Burning bridges, a.k.a. the relocation thread

AB in DC

OG Football Writing
SoSH Member
Jul 10, 2002
8,603
Springfield, VA
Rams owner Stan Kroenke tears into St. Louis in their relocation application.

Per WPost:

Now, with the release of that application Tuesday, there may be no going back. The 29-page document makes it painfully clear Kroenke wants nothing to do with St. Louis, a market that, the application claims, “lags, and will continue to lag, far behind in the economic drivers that are necessary for sustained success of an NFL franchise.”

...

That thanks-but-no-thanks mindset was never more apparent than in a section in the application titled, “No NFL Club Would Be Interested In The RSA’s New St. Louis Stadium.” The document claims, “Any NFL Club that signs on to this proposal in St. Louis will be well on the road t0 financial ruin, and the League will be harmed.”

...

According to the Post-Dispatch, the NFL refused to make the Rams’ application public, but the team itself did so. Perhaps that is because Kroenke is hoping that the reaction in St. Louis will be so vitriolic that the climate becomes demonstrably inhospitable to his team, and thus other owners, in a league-wide vote scheduled for next week, will feel they have no choice but let his team flee to a warmer reception in sunny Los Angeles.
 

Quintanariffic

Well-Known Member
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Apr 23, 2002
5,076
The City of Studios
As I understand, NFL relocation guidelines require that the departing team to publish a formal set of reasons (airing of grievances?) they wish to leave town. Apparently, the Rams and NFL almost got away with breaking their own rules on this (shocker!) but for several requests from the St. Louis Post-Dispatch.

Per today's Sports Business Journal:

"In St. Louis, Ben Frederickson noted St. Louis residents were "led to believe a team going all-in came with some conditions, according to the NFL’s 'Policy and Procedures for Proposed Franchise Relocations.'” The relocation guidelines say a team that sends a notice of relocation to the league must “publish the notice in newspapers of general circulation” in its community and “provide copies of the notice to governmental and business representatives.” The guidelines also say that the notice "must be accompanied by a 'statement of reasons' that outlines the team’s motives." The Post-Dispatch's Hunn "had to make multiple requests for the Rams’ statement of reasons." The St. Louis stadium task force "also sent a letter to the NFL requesting the information." The Rams finally "forked over the documents" last night."

Whatever - Kroenke has a lot of enemies amongst the owners and Dean Spanos is pretty well liked/respected. Since Spanos will never go in business with Kroenke due to mutual enmity, my guess is that the likeliest outcome will have the Chargers and Raiders in Carson. that outcome would also allow for maximum horse trading - you vote for my guy Spanos and I'll vote for your boy Mark Davis.
 

swiftaw

Member
SoSH Member
Jan 31, 2009
2,747
I assume that if both the Chargers and Raiders end up in LA that there is no way they'll both still be in the AFC West (my guess is Chargers would swap with one of the NFC West teams)
 

Papelbon's Poutine

Homeland Security
SoSH Member
Dec 4, 2005
19,615
Portsmouth, NH
Why? I've seen this stated but I don't see the practical reasoning for it. They're both in the same conference and same division now. Other than the logistics of six home games not involving each other and time slots for other games, what difference does it make? The Jets and Giants get through it fine and it's not because of what conference they are each in.
 

JohnnyK

Member
SoSH Member
May 8, 2007
1,810
Wolfern, Austria
http://sanfrancisco.cbslocal.com/2015/08/17/oakland-raiders-san-diego-chargers-shared-nfl-stadium-los-angeles-carson-carmen-policy/
The Chargers and Raiders are rivals in the AFC West, which could make game scheduling and other issues difficult in a shared stadium.
No mention of what these other issues are, but they probably don't want to limit their options for e.g. week 17 scheduling (divisional games only) or basically give a team a ninth home game in their home stadium every season.
 

mauf

Anderson Cooper × Mr. Rogers
Staff member
Dope
I suspect the desire to have the two LA teams in separate conferences has more to do with TV than with stadium logistics. I assume there will be one or two weeks per season when both teams unavoidably play in the 4:00 window; if they played in the same conference, one game would not be televised. Also, having both LA teams in the same conference might cause one set of TV rights to be significantly more valuable than the other, and I'm guessing that's something the league would prefer to avoid.

Edit: Though now that I think about it more, the time slot would only be an issue every fourth year when they played the NFC West. (The other three years, they could easily work around the two weeks a year when one team plays at Denver with bye weeks and Thursday/Monday night scheduling.)
 
Last edited:

DanoooME

Member
SoSH Member
Mar 16, 2008
17,327
Williamsburg, VA
I suspect the desire to have the two LA teams in separate conferences has more to do with TV than with stadium logistics. I assume there will be one or two weeks per season when both teams unavoidably play in the 4:00 window; if they played in the same conference, one game would not be televised. Also, having both LA teams in the same conference might cause one set of TV rights to be significantly more valuable than the other, and I'm guessing that's something the league would prefer to avoid.

Edit: Though now that I think about it more, the time slot would only be an issue every fourth year when they played the NFC West. (The other three years, they could easily work around the two weeks a year when one team plays at Denver with bye weeks and Thursday/Monday night scheduling.)
This is the only reason. They don't want an imbalance in value between the NFC and AFC packages.
 

McBride11

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 15, 2005
16,992
Charleston, SC
Moving the Rams avoids any issues like that. Plus ya know actually puts them in the west when they are all ready in NFC West.
If STL doesnt move tho, they should come to the AFC then. Create a rivalry w KC in the West.
 

mauf

Anderson Cooper × Mr. Rogers
Staff member
Dope
Moving the Rams avoids any issues like that. Plus ya know actually puts them in the west when they are all ready in NFC West.
If STL doesnt move tho, they should come to the AFC then. Create a rivalry w KC in the West.
Actually, you have more issues with scheduling conflicts if you have one LA team in each conference, but maybe the league doesn't consider it a problem if both teams have games in the 4pm ET slot on competing networks once or twice a season.
 

Kevin Youkulele

wishes Claude Makelele was a Red Sox
SoSH Member
Jul 12, 2006
4,361
San Diego
Actually, you have more issues with scheduling conflicts if you have one LA team in each conference, but maybe the league doesn't consider it a problem if both teams have games in the 4pm ET slot on competing networks once or twice a season.
Not sure how true this is, but I've also heard it said that having two teams in the same city and same division would essentially have an extra quasi-home game every year instead of every 8 years if in different conferences (at least for purposes of not having to travel) would make other teams unhappy.

Also, SF and OAK currently have games in the 4pm ET slot on competing networks once or twice a season, so we know that's an option.
 

soxhop411

news aggravator
SoSH Member
Dec 4, 2009
39,803

Rams and chargers are now the favorites. Apparently because of the type of crowd the raiders have.
 

Al Zarilla

Member
SoSH Member
Dec 8, 2005
53,496
San Andreas Fault

Rams and chargers are now the favorites. Apparently because of the type of crowd the raiders have.
Oh, get out of town Raiders (all due respect to Gunfighter). Although I hope to have DirectTV next year and shouldn't care about mandatory Raiders and 49ers coverage where I live.
 

Ale Xander

Lacks black ink
SoSH Member
Oct 31, 2013
40,839
Raiders have by far the best fanbase of the three and should be the ones to stay. Chargers don't move that far, certainly Pats fans in CT and Maine and Giants fans in Saratoga etc. drive just as far (and obvious teams like Broncos and Vikings have fans drive very far). Plus Kroenke is right about St.L. This is the solution that makes the most sense.

LARm/SF/AZ/Sea in one division.
LACh/Oak/Den/KC in the other.
No realignment needed. Good for California, good for New Mexico, bad for northeast ex-pats living in CA so be it.
 

singaporesoxfan

Well-Known Member
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Jul 21, 2004
9,943
Washington, DC
Not sure how true this is, but I've also heard it said that having two teams in the same city and same division would essentially have an extra quasi-home game every year instead of every 8 years if in different conferences (at least for purposes of not having to travel) would make other teams unhappy.

Also, SF and OAK currently have games in the 4pm ET slot on competing networks once or twice a season, so we know that's an option.
Yeah I can't imagine the Broncos or KC would be happy with two teams in their division having that advantage. I suppose they could move Seattle back to the AFC, and move one do the two to the NFC West.
 

8slim

Member
SoSH Member
Nov 6, 2001
17,183
Unreal America
I doubt any NFL owners want Mark Davis to be the face of the league in L.A. I can't envision them allowing him to take the Raiders there.
 

patinorange

Member
SoSH Member
Aug 27, 2006
22,739
6 miles from Angel Stadium
Raiders have by far the best fanbase of the three and should be the ones to stay. Chargers don't move that far, certainly Pats fans in CT and Maine and Giants fans in Saratoga etc. drive just as far (and obvious teams like Broncos and Vikings have fans drive very far). Plus Kroenke is right about St.L. This is the solution that makes the most sense.

LARm/SF/AZ/Sea in one division.
LACh/Oak/Den/KC in the other.
No realignment needed. Good for California, good for New Mexico, bad for northeast ex-pats living in CA so be it.
I am one of those Pats fans living in Southern California. The Sunday routine is going to be upset with one of the new local teams always on.
The good news is I will see more Patriots games in person. It looks like I will have to break down and get Direct TV along with Al Zarilla.

LA area is chock full of Raider die hards. In 25 years out here, I have met one Charger's fan in Orange County. I think the Raiders would have more success here, at least initially.

By the way, I will believe all this when I see it. If it has anything to do with LA or LA county politicians, it will continue to be a mess.
 

soxhop411

news aggravator
SoSH Member
Dec 4, 2009
39,803
I am one of those Pats fans living in Southern California. The Sunday routine is going to be upset with one of the new local teams always on.
The good news is I will see more Patriots games in person. It looks like I will have to break down and get Direct TV along with Al Zarilla.

LA area is chock full of Raider die hards. In 25 years out here, I have met one Charger's fan in Orange County. I think the Raiders would have more success here, at least initially.

By the way, I will believe all this when I see it. If it has anything to do with LA or LA county politicians, it will continue to be a mess.
We in LA get the chargers game every Sunday anyway, so its like they are our "home team" already.. and we get all the preaseason raider games on channel 5 for some reason... so its not going to be much different than it is now...

also voting is on Jan 12-13, so we should know the answer very soon
 

Kevin Youkulele

wishes Claude Makelele was a Red Sox
SoSH Member
Jul 12, 2006
4,361
San Diego
Whether or not it makes sense for the Rams to get out of STL, I don't see much of a justification for the NFL to let them go and thereby abandon that market. STL is a bigger market (in terms of households in the TV designated market area) than Charlotte, PIT, BAL, IND, San Diego, Nashville, KC, Cincinnati, BUF, JAX, and NO. Other than the "undesirable" fan base issue, OAK probably makes the most sense in that they don't abandon a metro area entirely because the 49ers remain. And San Diego is at least within driving distance of LA, as noted above.

Edit: link for TV DMA data: http://www.tvb.org/media/file/2015-2016-dma-ranks.pdf
 

Morning Woodhead

Member
SoSH Member
Aug 16, 2011
967
I know he has stated his commitment to Jacksonville, but Shahid Khan is from St. Louis. If the Rams and Chargers end up in LA, I could see the Jaguars moving to St. Louis a few years down the road. I guess if he doesn't take them to London first.
 

jmcc5400

Well-Known Member
Gold Supporter
SoSH Member
Sep 29, 2000
3,191
We in LA get the chargers game every Sunday anyway, so its like they are our "home team" already..
Yes, but I believe now we will have to deal with blackouts when the Chargers don't sell out. Which I think will be an issue. I have not heard one whit of enthusiasm in Los Angeles about bringing the NFL back.
 

soxhop411

news aggravator
SoSH Member
Dec 4, 2009
39,803

Gunfighter 09

wants to be caribou ken
Staff member
Dope
SoSH Member
Jul 31, 2005
8,175
KPWT

Rams and chargers are now the favorites. Apparently because of the type of crowd the raiders have.
What you mean here is that the Raiders fan base, by far the largest in SoCal, and certainly the most likely to sell out the new stadiums, is waaay too working class and darkly complected for the NFL.


Raiders have by far the best fanbase of the three and should be the ones to stay.
This is a true statement, but it misses the point that such a huge part of the Raiders fan base is not based in the East Bay. A large portion of the Raiders fan base is like me, based in Southern or Central California. One of the huge reasons the Rams moving was such a threat to the Raiders is the risk that the Rams, alone in LA, would siphon off the life blood of the Raiders business. The move back to Oakland has only been viable the second time around because the Raiders have the cheapest tickets in the league and have so many fans from parts South of the Bay Area who are willing to travel.


I doubt any NFL owners want Mark Davis to be the face of the league in L.A. I can't envision them allowing him to take the Raiders there.
This is probably true and I imagine will be irrelevant, because the alliance between Davis and Spanos will hold. Al Davis is the reason the Spanos family owns the Chargers, so there is thirty years of loyalty and friendship there between the two families. Assuming Spanos and Davis cannot be split, then the owners get to choose between giving into the rebel Kroenke developing his Inglewood project because he wants to get richer and allowing the Spanos and Davis families to maintain competitive football franchises business wise. The fact that Spanos has been an incredibly good soldier throughout this process should sway most owners to vote for Carson. Marc Davis has also been a good soldier, but it is always going to be a challenge for him to cross the bridges his father broke down, burnt, disintegrated and then re-burnt.

The reason Bob Iger is part of the Carson bid is because Davis knows that there are still many owners that hate his father and don't like his dumb haircut. The reason the Raiders have let the rumors of Larry Ellison buying a large chunk of the Raiders become so public is to counter Kroenke's money advantage. Ellison is worth 3-4 times as much as Kroenke, so I imagine that is the Carson team's answer to the questions of how two (mostly) football only families can afford move to LA and successfully market their teams ahead of a guy who married into the Walton family.

.
 
Last edited:

singaporesoxfan

Well-Known Member
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Jul 21, 2004
9,943
Washington, DC
Whether or not it makes sense for the Rams to get out of STL, I don't see much of a justification for the NFL to let them go and thereby abandon that market. STL is a bigger market (in terms of households in the TV designated market area) than Charlotte, PIT, BAL, IND, San Diego, Nashville, KC, Cincinnati, BUF, JAX, and NO. Other than the "undesirable" fan base issue, OAK probably makes the most sense in that they don't abandon a metro area entirely because the 49ers remain. And San Diego is at least within driving distance of LA, as noted above.

Edit: link for TV DMA data: http://www.tvb.org/media/file/2015-2016-dma-ranks.pdf
I agree that St. Louis is a decent mid-sized market but I don't think the market size is so large that it's at the "must-keep" level for the NFL. The size of the DMA alone isn't really a good way to measure the market, since audiences are drawn not just from the DMA that the team plays in but also neighboring DMAs. Take the Panthers for example: STL alone is a bigger DMA than Charlotte (1.21m to 1.17m TV homes), but I presume the Panthers' market is Charlotte plus Raleigh-Durham (1.13m homes), Greenville et. al. (0.83m), Greensboro/Winston-Salem (0.68m), and a number of other smaller NC/SC markets. St. Louis is a large DMA but it's only surrounded by Springfield MO (0.40m homes), Paducah (0.37m homes), and then a bunch of tiny DMAs (Quincy-Hannibal-Keokuk etc.).
 

8slim

Member
SoSH Member
Nov 6, 2001
17,183
Unreal America
This is probably true and I imagine will be irrelevant, because the alliance between Davis and Spanos will hold. Al Davis is the reason the Spanos family owns the Chargers, so there is thirty years of loyalty and friendship there between the two families. Assuming Spanos and Davis cannot be split, then the owners get to choose between giving into the rebel Kroenke developing his Inglewood project because he wants to get richer and allowing the Spanos and Davis families to maintain competitive football franchises business wise. The fact that Spanos has been an incredibly good soldier throughout this process, should sway most owners to vote for Carson. Marc Davis has also been a good soldier, but it is always going to be a challenge for him to cross the bridges his father broke down, burnt, disintegrated and then re-burnt.

The reason Bob Iger is part of the Carson bid is because Davis knows that there are still many owners that hate his father and don't like his dumb haircut. The reason the Raiders have let the rumors of Larry Ellison buying a large chunk of the Raiders become so public is to counter Kroenke's money advantage. Ellison is worth 3-4 times as much as Kroenke, so I imagine that is the Carson team's answer to the questions of how two (mostly) football only families can afford move to LA and successfully market their teams ahead of a guy who married into the Walton family.

.
All great points.
 

soxhop411

news aggravator
SoSH Member
Dec 4, 2009
39,803
And honestly, I have no preference for which team(s) come to LA. I will still root for the Patriots, but it will be nice to finally be able to go to a NFL game every once in a while. I have been going to UCLA games to placate my NFL fix...


The lack of enthusiasm in LA could be due to the NFL using us as leverage for close to 20 years, to the point that until an actual team stadium is built and a game is played people will still think this is all leverage for the team to get a new stadium
 
Last edited:

8slim

Member
SoSH Member
Nov 6, 2001
17,183
Unreal America
I agree that St. Louis is a decent mid-sized market but I don't think the market size is so large that it's at the "must-keep" level for the NFL. The size of the DMA alone isn't really a good way to measure the market, since audiences are drawn not just from the DMA that the team plays in but also neighboring DMAs. Take the Panthers for example: STL alone is a bigger DMA than Charlotte (1.21m to 1.17m TV homes), but I presume the Panthers' market is Charlotte plus Raleigh-Durham (1.13m homes), Greenville et. al. (0.83m), Greensboro/Winston-Salem (0.68m), and a number of other smaller NC/SC markets. St. Louis is a large DMA but it's only surrounded by Springfield MO (0.40m homes), Paducah (0.37m homes), and then a bunch of tiny DMAs (Quincy-Hannibal-Keokuk etc.).
Agreed. I mean the NFL allowed L.A., the 2nd biggest market in the country, to be abandoned for twenty years!

Plus, the NFL has always used fuzzy logic when it comes to markets. They expanded into Jacksonville on the hopes that it was the next Research Triangle. Oops. They let Houston move to Nashville, taking a #10 market team to one in the #30s.

They'd let St. Louis go without a team forever, honestly.
 

koufax32

He'll cry if he wants to...
SoSH Member
Dec 8, 2006
7,992
Duval
I know he has stated his commitment to Jacksonville, but Shahid Khan is from St. Louis. If the Rams and Chargers end up in LA, I could see the Jaguars moving to St. Louis a few years down the road. I guess if he doesn't take them to London first.
.
Not happening. He's invested millions into renovations and has a Patriots Place type plan for the waterfront right next to the stadium.
 

lambeau

Member
SoSH Member
Feb 7, 2010
1,175
Connecticut
In defense of LA politicians, let it be remembered that they insisted in !946 that the Rams (and thus NFL) had to desegregate as a condition of relocating to the Coliseum--a publicfacility.( Of course George Preston Marshall announced the Redskins would desegregate when the Globetrotters did.)
 

j-man

Member
Dec 19, 2012
2,269
Arkansas
what will happen it will be rams and SD
what should happened Raiders and rams

and since the NFL will have to move div anyway

here is what i wouild do
Afc East Add Indy Put Miami in the south
AFC North its fine
AFC South swith Tapma bay to AFC put Houtson in NFC
AFC West put Rams here SD to NFC
NFC East its fine
North Fine
South see afc South
Nfc West see AFC West
 

edmunddantes

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 28, 2015
4,737
Cali
Rams leaving helps to drive home the idiocy of spending taxpayer dollars on a new stadium. 25 years later, they still aren't done paying off the first one, and it's already time to build a brand new one or lose the team.
 

8slim

Member
SoSH Member
Nov 6, 2001
17,183
Unreal America
what will happen it will be rams and SD
what should happened Raiders and rams

and since the NFL will have to move div anyway

here is what i wouild do
Afc East Add Indy Put Miami in the south
AFC North its fine
AFC South swith Tapma bay to AFC put Houtson in NFC
AFC West put Rams here SD to NFC
NFC East its fine
North Fine
South see afc South
Nfc West see AFC West

I imagine the Dolphins would want no part of that. They've played the Pats, Jets and Bills home-and-home for nearly 50 years. And everytime those teams play down there those rabid fan bases buy 15K+ tickets.

I think the current divisions strike the right balance of historic rivalries and geography. I wouldn't mess with them too much.
 

pappymojo

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 28, 2010
5,697
I imagine the Dolphins would want no part of that. They've played the Pats, Jets and Bills home-and-home for nearly 50 years. And everytime those teams play down there those rabid fan bases buy 15K+ tickets.

I think the current divisions strike the right balance of historic rivalries and geography. I wouldn't mess with them too much.
Pretty sure the Colts would object as well.
 

Gunfighter 09

wants to be caribou ken
Staff member
Dope
SoSH Member
Jul 31, 2005
8,175
KPWT
According to Florio, Bob Iger will be attending the meeting in Houston to make voting owners forget how much they hate the Davis family represent the Carson project.

http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2016/01/08/iger-will-attend-relocation-meeting-next-week/

Trying to read between the lines, this is good for the Carson project teams, as I imagine Iger carries more, or at least better received, water than either Davis or Spanos. It also leads me to believe that the owners will be voting on the two projects, rather than voting whether or not the individual teams can relocate.
 

Kevin Youkulele

wishes Claude Makelele was a Red Sox
SoSH Member
Jul 12, 2006
4,361
San Diego
According to Florio, Bob Iger will be attending the meeting in Houston to make voting owners forget how much they hate the Davis family represent the Carson project.

http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2016/01/08/iger-will-attend-relocation-meeting-next-week/

Trying to read between the lines, this is good for the Carson project teams, as I imagine Iger carries more, or at least better received, water than either Davis or Spanos. It also leads me to believe that the owners will be voting on the two projects, rather than voting whether or not the individual teams can relocate.
Supposing permission to totally relocate is denied for now, I wonder whether there is any chance that treating LA like London next year or the year after comes up. Maybe something like each of the three teams plays a home game in LA. This is total speculation, so probably not, but it's a sort of middle ground.
 

Tony C

Dope
Dope
Apr 13, 2000
13,018
What you mean here is that the Raiders fan base, by far the largest in SoCal, and certainly the most likely to sell out the new stadiums, is waaay too working class and darkly complected for the NFL.




This is a true statement, but it misses the point that such a huge part of the Raiders fan base is not based in the East Bay. A large portion of the Raiders fan base is like me, based in Southern or Central California. One of the huge reasons the Rams moving was such a threat to the Raiders is the risk that the Rams, alone in LA, would siphon off the life blood of the Raiders business. The move back to Oakland has only been viable the second time around because the Raiders have the cheapest tickets in the league and have so many fans from parts South of the Bay Area who are willing to travel.




This is probably true and I imagine will be irrelevant, because the alliance between Davis and Spanos will hold. Al Davis is the reason the Spanos family owns the Chargers, so there is thirty years of loyalty and friendship there between the two families. Assuming Spanos and Davis cannot be split, then the owners get to choose between giving into the rebel Kroenke developing his Inglewood project because he wants to get richer and allowing the Spanos and Davis families to maintain competitive football franchises business wise. The fact that Spanos has been an incredibly good soldier throughout this process should sway most owners to vote for Carson. Marc Davis has also been a good soldier, but it is always going to be a challenge for him to cross the bridges his father broke down, burnt, disintegrated and then re-burnt.

The reason Bob Iger is part of the Carson bid is because Davis knows that there are still many owners that hate his father and don't like his dumb haircut. The reason the Raiders have let the rumors of Larry Ellison buying a large chunk of the Raiders become so public is to counter Kroenke's money advantage. Ellison is worth 3-4 times as much as Kroenke, so I imagine that is the Carson team's answer to the questions of how two (mostly) football only families can afford move to LA and successfully market their teams ahead of a guy who married into the Walton family.
.
great post and from your lips to the NFL's ears. The silliest thing in the Rams proposal is that they are the most popular team in l.a. based on, what was it?, a survey of 50 people?

In an ESPN-Chilton poll of L.A.-area fans who were asked to name their favorite NFL team, the Raiders ranked first each year from 2006 to 2009. The Chargers finished second in 2007 and 2008, third in 2009 and fifth in 2006. The only other team in the top five all four years was the Dallas Cowboys.Jan 25, 2011
I'd really hope this matters, and think it should. L.A. is huge but has grown used to not having the NFL. A fan base would really help.
 

loshjott

Member
SoSH Member
Dec 30, 2004
11,713
Silver Spring, MD
I imagine the Dolphins would want no part of that. They've played the Pats, Jets and Bills home-and-home for nearly 50 years. And everytime those teams play down there those rabid fan bases buy 15K+ tickets.

I think the current divisions strike the right balance of historic rivalries and geography. I wouldn't mess with them too much.
Yes, one thing the NFL did right when they moved to the current divisional breakdown was to leave historic rivalries alone even if other choices made better sense geographically. Most notably leaving Miami and Dallas in the eastern divisions.
 

Kevin Youkulele

wishes Claude Makelele was a Red Sox
SoSH Member
Jul 12, 2006
4,361
San Diego
Yes, one thing the NFL did right when they moved to the current divisional breakdown was to leave historic rivalries alone even if other choices made better sense geographically. Most notably leaving Miami and Dallas in the eastern divisions.
True enough, although there presently seems to be at least an argument that, today and in recent history, NE and IND have more of a live rivalry than NE and MIA, which has only one playoff appearance after the 2001 season. Also, I would enjoy seeing IND get its divisional record ruined by the rest of the AFC East (or at least NE and NYJ; who knows what's in store for BUF) next year.
 

OCST

Sunny von Bulow
SoSH Member
Jan 10, 2004
20,734
The 718
And honestly, I have no preference for which team(s) come to LA. I will still root for the Patriots, but it will be nice to finally be able to go to a NFL game every once in a while. I have been going to UCLA games to placate my NFL fix...


The lack of enthusiasm in LA could be due to the NFL using us as leverage for close to 20 years, to the point that until an actual team stadium is built and a game is played people will still think this is all leverage for the team to get a new stadium
In discussing how/why people in LA have been able to do without the NFL for so long, it's often overlooked that LA has not one but two very popular college teams playing right in the city (more or less). That's unusual - most big college programs are at land grant school which tend to be in rural areas, not in the big cities. Also, people in LA and the West Coast generally are rather nutty about the Pac-12, to the extent that USC/UCLA will compete for eyeballs and dollars with any NFL team.
 

Mugsy's Jock

Eli apologist
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Dec 28, 2000
12,812
UWS, NYC
In discussing how/why people in LA have been able to do without the NFL for so long, it's often overlooked that LA has not one but two very popular college teams playing right in the city (more or less). That's unusual - most big college programs are at land grant school which tend to be in rural areas, not in the big cities. Also, people in LA and the West Coast generally are rather nutty about the Pac-12, to the extent that USC/UCLA will compete for eyeballs and dollars with any NFL team.
Good post. I'd further add that (if I recall correctly) TV ratings for sports in LA teams in LA are not exceptional. When the Lakers, Clippers and Dodgers have reached the playoffs, LA ratings for their playoff games were somewhat lower than hometown ratings for Boston, Chicago, Detroit, Houston, Dallas, Denver, Seattle, St. Louis, New York, Portland, the Bay Area and more.

Now that's softer ratings among a much bigger base, so there's still value there. And the marketing opportunities are clearly greater in LA than St. Louis. But LA isn't as great a TV market as its #2 DMA rank might lead you to believe.
 

Koufax

Well-Known Member
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Jul 15, 2005
4,959
There are too many other cool things to do in LA. Football has a lot of competition for attention. In Buffalo (or St. Louis), not so much.
 

Al Zarilla

Member
SoSH Member
Dec 8, 2005
53,496
San Andreas Fault
There are too many other cool things to do in LA. Football has a lot of competition for attention. In Buffalo (or St. Louis), not so much.
You beat me to it. "Surf's up dude!" Drive through LA on any hot weekend day and the freeways are jammed regardless of whether or not the Dodgers or Angels, or coming up on the Chargers, Rams or Raiders are playing. The opposite would be Green Bay, where you could fire a cannon down Main Street when the Packers are playing and hit nothing.
 

dbn

Member
SoSH Member
Feb 10, 2007
7,781
La Mancha.
You beat me to it. "Surf's up dude!" Drive through LA on any hot weekend day and the freeways are jammed regardless of whether or not the Dodgers or Angels, or coming up on the Chargers, Rams or Raiders are playing. The opposite would be Green Bay, where you could fire a cannon down Main Street when the Packers are playing and hit nothing.
Other than the fact that Green Bay has 0.5% the population of Los Angeles, that's a good comparison.

One of the problems with LA is that so many of us aren't from here. I'm a Patriots fan, my neighbors are either Pats, Jets, Chiefs fans, or not into sports.
 

singaporesoxfan

Well-Known Member
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Jul 21, 2004
9,943
Washington, DC
Other than the fact that Green Bay has 0.5% the population of Los Angeles, that's a good comparison.

One of the problems with LA is that so many of us aren't from here. I'm a Patriots fan, my neighbors are either Pats, Jets, Chiefs fans, or not into sports.
My impression is that all the reasons stated in this thread for why L.A. wouldn't support its pro team apply more to the white populations of L.A. than the more longstanding Hispanic and African-American populations. The Raiders did fine when they were in LA, they continue to have tons of LA-based support, and if they moved I'd imagine their fans would be as loyal and as rabid.
 

Dehere

Member
SoSH Member
Apr 25, 2010
3,143
For what it's worth LA is likely to have 2.75 million tickets to sell next fall for NFL, USC and UCLA football. That is a hell of a lot of tickets in a largely ambivalent NFL town for four teams that didn't qualify for a playoff or major bowl game this year.

There are a few midsize, passionate markets that sell more tickets relative to their population. Pittsburgh for example will sell about a million tickets for Steelers and Pitt football in a market about one fifth the size of LA. But I suspect there will be an awful lot of empty seats at NFL games at the Coliseum next year.
 

dbn

Member
SoSH Member
Feb 10, 2007
7,781
La Mancha.
Indeed, singapore. I'd estimate that ~80-90% of the Dodgers gear I seen worn around here is on hispanic fans (fans that are hispanic, that is - not people who really like hispanics, though I guess those aren't mutually exclusive).

The Dodgers and Lakers do very well attendance-wise, with the later having very expensive tickets. I think a lot of the white population attends games. Of course, both the Lakers and Dodgers have a huge history in LA and are an important part of the local culture, which a NFL team will have to (re-)build.
 

Al Zarilla

Member
SoSH Member
Dec 8, 2005
53,496
San Andreas Fault
Other than the fact that Green Bay has 0.5% the population of Los Angeles, that's a good comparison.
But the number of streets in and around GB should be proportionately lower than in LA so they could theoretically be just as crowded (but probably not).
 

soxhop411

news aggravator
SoSH Member
Dec 4, 2009
39,803
@Gunfighter 09

On the brink of a vote that could return the NFL to Los Angeles, a consensus is building within the league for the St. Louis Rams and San Diego Chargers to share a stadium in Inglewood.

Multiple league officials and owners not involved with the Inglewood project, or the competing proposal in Carson, say there is momentum to pair the two franchises in what one owner describes as a "transformational" project backed by the Rams.

The Chargers and Oakland Raiders want to build a stadium in Carson, and to this point, Chargers owner Dean Spanos has stood by his partnership with Raiders owner Mark Davis.

The league insiders, who spoke on the condition they not be identified because of the sensitivity of the matter, say Spanos doesn't want to be seen as turning his back on a partner. This makes the path to what is emerging as the preferred pairing more difficult. But the insiders believe the matter can be resolved during the special meeting that starts Tuesday in Houston, where owners hope to find an answer to the two-decade L.A. vacancy.


One influential owner whose preference has not been apparent in public or private, touted Inglewood over Carson, saying "the deals aren't even close."
There's a sense that most owners want the Chargers and Rams in Inglewood, but aren't sure of the best way to make it happen. The idea of the Raiders returning to L.A. is not popular among many owners.

One owner said that the NFL has to realize that "we just can't solve all three stadium problems in one fell swoop."

It would mean striking a bargain that keeps the Raiders out of L.A. but doesn't leave them empty handed. Such a maneuver could mean that the Raiders return to Oakland in the short term, but can explore relocating to other cities, among them San Diego, St. Louis or joining the San Francisco 49ers in their new stadium in Santa Clara.

There is some sentiment among owners that the L.A. matter should be determined by secret ballot to avoid the awkwardness of league partners voting against partners. A secret vote -- now used only for the selection of a commissioner or awarding a Super Bowl to a city -- would need the approval of 17 of the league's 32 owners, a simple majority.
There's a belief among some owners and league executives that Spanos would be willing to make a deal with Rams owner Stan Kroenke to share Inglewood if it were a 50-50 partnership that wouldn't put the Chargers at an economic disadvantage.
http://www.latimes.com/sports/nfl/la-sp-nfl-la-relocation-20160112-story.html
 
Last edited:

soxhop411

news aggravator
SoSH Member
Dec 4, 2009
39,803
“@MartyCaswell: Dean Spanos just arrived. I asked him if he’s still firmly committed to Mark Davis/Carson. Says he’ll abide by whatever NFL owners decide”

This is a big change of heart for Spanos, who originally has been quoted as saying he would not work with STL and was dedicated to OAK