Vw From United States of America, joined Mar 2000, 251 posts, RR: 1 Posted (11 years 5 months 6 days 21 hours ago) and read 725 times:
Just around five years ago L.A. had two NFL football teams. (Rams & Raiders) The Rams moved to St. Louis and the Raiders moved back to Oakland. I can't figure out why the nations 2nd largest city does not have a football team. Next fall the 32nd team will be added in Houston (Texans). Has there been any talk in L.A. about adding a team or maybe two? Is the major set back not having a new stadium?
Thanks for your info.
Deltaflyertoo From United States of America, joined Nov 2000, 1589 posts, RR: 1 Reply 2, posted (11 years 5 months 6 days 21 hours ago) and read 705 times:
I think the main reason we do not have a team is the interest is simply not there. Indeed LA is the 2nd biggest city but along with size has come a diversity of cultures, backgrounds, incomes, etc... that make having solid sporting events a staple impossible. Add to that the fact that so many of us are employed in the entertainment industry and therefore will always put that at that front before a sporting event and it is very difficult.
Nobody really cares about the Dodgers and when the Lakers won it just wasn't the same as when the Bulls went all the way. I think the big business minds in the NFL realize this. Why bring a team to LA, no matter how good, when your marketing costs to get the fans is going to out do your income.
MIG54 From United States of America, joined Aug 2001, 39 posts, RR: 1 Reply 3, posted (11 years 5 months 6 days 20 hours ago) and read 695 times:
I disagree. We have great fans in LA and interest in sports is huge. We would love to have a football franchise here. We got jerked around by the Rams and worst of all by Al Davis and the Raiders organization. That angered us big time. Most important of all we don't want to pay a half billion or more tax payer dollars to lure an NFL franchise here. We have seen what a mess that can lead to in other cities. As soon as we can get a franchise on our own terms and not pay through the nose football will be back.
Mls515 From United States of America, joined Jun 2000, 3069 posts, RR: 9 Reply 4, posted (11 years 5 months 6 days 20 hours ago) and read 683 times:
I think the reason Houston was awarded the franchise is because they had one solid proposal while there were too many competing ownership interests in LA. After the Houston Texans join the league next year, there will be an even 32 teams in eight 4-team divisions. I don't think the NFL will want to expand for a while. A team will have to move to LA. Any candidates?
Mcringring From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR: Reply 5, posted (11 years 5 months 6 days 20 hours ago) and read 680 times:
They can move the Browns to LA. These Browns haven't been in Cleveland that long, they're not the real Browns anyway and nobody will miss them. Look at what happens when the Browns fans get pissed - they start throwing everything all over the field. The half-assed fans in LA would never do that. Lol.
Other candidates: Carolina, Arizona and Buffalo, right KROC?
Alpha 1 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR: Reply 6, posted (11 years 5 months 6 days 20 hours ago) and read 679 times:
L.A., quite frankly, didn't support the Rams the way they should have, since they were there since 1946. The team didn't draw as well as a team in a huge market like L.A. should draw. I don't even count the Raiders. Al Davis is the Carl Ichan of his industry, and he has used both L.A. and Oakland to just make himself rich.
The biggest reason L.A. lost out to Houston to get the 32nd team is that Houston had a concerted, comprehensive plan ready for the NFL, which included a new stadium deal, while L.A. had rival bids, no concrete stadium plan, and not as much interest on the part of the citenzry.
L.A. will get a team someday, but how long will that team stay in Los Angeles?
RayChuang From United States of America, joined Jun 2000, 7694 posts, RR: 5 Reply 9, posted (11 years 5 months 6 days 20 hours ago) and read 672 times:
Whoever said that there is too much cultural diversity and too much other things to do in the Los Angeles area to support an NFL team is correct!
Because Los Angeles has such local tremendous access to recreational facilities within 200 miles of downtown Los Angeles, no wonder may have less interest in pro sports teams. The only reason why the Los Angeles Lakers are drawing so well is the fact they're defending NBA Champions and still playing that way.
DesertJets From United States of America, joined Feb 2000, 7673 posts, RR: 19 Reply 10, posted (11 years 5 months 6 days 17 hours ago) and read 663 times:
Bidwell has finally gotten the taxpayers to pay for his multi-million dollar stadium with retractable dome and real grass field (the entire playing field retracts too). So AZ ain't going nowhere. Hell they have stuck around here since 1987 playing in un-NFL like Sun Devil Stadium.
What about KC?
Stop drop and roll will not save you in hell. --- seen on a church marque in rural Virginia
Deltarnomd-80 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR: Reply 11, posted (11 years 5 months 6 days 17 hours ago) and read 663 times:
IMHO, pro sports don't fare too well in SoCal and Florida in general.
what are you smoking? Florida is the best sports state in the nation. Lets look at it... 3 NFL teams, the only other state to have that many NFL teams is New York (actually two of them are in NJ). 3 college football programs that consistently rank in the top 10 in the nation (maybe not FSU this year, but they will be back next year). Two college basketball programs that have made the NCAA tourney the last three years (I think Miami made it the past three years), I know UF has. 2 NBA teams, 2 MLB teams, 2 NHL teams. University of Miami won the College World Series last year, Florida and Florida State (consistently in College World Series) are top college baseball teams...should I go on?
Mls515 From United States of America, joined Jun 2000, 3069 posts, RR: 9 Reply 12, posted (11 years 5 months 6 days 14 hours ago) and read 658 times:
KC won't go anywhere. The town supports the team. Their single-game attendance in 2000-2001 was never below 77,481.
The last couple games this season:
San Diego 77357
That Philly crowd was there to watch the 3-8 Chiefs. That says something.
The stadium is from the 70's but it and it's neighbor, Kauffman Stadium were way ahead of their time and continue to serve their purpose. As far as fan seating goes, it's right up there with the best. The only problems that might come up with it are luxury-suite related, but I haven't heard of anything.
I just looked up some info on the Cardinals new stadium. Wow, I guess they won't go anywhere for a while.
Travelin man From United States of America, joined Mar 2000, 3311 posts, RR: 0 Reply 13, posted (11 years 5 months 6 days 7 hours ago) and read 649 times:
I think I speak for most of Los Angeles when talking about the NFL:
The only team LA would have supported is a new NFL franchise. We don't want losers from other cities (i.e. the Cardinals or Chargers) to come here and stink it up. They won't last very long. This town does not like losers, ESPECIALLY losers from other cities.
The NFL screwed up by demanding government subsidies for a new stadium. Houston was willing. Los Angeles was not. We have better things to spend our money on than giving taxpayer money to billionaire owners.
The Staples Center was privately financed (no taxpayer money spent to subsidize the Lakers, Clippers, and Kings). That would have worked here, but the NFL figured that would set a dangerous precedent in other cities, so they said any team must have a taxpayer supported stadium.
So, meanwhile, interest in the NFL in the nation's second largest city continues to wane (notice the television ratings lately? I bet you the NFL has.) And a generation of potential NFL fans is growing up not caring about the NFL.
That's OK. We have better things to do with our Sundays. The NFL needs LA more than LA needs the NFL.
Cba From United States of America, joined Jul 2000, 4530 posts, RR: 3 Reply 14, posted (11 years 5 months 6 days 4 hours ago) and read 645 times:
LA was originally going to get the current Houston Texans, but they could not get their proposal together. Also, Houston has a much bigger football audience than LA does. Lets face it, Texans love football. The Cowboys have fans all over Texas even though they suck. The Texans will be the same way.
Cba From United States of America, joined Jul 2000, 4530 posts, RR: 3 Reply 17, posted (11 years 5 months 6 days ago) and read 627 times:
Most expansion teams usually suck for a few seasons, excluding maye the D'backs and the Jaguars. What I meant though is that even though the Texans will probably suck, they, like the Cowboys, will have fans all over the state. Everybody down in Southeast Texas will go for the Texans, and all the people in Northern Texas will go for the Cowboys.