year will an expansion team win, or a crappy team that is relocating?

Hey, I didn't say the NFL has learned its lesson, did I?

[Lathum]

Hey, I didn't say the NFL has learned its lesson, did I?
Good Point :D

[BigJohn&TheLions]

...plus you've always got the Kings, Dodgers, Clippers, and Lakers to contend with. That's just for pro sports.


The Kings???

[Franklinnoble]

Keeping LA as a viable option helps to scare the New Orleanses, Arizonas, and San Diegos of the world into building new stadia to keep their teams.

Bingo.

It's all about money.

[SackAttack]

The Kings???

Well, when hockey isn't self-destructing :)

[Desnudo]

I wonder how many people living in LA are actually from LA, are football fans, and don't already have a loyalty to some other team..

[rkmsuf]

I wonder how many people living in LA are actually from LA, are football fans, and don't already have a loyalty to some other team..

12?

[moriarty]

Ratings. Folks in LA may not be willing to foot the bill for a stadium, but if you put an NFL team in LA, and put 'em on TV, people will watch. And, of course, higher ratings = the potential for greater advertising revenue for the broadcasting networks = more leverage for the NFL the next time the rights package is up for renewal.

Actually when the LA Raiders were moved out of LA there were analyses done at the time that said television ratings improved. The logic as I recall was that since the Raiders could not sell out the Colleseum their home games were blacked out for a large portion of the LA area. So basically LA residents couldn't watch their team locally for half their games and the ratings took a big hit. Once the Raiders moved to Oakland, LA residents either adopted Oakland, San Diego, or some other team and continued to watch football. The overall viewers didn't go down for the area, but actually increased due to the fact that the NFL didn't black out half the games.

So I think the whole concept of bringing a team back to LA hinges on whether they'll have a team that can actually sell out a stadium. Otherwise it may actually hurt the league.

[Franklinnoble]

I think with LA having NO football for the last ten years, there will probably be a good chance of selling out, even if it's just as a novelty.

I'd love to see the Colts move to LA, rename the team, and give the mascot back to Baltimore.

[SunDancer]

I think with LA having NO football for the last ten years, there will probably be a good chance of selling out, even if it's just as a novelty.

I'd love to see the Colts move to LA, rename the team, and give the mascot back to Baltimore.

That won't happen, cause the Colts just got a new stadium deal right?

[Hammer755]

Nearly every football fan that I've ever talked to who has lived in LA (which amounts to about 5) says they love the fact that there is no local team because they get a good doubleheader on TV every week. I'm quite jealous, as I'm forced to watch the Cowboys play every Sunday even though there is usually a far better NFC game on and I'm 300 miles away from Dallas.

[Tigercat]

Why LA? Because us Saints fans haven't been through enough over the past 4 decades and we need the final stake in the coffin. Come on you bastard sports universe, you know you want to do it!

[HomerJSimpson]

Is the NFL ri--ight?
Is the NFL ri--i--ight?
Is the NFL ri--ight?
Why LA, why?

[Cap Ologist]

I'm disappointed, I was expecting a picture detailing why a team shouldn't go to LA.

[General Mike]

LA is just a bad sports town period.

[sovereignstar]

LA is just a bad town period.

fixed

[ISiddiqui]

Some people have already touched upon it. It's the 2nd largest media market in the country. The NFL doesn't want to leave that alone. Even if they don't sell out that much, they can still make some good money there.

[Greyroofoo]

That won't happen, cause the Colts just got a new stadium deal right?
Colts got a new Stadium design, but there's arguments on how its gonna get paid for.

[clintl]

As I recall, LA supported the Rams quite well until the Rams decided to move to Anaheim because the Colisseum was getting old, and the Raiders swooped into the Colisseum. And at that point, you had Al Davis and Georgia Frontiere owning the two LA teams. How much worse could it get than that?*

I think LA would support a new team just fine.

*Unless it was Bill Bidwell and Mike Brown

[clintl]

LA is just a bad sports town period.

I hate LA, and wish them to have only last place teams, but this statement ignores pretty much ignores the entire history of the Dodgers and Lakers on the West Coast, not to mention the first 40 years of the Rams' existence in LA. And USC football and UCLA basketball. The fans in LA have always been extremely supportive of all those teams.

[Chief Rum]

Hmmm...some comments.

Anyone who thinks LA fans don't support their winners are smoking crack. When a team gets rolling, the stands fill up big time. I'm not saying that it's a good thing to have so many fair weather fans, but it's a bit better of a situation than saying there's no support for sports teams out here. That's just blatantly false, and clearly the statement of people who don't have a clue about SoCal.

The point about all of the other entertainment options, as always, remains a very big point. With so many things to do, people get picky about how they spend their time and money, and it's not surprising that losing sports temas don't draw well as a result.

People bagging on the support of the Rams in Anaheim and LA clearly have very short term memories, as they don't seem to have heard of anything before the 90s, when that fat murderous bizitch Frontiere intentionally tanked the team to lower attendance to get her ass a sweet deal in St. Louis. Prior to that, the Rams were one of the premier teams of the 80s, and their battles with the top dog Niners in the old NFC West were classic. Dickerson anyone? Youngblood? Ferragamo? 1980 SUper Bowl team? They were also good in the 70s...and the 60s...and the 50s...etc. Don't take five years of a team's history and make it out like that's the way it always was.

Last thing, ironically, is I don't know that I want a team here. I like getting to watch the best games while most of the rest of the country has to watch their usually crappy home teams.

CR

[Darkiller]

I think you guys are missing the point a little bit on this.

We'd all love to think that "fan base" and "stadium sellouts" is the reason for the NFL to venture in a given city, and this might actually be true in some cases (namely Jacksonville) but as far as L.A goes it's a whole different story.

Here we are talking about the 2nd BIGGEST MARKET in the US !

bar none. The NFL cannot stay away from the 2nd biggest market for long. It's as simple as that.

[moriarty]

I think you guys are missing the point a little bit on this.

We'd all love to think that "fan base" and "stadium sellouts" is the reason for the NFL to venture in a given city, and this might actually be true in some cases (namely Jacksonville) but as far as L.A goes it's a whole different story.

Here we are talking about the 2nd BIGGEST MARKET in the US !

bar none. The NFL cannot stay away from the 2nd biggest market for long. It's as simple as that.


Why not? The NFL is all about money. If you don't sell out the stadium and your own blackout rules affect half the LA area you're going to end up losing money in terms of ratings = advertising $$. I'm sure there's some money to be made in team paraphanelia, but would this be enough to justify the lost ratings? Trust me, there's plenty of people still walking around southern california with NFL gear even w/out a team.

I still maintain this only works if you build a good stadium (not the oversized colleseum) and you get people to actually attend the games - allowing the rest of the area to actually view the games. I think it's definitely doable if done right. As someone pointed out above, the Dodgers and Lakers manage to get SoCal'ers off the beach so a decent football product should.

[moriarty]

Dola - found some old 2001 article from CNN talking about why it was better financially to move the team out of LA.

http://money.cnn.com/2001/09/07/news/column_sportsbiz/

[Warhammer]

The point about all of the other entertainment options, as always, remains a very big point. With so many things to do, people get picky about how they spend their time and money, and it's not surprising that losing sports temas don't draw well as a result.

People bagging on the support of the Rams in Anaheim and LA clearly have very short term memories, as they don't seem to have heard of anything before the 90s, when that fat murderous bizitch Frontiere intentionally tanked the team to lower attendance to get her ass a sweet deal in St. Louis. Prior to that, the Rams were one of the premier teams of the 80s, and their battles with the top dog Niners in the old NFC West were classic. Dickerson anyone? Youngblood? Ferragamo? 1980 SUper Bowl team? They were also good in the 70s...and the 60s...and the 50s...etc. Don't take five years of a team's history and make it out like that's the way it always was.


Amen bro.

I remember people went nuts over the Rams back in the 70s-80s. My brother won season tickets to the Rams while they were at the Collesium, and my dad hated driving to it because the traffic was so bad getting to the games since they were so packed (lived in Irvine at the time).

Heck, my earliest NFL memories were of the 79-80 Super Bowl team. People went nuts, plus it didn't hurt that the SB that year was in Pasadena.

[Franklinnoble]

Amen bro.

I remember people went nuts over the Rams back in the 70s-80s. My brother won season tickets to the Rams while they were at the Collesium, and my dad hated driving to it because the traffic was so bad getting to the games since they were so packed (lived in Irvine at the time).

Heck, my earliest NFL memories were of the 79-80 Super Bowl team. People went nuts, plus it didn't hurt that the SB that year was in Pasadena.

I have fond memories of the Jim Rome - Chris Everett moment.

[Franklinnoble]

dola... for the youngin's

http://homepage.mac.com/jdmajaris/sportsfights/iMovieTheater91.html

[SlapBone]

I have fond memories of the Jim Rome - Chris Evert moment.

Corrected that for ya. :)