OT:Why Doesn't LA have a team?

[tedylb]

Sorry if this has been covered before, but I can't figure out why the country's second largest media market has no NFL presence. You would think that this would be priority # 1 for the leaders in sports marketing.

I've heard some reasons, but wonder if they're valid:

1. Southern Californians would rather go to the beach. Oh? Then why are there two MLB and two NBA teams that draw well?

2. It's not a football hotbed. UCLA and especially USC have strong support. So do the Chargers.

3. Al Davis. There's some validity to this for sure, but surely they can find an owner who won't screw the fan base like Davis did.

4. The stadium problem. No doubt a huge issue, but a solution has been found in almost all NFL cities. There are several temporary sites there. This can't be insurmountable, can it?

So what gives? If teams with one tenth the population, like KC, Cincinnati, Carolina, and Jacksonville can make it, why can't LA? I'll bet there are 50,000 transplanted Pats fans out there.

 

[workhorse]

Because there is little support for pro football is terms of ticket sales.

It is the ultimate threat for current franchises that need a new deal with their current city or that want a new stadium. As long as no one is in LA a team can always threaten to move.

 

[Gainzo]

The stadium problem. No doubt a huge issue, but a solution has been found in almost all NFL cities. There are several temporary sites there. This can't be insurmountable, can it?

That's the issue. The current stadiums in LA and surrounding areas are not NFL caliber and the local politicians don't want to help.

Remember that Kraft had to pull the "Hartford" card in his bid to get help from the Commonwealth for infrastructure improvements.

Kraft was also shot down in his bid to build a stadium in Southie.

The State of California is a mess.

Unless some billionaire decides to build a stadium, LA will never have a team.

 

[Frezo]

It is the ultimate threat for current franchises that need a new deal with their current city or that want a new stadium. As long as no one is in LA a team can always threaten to move.

HAHAHA! Good One!

 

[solman]

LA doesn't have a team because nobody wanted to fund a modern stadium there and both franchises (neither of which had adequately entrenched fanbases) decided to leave.

The recent round of looking for a municipality to fund a stadium appears to have died, but they'll try again in five years and if necessary again in 10 years. By then, at least one municipality will strike a deal to build an adequate stadium.

The new team will not be a new franchise, but a relocated franchise.

If the Saints have a losing record in each of the next two seasons, I'd put my money on them. The post-Katrina sympathy ticket holders will dry up real fast. They'll start taking a serious look at this five years after Katrina.

I'm betting that the Vikings get a stadium deal before the end of the decade, but if not, they become my favorite.

Jacksonville has to be part of the equation.

I think Buffalo will move once its owner dies. But a move to Toronto (possibly including an occasional game in Buffalo) is an undeniably logical choice (and there is plenty of interest from Canadian groups and the NFL for this to happen).

Mexico City is also be a potential destination.

 

[solman]

I'll bet there are 50,000 transplanted Pats fans out there.

This is also part of the problem. In a city of transplants, its harder for local teams to build entrenched fanbases.

 

[jbb9s]

It is the ultimate threat for current franchises that need a new deal with their current city or that want a new stadium. As long as no one is in LA a team can always threaten to move.

You beat me to it. I read that exact thing last year and it made perfect sense. I believe it could have been the Economist.

 

[jbb9s]

If the Saints have a losing record in each of the next two seasons, I'd put my money on them. The post-Katrina sympathy ticket holders will dry up real fast. They'll start taking a serious look at this five years after Katrina.

.

Although I can not find a link, I do believe the Superdome lease is up within the next 3 years.

Also, I don't think any franchise likes being the second tier team in the state to a college program.

 

[Na_polian]

Sorry if this has been covered before, but I can't figure out why the country's second largest media market has no NFL presence. You would think that this would be priority # 1 for the leaders in sports marketing.

I've heard some reasons, but wonder if they're valid:

1. Southern Californians would rather go to the beach. Oh? Then why are there two MLB and two NBA teams that draw well?

2. It's not a football hotbed. UCLA and especially USC have strong support. So do the Chargers.

3. Al Davis. There's some validity to this for sure, but surely they can find an owner who won't screw the fan base like Davis did.

4. The stadium problem. No doubt a huge issue, but a solution has been found in almost all NFL cities. There are several temporary sites there. This can't be insurmountable, can it?

So what gives? If teams with one tenth the population, like KC, Cincinnati, Carolina, and Jacksonville can make it, why can't LA? I'll bet there are 50,000 transplanted Pats fans out there.

I'm guessing it's the stadium issue, mostly. That, and crappy ticket sales... I mean, LA has had teams in the past, yes?

 

[Fixit]

Because outside of those thoroughly annoying but loyal fans in Oakland (and maybe San Francisco), California sucks at being football fans. San Diego? Please. L.A. is a joke. It must be the only time in American sports history that a franchise has actually moved back to a city.

 

[miDeuce]

I find there are a lot of football fans here in LA, the city is littered with bars dedicated to almost every team. There are also a lot of football bars packed at 10am every sunday. However I don't get the sense that any one is dying to get an NFL franchise here. Most people like myself enjoy rooting for the teams from where they grew up, it's almost a way to hang on to some of our identity from back home. San Diego is an easy drive when the Pats come to town and that would probably be the only time I went to an LA NFL game any way. I'd rather watch the Pats at a bar than the LA Saints vs. Minnsota Vikings live.

 

[upstater1]

Sending a team to play in Toronto is a bad, bad idea. The Blue Jays have tepid support. And they have been a winning franchise.

I seriously doubt the NFL makes a move like that. If the Bills move, they'll be going to some city in the US. But I can't think of a city offhand that could outdraw Buffalo.

 

[Vern]

It really is the lack of an NFL caliber stadium.

The reason LA doesn't build one is that CA is overwhelmed with new population and businesses already. So it's hardly politically wise to spend on something that is typically seen as a way to entice new business and/or population to move or stay there. Meanwhile, the massive influx of new population sucks dry any and all of the possible bond/petition based ways to raise funds.

This really has nothing to do with fan base or sports desire or anything else social like that. I grew up in CA in the 70's and part of the 80s. The growth there is just staggering. My town had tripled in size by the time I moved permanently to Boston. The issue is totally about finances in a city/region that is already too ridiculously over-crowded to justify any kind of spending like that.

It's going to take the right financial situation to make it worth doing completely privately.

 

[PatsFanSince74]

1) no natural fan base 2) usc and ucla put 70,000 in the stands every weekend

 

[wistahpatsfan]

1) no natural fan base 2) usc and ucla put 70,000 in the stands every weekend

I think these are more important than the stadium issue. Why did Kraft build Gillette with his own money (mostly)? Because he had a long-term vision. In New England, long-term planning is more normal and real than in a strange place filled with transients like LA. No one is from LA.

 

[FrontSeven]

Because CA is going to sink into the ocean in a year or two? I have a friend there who says the animals are already running around chaotically. The NFL gods don't like chaotic animals, especially little ones like squirrels.

 

[420jim]

1) no natural fan base 2) usc and ucla put 70,000 in the stands every weekend

There it is. Dollar for dollar the NFL can't compete with these two teams. USC is a powerhouse in term of a fan base, with UCLA not far behind. And with a game cost for fans at half or a little bit higher but nowhere near NFL, fan just won't go.


As for the transplants, they would only go when "Their" team comes to town.

As I write this, I think the only team with a chance of success in LA is the Raiders. The Raiders do have a large following in southern california, but other than them, I don't believe any other team will last long enough to build a solid fan base.

 

[upstater1]

When LA teams leave for St. Louis and Oakland, you know that can't be a good thing.

A self-financed stadium in the US's second biggest city apparently isn't profitable enough to beat a public financed stadium in a small city.

 

[Sundayjack]

Sorry if this has been covered before, but I can't figure out why the country's second largest media market has no NFL presence.

Because the Bills have yet to embrace their future.

 

[Michigan Dave]

UCLA and USC don't have great support. They rarely sell out, and if you ignore the raw numbers- 70,000 may seem like a lot, but a bad program like Michigan State puts 79,000 in the stadium every Saturday- the support is horrible. USC has gotten more lately because of their success, but those programs are hardly giants in college football when it comes to fan support. The fans in LA are very apathetical until the team wins.