View Full Version : How important is it...
...that the NFL get a team in the LA market?
LOS ANGELES (AP) -- The mayors of Los Angeles and Anaheim met with new NFL commissioner Roger Goodell on Friday and both offered competing plans to lure a team back to southern California.
Los Angeles city leaders want to build a new stadium within the walls of the historic Memorial Coliseum, featuring 200 luxury boxes and 15,000 club seats at a cost of $800 million.
SOURCE (http://sports.yahoo.com/nfl/news;_ylt=AtJlw1CbDGRfKxUfK2af0chDubYF?slug=ap-nfl-southerncalifornia&prov=ap&type=lgns)
The NFL seems to have this all engrossing obsession to have a team in LA when just over a decade they had two and had both left the area in the same year. To me it just seems that the NFL are chasing tis as it seems nice to have and not because it is a necessity.
redlegsfan21
10-08-2006, 09:45 AM
I think that LA has almost become a college football town. If the NFL wanted to bring professional football to LA, they should have done it 4 years ago but with USC almost 3 in a row, really 1 National Championships and with Cal in the Top 25. LA has two really good college football teams.
brady_branch
10-08-2006, 11:31 AM
UCLA wasn't half bad last year either.
It'd be nice, but first we should consider having the students in LA locate Jacksonville on a map before we give them their football team.
efin98
10-08-2006, 06:50 PM
They had their chance last year with the Saints, they went with San Antonio.
They had their chance with the expansion in 2001, they chose a smaller market(no offense to Houston).
They had their chance in 1999 to expand there, Cleveland cried their way into that slot.
They have done well despite NOT having a team in the #2 market in the country. Franly I believe it was smart to have built up markets elsewhere that actually could BENEFIT from having a pro sports team there, especially ones that have been taken down a peg in the last few decades.
Bottom line is this: if they were desperate to put a team in LA they would have put one there already. They could make due with what they have there now for a few years until a new stadium was built, they are just using the stadium issue as a cheap yet convenient excuse.
LA will get a team eventually, it will take time but one of the teams in the league will eventually get angry with their facility and move elsewhere. That won't happen for a while but it will happen.
football junkie
10-08-2006, 07:17 PM
Getting and keeping a team in Los Angeles will be the most important accomplishment Roger Goodell hopefully achieves in his tenure as NFL Commissioner.
Expand, if necessary.
Heresy alert!!! (Bears' fans close your eyes.) I also think Chicago can support a second team, because sometimes it is easier to add two than one.
Yes this would water down play for a couple years but we all already know the NFL loves parity and adding 106 new full-time player jobs would go a long way towards cementing labor peace with the NFLPA.
KHenry14
10-09-2006, 02:28 PM
I still think that AEG is hiding in the weeds with regards to getting a stadium in LA. I heard Tim Leiwecke of AEG last week stating that had they got the land they wanted near the Staples Center that there would be a team playing in LA right now. And he's probably right. AEG has the resources and the good track record (Staples Center and Home Depot Center) to pull off private funding of such a stadium. The question for them becomes, where do they get a team? IMO, expansion is the only way to go in LA. That and a big splash with the head coach.....and that means throwing ridiculous money at Pete Carroll.
efin98
10-09-2006, 07:51 PM
I still think that AEG is hiding in the weeds with regards to getting a stadium in LA. I heard Tim Leiwecke of AEG last week stating that had they got the land they wanted near the Staples Center that there would be a team playing in LA right now. And he's probably right. AEG has the resources and the good track record (Staples Center and Home Depot Center) to pull off private funding of such a stadium. The question for them becomes, where do they get a team? IMO, expansion is the only way to go in LA. That and a big splash with the head coach.....and that means throwing ridiculous money at Pete Carroll.
The league is already at 32 teams, they have as close to a ballance in the county as you will find anywhere in sports. Each conference is ballanced, each division is ballanced now you want to take that away just to put a team in a city that couldn't not not only one but TWO teams???? That is simply horrid planning.
Put New Orleans in LA if they have to, but by no means should they expand again.
mordeci
10-10-2006, 03:23 PM
The league is already at 32 teams, they have as close to a ballance in the county as you will find anywhere in sports. Each conference is ballanced, each division is ballanced now you want to take that away just to put a team in a city that couldn't not not only one but TWO teams???? That is simply horrid planning.
I agree completely. More importantly the schedules are worked out perfectly. I would hope that the league wouldn't consider expansion for years. But if not expansion, which team do you move? Every game has been sold out for every team so far this year. Maybe just move the Chargers to Orange County and split the difference.
However, when they do expand they have to do it by two's. Remember when the league had 31 teams? At least one team had a bye every week, including week 1 and week 16. That sucked.
Put New Orleans in LA if they have to, but by no means should they expand again.
I assume you mean put the Saints in L.A., moving New Orleans to Los Angeles would be a really big job, and New Orleans is already in LA.
The Saints aren't going anywhere, at least for a while, now that the state spent all that money to fix the dome. It's not politically correct to say, but the hurricane probably saved the Saints from moving to L.A. Besides, Tom Benson was offered 1 Billion dollars for the team by a group wanting to move the team to Vancouver. If he won't sell the team for $1B what would it take to make him move?
efin98
10-10-2006, 05:11 PM
I agree completely. More importantly the schedules are worked out perfectly. I would hope that the league wouldn't consider expansion for years. But if not expansion, which team do you move? Every game has been sold out for every team so far this year. Maybe just move the Chargers to Orange County and split the difference.
However, when they do expand they have to do it by two's. Remember when the league had 31 teams? At least one team had a bye every week, including week 1 and week 16. That sucked.
They would be the most likeliest if the New Orleans area can recover well enough to support a football team for more than just as long as our generous tax money and donations last. I have them as the most likely in the immediate future.
San Diego is a decent option. They came from LA originally, so it would be a homecoming for the team. Orange County keeps them close to San Diego while still close enough to LA to satisfy the league's "need".
I assume you mean put the Saints in L.A., moving New Orleans to Los Angeles would be a really big job, and New Orleans is already in LA.
Good catch:D Although another major storm there and I wouldn't be surprised if the city was blown all the way out there:eek:
The Saints aren't going anywhere, at least for a while, now that the state spent all that money to fix the dome. It's not politically correct to say, but the hurricane probably saved the Saints from moving to L.A. Besides, Tom Benson was offered 1 Billion dollars for the team by a group wanting to move the team to Vancouver. If he won't sell the team for $1B what would it take to make him move?
A brand new stadium, guarenteed incentives from the city, county, state, exemptions on any kind of taxes involved in the move etc. would be a start to entice them to move. Making money hand over fist plus a ready-made fanbase would be another key factor.
brady_branch
10-10-2006, 05:34 PM
The Jaguars should be the one to move, if anyone does. Small market, a city that's never really embraced them, it all adds up to a move.
Of course, I love small-market football, so I'm hoping the Jags don't go anywhere.
racosun
10-14-2006, 12:38 AM
I'd also like to see the Saints moved to L.A., mainly because they are usually a weak-drawing team in a much smaller market, and they have something every person from Los Angeles would want to root for: Reggie Bush. Bring him back to Southern California and that new stadium would be filled for years to come (barring injury). A bonus for Reggie: his family can move back into that new house that was given to them when he was with USC.
gridiron
10-14-2006, 05:08 AM
Moving any team would throw the balance of the league and conferences off, but that is admittedly a minor point.
I'm hoping no team moves for decades and if LA or anywhere else gets a team, it is only because of expansion.
Moving any team would throw the balance of the league and conferences off, but that is admittedly a minor point.
I'm hoping no team moves for decades and if LA or anywhere else gets a team, it is only because of expansion.
Unless Al David decides to move back to LA...On a slightly related note, I recall last hearing some rumblings about six months ago the San Diego are prime candidates to move north to LA.
Thats obviously the only way a move to LA can keep the balance in the divisions.
efin98
10-14-2006, 07:45 PM
Moving any team would throw the balance of the league and conferences off, but that is admittedly a minor point.
I'm hoping no team moves for decades and if LA or anywhere else gets a team, it is only because of expansion.
You have it backwards. Expanding the league beyond 32 teams throws the conferences off. Moving a team is just that- moving a team. About the only thing that would change would the be start time of a few games, but in reality that actually helps the league as it gives them a more ballanced schedule of 4PM Eastern start times than before.
If you mean regional ballances, I'll give you that. However there are some teams that play in odd divisions like St. Louis in the NFC West, Dallas in the AFC East, Kansas City in the AFC West and Indy in the the AFC South. The rivalries stay intact as well as opening up new rivalries among fans with the other California teams.
soberdennis
10-15-2006, 12:52 AM
I think that LA has almost become a college football town. If the NFL wanted to bring professional football to LA, they should have done it 4 years ago but with USC almost 3 in a row, really 1 National Championships and with Cal in the Top 25. LA has two really good college football teams.
Since when is Cal in the LA area. Anyone who knows California knows Berkeley is in the Bay Area.
redlegsfan21
10-15-2006, 07:03 AM
Since when is Cal in the LA area. Anyone who knows California knows Berkeley is in the Bay Area.
I must have been half-asleep, yup 11:45 AM, I was half asleep. I think I meant UCLA.
boomer
10-15-2006, 09:13 AM
I think the dirty secret is that the NFL owners don't really give a crap about having an LA franchise, because by having no team in the market, they can extort new stadiums or huge improvements to their present stadiums, by threatening to move to LA if they don't get what they want. Also, they use they same technique to get more favorable leases, tax breaks or have new training facilties paid fro by the taxpayers. I don't think FOX or CBS really care, because they don't have to worry about blackouts of Sunday home games an LA franchise might have, they can show the best games in the market every week. The NFL is really unique in that people will follow the games whether or not they have a local franchise.
gridiron
10-20-2006, 04:46 AM
If a team moved to LA from say, St. Louis or the east coast, that would throw off the divisions and everything else.
Football, like baseball, has often had a hard time aligning teams in divisions--anyone else remember the coastal division? Teams from both coasts were in the same division.
efin98
10-20-2006, 11:37 AM
If a team moved to LA from say, St. Louis or the east coast, that would throw off the divisions and everything else.
Already happened, multiple times to be exact, and in the scenario you gave: LA Rams moved to St. Louis but they weren't moved from the west to the central.
Baltimore Colts moved to Indy but didn't get moved to the Central from the East.
Cleveland moved to Baltimore and became the Ravens but they weren't moved to the East from the Central to even the divisions out.
St. Louis moved to Arizona but weren't moved to the west from the east nor even from the central to the west.
Football, like baseball, has often had a hard time aligning teams in divisions--anyone else remember the coastal division? Teams from both coasts were in the same division.
They made it work. They can still shift teams around to other divisions and make it work. Say if San Diego moves north to LA no division change needed.
If New Orleans moves west to LA St. Louis can be shifted to the NFC South to replace them(moves from games in the western time zone to the eastern, better for fans and viewers there).