(10-13-2014 04:40 PM)_C2_ Wrote:  UCLA basketball is actually a very bad example. They recently went to 3 straight Final Fours after already being a very historic program yet they almost instantly stopped selling out games. Part of it was the condition Pauley Pavilion was in but it mostly due to the fair weather nature of LA, how spoiled they are and the fact LA has so many other entertainment options (it is arguably the entertainment capital of the world), including 2 NBA teams.

Therefore, that portends bad things for USC and UCLA, except in the best of times.

My point is and that's the reason why I used UCLA basketball as an example is despite being shadowed by the Lakers, they still do fine performance wise. L.A. is an easy sell for an out-town/state recruit regardless if it's USC football, UCLA basketball or Long Beach State baseball. If the NFL has a team in L.A., I except USC and UCLA football to be fine. I agree L.A. is the entertainment capital of the world with myriad of entertainment options out there. It's the same reason Californians are not that crazy about football the way people are here in Texas. A mediocre Texas team still has better fan support than a top 10 UCLA team. You'll be amazed how well supported olympic sports get at the HS and college level while here in Texas is football and the rest don't matter.

ESPN is doing their best to dig up relocation dirt tonight on MNF.

(10-13-2014 04:40 PM)_C2_ Wrote:  UCLA basketball is actually a very bad example. They recently went to 3 straight Final Fours after already being a very historic program yet they almost instantly stopped selling out games. Part of it was the condition Pauley Pavilion was in but it mostly due to the fair weather nature of LA, how spoiled they are and the fact LA has so many other entertainment options (it is arguably the entertainment capital of the world), including 2 NBA teams.

Therefore, that portends bad things for USC and UCLA, except in the best of times.

That analogy doesn't apply to USC and UCLA football unless an NFL team in LA becomes as big as the Lakers, which would require that NFL team to win several Super Bowls.

(10-13-2014 09:04 PM)USAFMEDIC Wrote:  ESPN is doing their best to dig up relocation dirt tonight on MNF.

Maybe the sparse crowd had something to do with that conversation?

(10-13-2014 10:00 PM)Wedge Wrote:  

(10-13-2014 04:40 PM)_C2_ Wrote:  UCLA basketball is actually a very bad example. They recently went to 3 straight Final Fours after already being a very historic program yet they almost instantly stopped selling out games. Part of it was the condition Pauley Pavilion was in but it mostly due to the fair weather nature of LA, how spoiled they are and the fact LA has so many other entertainment options (it is arguably the entertainment capital of the world), including 2 NBA teams.

Therefore, that portends bad things for USC and UCLA, except in the best of times.

That analogy doesn't apply to USC and UCLA football unless an NFL team in LA becomes as big as the Lakers, which would require that NFL team to win several Super Bowls.

If not one but TWO teams came to LA, it'd be a tough sell for the college programs. They'd be fine but would certainly take a hit, just like how at times in recent years UCLA has amazingly failed to sell out Pauley despite lots of recent and historic success. Even one team would draw some interest away from the colleges.

(10-13-2014 10:00 PM)Wedge Wrote:  

(10-13-2014 04:40 PM)_C2_ Wrote:  UCLA basketball is actually a very bad example. They recently went to 3 straight Final Fours after already being a very historic program yet they almost instantly stopped selling out games. Part of it was the condition Pauley Pavilion was in but it mostly due to the fair weather nature of LA, how spoiled they are and the fact LA has so many other entertainment options (it is arguably the entertainment capital of the world), including 2 NBA teams.

Therefore, that portends bad things for USC and UCLA, except in the best of times.

That analogy doesn't apply to USC and UCLA football unless an NFL team in LA becomes as big as the Lakers, which would require that NFL team to win several Super Bowls.

If not one but TWO teams came to LA, it'd be a tough sell for the college programs. They'd be fine but would certainly take a hit, just like how at times in recent years UCLA has amazingly failed to sell out Pauley despite lots of recent and historic success. Even one team would draw some interest away from the colleges.

Let's also not forget how popular the Raiders are in SoCal, especially if they were to come back.

(10-13-2014 11:12 PM)Wedge Wrote:  

(10-13-2014 09:04 PM)USAFMEDIC Wrote:  ESPN is doing their best to dig up relocation dirt tonight on MNF.

Maybe the sparse crowd had something to do with that conversation?

When was this pic taken? Before the game or in the 4th quarter? Looked pretty full to me in the 1st quarter. That said, why would St Louis fans be excited about football. We are used to crappy teams and play, but not having relocation hanging over our heads...again. Read that book, volume 1 already. Three years of threats from Bidwell, who wanted a 102,000 seat stadium in St Louis county. He did finally get a new stadium in Arizona... like 20+ years later. I loved that one. I actually like the Cardinals, especially now that Bowtie Bill has moved on the golden stadium in the sky. Silence and non-action by both owner Kroenke and St Louis will end football in St Louis because the fans have the same old fears. Like buying a jersey or jacket so the team can leave next year for LA. Can they even feel safe buying tickets for next year? Go back and look at the attendance data for the last year or two in LA before they flew the LA coop. You would not be impressed. They also grew weary of the old " we will leave LA" threats too. The old death spiral.

(10-13-2014 11:37 PM)USAFMEDIC Wrote:  When was this pic taken? Before the game or in the 4th quarter? Looked pretty full to me in the 1st quarter. That said, why would St Louis fans be excited about football. We are used to crappy teams and play, but not having relocation hanging over our heads...again. Read that book, volume 1 already. Three years of threats from Bidwell, who wanted a 102,000 seat stadium in St Louis county. He did finally get a new stadium in Arizona... like 20+ years later. I loved that one. I actually like the Cardinals, especially now that Bowtie Bill has moved on the golden stadium in the sky. Silence and non-action by both owner Kroenke and St Louis will end football in St Louis because the fans have the same old fears. Like buying a jersey or jacket so the team can leave next year for LA. Can they even feel safe buying tickets for next year? Go back and look at the attendance data for the last year or two in LA before they flew the LA coop. You would not be impressed. They also grew weary of the old " we will leave LA" threats too. The old death spiral.

Taken sometime during the game, according to the guy who posted it on Twitter.

Yeah, the LA fans could probably tell you about constant moving threats and bad teams in the years before the Rams moved. IIRC the Raiders were still doing ok then but moved back to Oakland anyway. Al probably should have stuck it out in LA, he would have gotten a better stadium situation there eventually.

(10-14-2014 01:28 AM)Wedge Wrote:  

(10-13-2014 11:37 PM)USAFMEDIC Wrote:  When was this pic taken? Before the game or in the 4th quarter? Looked pretty full to me in the 1st quarter. That said, why would St Louis fans be excited about football. We are used to crappy teams and play, but not having relocation hanging over our heads...again. Read that book, volume 1 already. Three years of threats from Bidwell, who wanted a 102,000 seat stadium in St Louis county. He did finally get a new stadium in Arizona... like 20+ years later. I loved that one. I actually like the Cardinals, especially now that Bowtie Bill has moved on the golden stadium in the sky. Silence and non-action by both owner Kroenke and St Louis will end football in St Louis because the fans have the same old fears. Like buying a jersey or jacket so the team can leave next year for LA. Can they even feel safe buying tickets for next year? Go back and look at the attendance data for the last year or two in LA before they flew the LA coop. You would not be impressed. They also grew weary of the old " we will leave LA" threats too. The old death spiral.

Taken sometime during the game, according to the guy who posted it on Twitter.

Yeah, the LA fans could probably tell you about constant moving threats and bad teams in the years before the Rams moved. IIRC the Raiders were still doing ok then but moved back to Oakland anyway. Al probably should have stuck it out in LA, he would have gotten a better stadium situation there eventually.

Just read an interesting article. Stated that the LA Rams drew 53,000 fans to their home finale in 1989. They had a 10 win season and made the playoffs... They didn't support the Rams throughout the 80s and 90s. They couldn't even find the fortitude to build a stadium in 1999 when they were all but awarded an expansion team, which is now the Texans. I am pretty confident that the only city who could possibly screw up a stadium deal worse than St Louis is Los Angeles.

I know St. Louis is a Cards town but out of curiosity...

Without knowing much about the market, which team does St. Louis support more -- The Rams or the Blues?

(10-14-2014 09:45 AM)chrisattsu Wrote:  I know St. Louis is a Cards town but out of curiosity...

Without knowing much about the market, which team does St. Louis support more -- The Rams or the Blues?

My impression is that the Rams are bigger simply because the NFL itself is bigger no matter where you go even when in the least supported NFL markets. One quick look at the TV ratings will indicate that - even in the St. Louis market, only World Series Cardinals games beat the Rams in the ratings. So, you really have to grade it on a curve - there is a much higher standard to meet to be a great football town compared to the other sports. Even the best MLB, NBA and NHL fan bases are dwarfed by their local NFL teams in terms of followers.

On a *relative* basis, St. Louis is considered to be a great baseball town, good hockey town, and bad football town. There are definitely more Rams fans than Blues fans in sheer numbers, but the Blues fan base is stronger compared to the average hockey fan base while the Rams fan base is worse than the average football fan base.

Why do so many people think they'll place 2 teams in LA in the same stadium? Just curious.

It seems to me that with the NFL's socialism, their goal is to maximize the total number of fans. You can get just as many fans with 1 team in that location as you can with 2. So if you're adding 2 teams, put them in 2 locations. The NYC teams are only in the same location because they already had existing fanbases and land is so difficult to obtain.

(10-13-2014 11:36 PM)_C2_ Wrote:  

(10-13-2014 10:00 PM)Wedge Wrote:  

(10-13-2014 04:40 PM)_C2_ Wrote:  UCLA basketball is actually a very bad example. They recently went to 3 straight Final Fours after already being a very historic program yet they almost instantly stopped selling out games. Part of it was the condition Pauley Pavilion was in but it mostly due to the fair weather nature of LA, how spoiled they are and the fact LA has so many other entertainment options (it is arguably the entertainment capital of the world), including 2 NBA teams.

Therefore, that portends bad things for USC and UCLA, except in the best of times.

That analogy doesn't apply to USC and UCLA football unless an NFL team in LA becomes as big as the Lakers, which would require that NFL team to win several Super Bowls.

If not one but TWO teams came to LA, it'd be a tough sell for the college programs. They'd be fine but would certainly take a hit, just like how at times in recent years UCLA has amazingly failed to sell out Pauley despite lots of recent and historic success. Even one team would draw some interest away from the colleges.

Let's also not forget how popular the Raiders are in SoCal, especially if they were to come back.

"UCLA basketball has failed to sell out Pauley" -- because they have been eclipsed by the Lakers and the 10 NBA championships the Lakers have won since Wooden's long-ago run at UCLA.

No NFL team is going to have the Lakers' hold on LA sports fans. USC football will lose a little because they benefitted from having a nice run during Carroll's years when there was no NFL in town, but they'll only lose a little. Struggling NFL teams (like the Raiders are now) aren't going to pull away too many bandwagon fans.

The chance for success in LA right off the bat is the big reason why the Chargers ought to be the team that the NFL wants to move in there. The Raiders and Rams aren't going to be good in the near future and the novelty of NFL in LA will be gone after one or two 4-12 seasons.

I think Chargers' owner Spanos is ticked off in San Diego because he is actually trying to honor the " we have exhausted all options" clause in the NFL bylaws. They plan on getting a new stadium proposal on the 2016 ballot. The NFL has jumped the gun on him with this 12-24 months thing. No wonder he is upset and making blocking threats. He has invested millions developing the LA market for the Chargers since their teams bailed...

(10-14-2014 10:58 AM)Captain Bearcat Wrote:  Why do so many people think they'll place 2 teams in LA in the same stadium? Just curious.

It seems to me that with the NFL's socialism, their goal is to maximize the total number of fans. You can get just as many fans with 1 team in that location as you can with 2. So if you're adding 2 teams, put them in 2 locations. The NYC teams are only in the same location because they already had existing fanbases and land is so difficult to obtain.

One of the major struggles for LA has been a suitable site. Seems like every site either has seismic, ecological, transportation, or political problems.

(10-14-2014 11:19 AM)arkstfan Wrote:  

(10-14-2014 10:58 AM)Captain Bearcat Wrote:  Why do so many people think they'll place 2 teams in LA in the same stadium? Just curious.

It seems to me that with the NFL's socialism, their goal is to maximize the total number of fans. You can get just as many fans with 1 team in that location as you can with 2. So if you're adding 2 teams, put them in 2 locations. The NYC teams are only in the same location because they already had existing fanbases and land is so difficult to obtain.

One of the major struggles for LA has been a suitable site. Seems like every site either has seismic, ecological, transportation, or political problems.

Very true. It will be tough enough to just get one new stadium in the LA area (as evidenced by the fact that no one has been able to built one for the past two decades despite it being one of the easiest ways to pocket a couple of billion extra dollars instantly out there). It's truly fascinating. Imagine the English Premier League not having any team in London. That's essentially what the NFL has been doing for the past 20 years by somehow having a franchise in Jacksonville but not having one in LA. I don't care how fairweather the fans might be in LA - there is absolutely, positively, NO logical business reason for this situation outside of the NFL's ironclad demand for the best stadium deals possible (which, unfortunately, is the only thing that matters).

(10-14-2014 10:16 AM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  On a *relative* basis, St. Louis is considered to be a great baseball town, good hockey town, and bad football town. There are definitely more Rams fans than Blues fans in sheer numbers, but the Blues fan base is stronger compared to the average hockey fan base while the Rams fan base is worse than the average football fan base.

The irony of St. Louis being such a good hockey town is it is considered by the NBA to be an absolute impossible town to be in due to demographics. The same demographics that would seem to make it odd for hockey to be so successful.

(10-14-2014 10:58 AM)Captain Bearcat Wrote:  Why do so many people think they'll place 2 teams in LA in the same stadium? Just curious.

Once a stadium is in place, they are in an area with so much disposable income, that two teams would easily make more there than each could individually in most other cities. Plus it makes the stadium deal a little more affordable.

(10-14-2014 11:54 AM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  I don't care how fairweather the fans might be in LA - there is absolutely, positively, NO logical business reason for this situation outside of the NFL's ironclad demand for the best stadium deals possible (which, unfortunately, is the only thing that matters).

Frank, you left out the biggest business reason to have not had a team there. How many stadiums has the NFL had built, for free with little to no rent to be collected, around the country due to the threat of moving a team to LA? So there was a majorly viable reason to not have a team. Yes they prefer having one there, but there have been substantial benefits. Even now, not having a team there will eventually get stadiums built for the Raiders, Chargers, Rams, and/Jags. The only question is where.

(10-14-2014 09:45 AM)chrisattsu Wrote:  I know St. Louis is a Cards town but out of curiosity...

Without knowing much about the market, which team does St. Louis support more -- The Rams or the Blues?

The Blues in a heartbeat.

(10-11-2014 11:37 AM)USAFMEDIC Wrote:  

(10-11-2014 11:23 AM)He1nousOne Wrote:  

(10-11-2014 11:13 AM)USAFMEDIC Wrote:  My gripe here is that the NFL is fully prepared to foot 60% of the stadium funding for LA. Why the special treatment? If they would foot that much for a new stadium in St Louis we would not be talking about the Rams moving day after day... There is a reason why all the mentioned teams left LA in the first place. I remember the Rams complaining that playing in Anaheim was like playing another road game because there are so many transplanted fans there...

As the article states, the surprise at just how much the Clippers sold for is a big part of this. That is the SECOND basketball program in a city that is Laker crazy. If a second basketball program can be worth that much in LA then how much would a football program be worth there?

For a brand to move from a small or medium market to the second biggest market in America, it would be an instant upgrade in the value of the Team. To a fan, that is a crappy thing to hear but it is the reality of the situation. An owner is most concerned with the value of what he owns. If the NFL is willing to foot the bill then it is a win/win situation for an owner.


Right now the NFC West is one of the most competitive, if not The most competitive, division in the NFL. LA get behind that if the Rams come back to town. They are a very picky market, that is true but that is also why it is all that much more important in terms of which team to move to town.

The St. Louis Rams are perfectly situated. Will LA get behind a team with division rivals over in Denver and Kansas City? Peyton isn't going to be around all that much longer.

LA never gets behind any football team unless they are 10-0... that's why they don't have one now. The LA mayor stated that LA government would fund exactly zero costs of a new stadium this week. Poor LA...no money. I agree regarding the value being just north of two million in LA, but if it costs Kroenke one billion to move the team, which is the projected current relocation cost, is it worth it? After five or six years the other teams jerseys will start showing up and the always preoccupied LA fans will move on to something else to amuse themselves. They have a big history of losing franchises to other cities. The sad part of this for St Louis, is that the fans will tire quickly of having relocation hanging over their heads. I know they are hard headed in St Louis and will just tell the Rams to go to Hell. They lived three years of watching Bidwell make threats regarding the football Cardinals. St Louis has read this book already and I know how it ends. St Louis is all too used to crappy football and have supported it for over ten years now. What they will not tolerate are threats from an owner...

To be fair LA doesn't have a "city" team. Living in LA does not mean you can automatically relate to USC or UCLA. Especially considering that not everyone in LA could even think about affording going to those schools. Or heck even being admitted.

Anyone can get behind an NFL team.

(10-12-2014 08:14 PM)Maize Wrote:  

(10-12-2014 08:11 PM)_C2_ Wrote:  

(10-12-2014 01:11 PM)He1nousOne Wrote:  Stallions and Colts in the same division?

Not to mention that we already have a Broncos as well.

Which is also why the Texans didn't go with the name, they even had a logo ready and everything. I wish they had gone with Apollos but you can't get everything you want in life.

Apollos...I know it would be due to the Space Program but with The Apollos I would also be thinking about "Apollo Creed"...

But Apollo Creed played for the Raiders...

If any movement took place, I'd definitely like to see the Rams return to LA. Yes, I know they were the Cleveland Rams way back in the day, but I do remember the LA Rams fondly. If Jacksonville then moves to St. Louis, while I know it'd never happen I'd be just as glad to see them retake the Cardinals name, and let Arizona come up with a new name.

While it's not a great geographic fit, I'd hate to see the AFC West break up - I like the Chiefs, Broncos, Chargers and Raiders lineup. Just like Dallas is a terrible geographic fit with the Giants, Eagles, and Redskins, but the NFL isn't about to break up that group.