Tmoney03 Posted May 25, 2003 Share Posted May 25, 2003 Colts, Minnesota, ect ect Do you guys think LA will get a team (baseball and/or football)? I was listening to some talking head on 980 yesterday and he made a good point that a team in LA can tap into the Latino crowd....thats a ton of money to be made Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
@DCGoldPants Posted May 25, 2003 Share Posted May 25, 2003 Where are the Dodgers? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ignatius J. Posted May 25, 2003 Share Posted May 25, 2003 I think banking on the latinos is a dangerous proposal. They like soccer. L.A. is a basketball town, and I'm just not sure how condusive it would be to a football team. I just don't see many die hard Rams fans when I walk down the street..... Raiders games continue to fill sports bars however, and so I'm just not sure that a new franchise will dislodge the raider faithful, since the bulk of LA football fans seemed to have remained raider fans. If a change does come, I think the team will have to change its name to establish a uniquely LA image. I do hope that this goes through, since I will be spending the forseeable future in LA, and it would be nice to have a hometown team to root for. -DB Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bang Posted May 26, 2003 Share Posted May 26, 2003 Originally posted by DrunkenBoxer I think the team will have to change its name to establish a uniquely LA image. -DB The Los Angeles Spritzers Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DIESEL TROLL Posted May 26, 2003 Share Posted May 26, 2003 MUST JUMP ON THIS? :twitch: :twitch: THE LOS ANGELES: 1. Imports (electricity, water, VERY ETC..) 2. FLAKERS (football Lakers) 3. AQUADUCT(CK?)S (Anaheim's close enough) 4. SHOCKWAVES (4.5 on the richter) 5. FIGHTING COSTCOS (red unis of course) 6. SOUTHERN IMPORTS (another VERY ETC..) 7. GRIDLOCKS (obvious) 8. RATERS (Insurance, ALL.....) 9. YO, HO!(s) (obvious again) 10. HAZE (I know, it's repetitive) So, there is my top ten.............. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
88Comrade2000 Posted May 26, 2003 Share Posted May 26, 2003 LA is a lock to get a relocated team by 2006 or 2007. It will be either Raiders,Chargers,Saints, Bills,Colts or Vikings. No LA isn't clamoring for a football team, the nfl is. The NFL needs a LA team to keep the networks paying at the same levels when they negiotate the next TV contract after the 2005 season. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SlinginSammy HOF '63 Posted May 26, 2003 Share Posted May 26, 2003 IF the Chargers go that would put them right ack where they started. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Symbol Posted May 27, 2003 Share Posted May 27, 2003 The thing with LA is, even when they had football there, there's only 2 teams that they cared about, the Dodgers and the Lakers. Most people in LA seem not to notice that they ever had a football team there or that they have a hockey team there. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RabidFan Posted May 27, 2003 Share Posted May 27, 2003 Sad thing is that LA will probably get a football team before MLB moves the Expos to D.C. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
flashback Posted May 27, 2003 Share Posted May 27, 2003 Originally posted by DrunkenBoxer If a change does come, I think the team will have to change its name to establish a uniquely LA image. Something like Lakers, Dodgers or Clippers, right? Since those are all unique, LA-specific names, huh? LA fans are bandwagoners. Give 'em a winner and they'll show. Give 'em a loser (expansion club) and they'll stay away in droves. Send the Vikings to LA, and when it's time to expand again, Minny can get on the list with everyone else. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kilmer17 Posted May 27, 2003 Share Posted May 27, 2003 Thinking about LA and a team, I think the logical step is to add 2 teams in '05, 2 in '07, 2 in '09, and 2 in '11. Add LA and San Antonio in 05. Vegas and Orlando in 07. Portland and another NY team in 09. And Birmingham and San Jose or another California town in 11. That would create a 40 team league. 2 Conferences, 4 divisions of 5 teams. Play 18 regular season games and bring the top 2 teams from each division to the playoffs each year. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jbooma Posted May 27, 2003 Share Posted May 27, 2003 Originally posted by Kilmer17 Add LA and San Antonio in 05. Vegas and Orlando in 07. Portland and another NY team in 09. And Birmingham and San Jose or another California town in 11. There is no way a state should have 4 teams before others have none. Vegas is interesting, the only problem everyone would think all the games are fixed I think the NFL is fine where it is at now, there isn't enough talent for 40 teams that is complete overkill. It is hard to get enough on talent on the teams now. I agree if someone does move to LA they have to have thier own identity. Imagane a Minnesota team moving to LA and having the same luck as that first one Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kilmer17 Posted May 27, 2003 Share Posted May 27, 2003 I think there is plenty of talent to have a 40 team league. The argument could be made that a 24 team league would have greater talent than the 32 team league. Although true, it's a comparitable truth. If you look at the projection of population then putting a team in Orlando makes excellent sense. And if a team moves to LA that creates an instant void in a city that can certainly support a team. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RumpledHillskin Posted May 27, 2003 Share Posted May 27, 2003 Add LA and San Antonio in 05. Vegas and Orlando in 07. Portland and another NY team in 09. And Birmingham and San Jose or another California town in 11. Don't hold your breath on Vegas. A team in Vegas is a scandal waiting to happen, and something the NFL is unlikely to chance in the near future. I also wouldn't hold your breath on expansion. 32 teams is a good number, and is stretching talent levels as it is (maybe you were a big fan of the XFL, but you'd be on your own). The NFL will also have been watching the NHL and MLB experiences, and recognize that more teams is not necessarily the best thing. The NFL has had three chances to put a team in LA over the last eight years (four if you consider the birth of the Ravens). The NFL's desire for an LA franchise is not going to blind them to the other issues on the table. That said, I think we will see a team in Los Angeles by the end of the decade, but doubt it will be the Vikings. The Colts is an interesting call, but I am watching the Bidwells in Arizona, the ability of the Bengals to sustain fan interest if Marvin Lewis fails in Cincinnati, and what happens in Carolina if people don't come back to the games in a big way over the next few years. Having empty stadiums at home, even with long-term leases, will be the surest path to LA. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kilmer17 Posted May 27, 2003 Share Posted May 27, 2003 They need a team in LA for negotiating a new TV deal. If the teams were added gradually (as my model suggests) then the talent level would not drop to XFL levels. It would simply mean that players like Connell would still have NFL jobs. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Brave Posted May 27, 2003 Share Posted May 27, 2003 I would agree that a 40 team league would be hard-pressed to find NFL-caliber talent. Some positions STILL suffer from the expansions of the 90s. There are not enough top-flight QBs, CBs, LTs and kickers for every team to have a decent starter right now ... much less any kind of depth. Could you find warm bodies to fill the spots? Sure. Would the quality of play suffer as a result of those bodies being less talented? Absolutely. Kilmer, your scenario puts teams in some interesting places that might offer enough support ... and the playoff system would probably work. A 40-team league might have room for 16 playoff teams, though the post-season would drag on a bit. However, there's no getting around what would be a lack of talent to fill certain positions across the league. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kilmer17 Posted May 27, 2003 Share Posted May 27, 2003 That same theory would make the NFL contract back to 28 teams. There will be enough talent. But as it stands now, teams dont need to keep guys that MIGHT make it. Some of those could if given the chance. The playoffs wouldn't be any longer than they are now, they would simply add 2 more games on the first weekend and eliminate the bye weeks for the top teams. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tmoney03 Posted May 27, 2003 Author Share Posted May 27, 2003 I think its incredibly hypocritical that the NFL can't put a team in Vegas. The early pioneers of football were enormous gamblers. Football has the most amount of money wagered on it every year and yet the NFL and Tagliabue deny Vegas the right to have a team every year. Ridiculous. I think my post is a moot point though. Isn't it illegal to have a team in Las Vegas because of that basketball cheating scandal? oh well. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
redman Posted May 28, 2003 Share Posted May 28, 2003 Originally posted by flashback LA fans are bandwagoners. Give 'em a winner and they'll show. Give 'em a loser (expansion club) and they'll stay away in droves. LOFL from a San Diegan! I think bandwagons are built in San Diego! I just love to hear San Diego fans talk about rooting for a "small market team" when their city (forget about the region) has a population of over 3M! :laugh:The Lakers and the Dodgers have been among the league leaders in average attendance for decades, and both have had poor and even awful seasons during that time. These bandwagon comments apply to any city. Even Redskins games - however sold out the tickets are - got a bit sparse in the mid-90's. The truth is that there's only luke warm desire for a team in LA. Most people here are fans of teams in other cities, and I don't see them changing that if a team relocates here, or even if an entirely new franchise is awarded here. Nowadays, with the internet and satellite, you can easily follow a team from elsewhere. And this city has way too many transplants from other parts of the country for that to change any time soon. The NFL needs a team here more than LA needs a team. If they get the right facility, a team should do at least reasonably well just given the size of the region. But I don't see it turning into a great franchise any time soon. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Evil Genius Posted May 28, 2003 Share Posted May 28, 2003 Originally posted by Tmoney03 I think its incredibly hypocritical that the NFL can't put a team in Vegas. The early pioneers of football were enormous gamblers. Football has the most amount of money wagered on it every year and yet the NFL and Tagliabue deny Vegas the right to have a team every year. Ridiculous. I think my post is a moot point though. Isn't it illegal to have a team in Las Vegas because of that basketball cheating scandal? oh well. A team in Vegas won't work because their isnt a homebase of fans to support it. Vegas is a tourist only area and couldn't support a professional team. They have a AAA (belong to the Dodgers I believe) baseball team and only draw 2-3k a game for them. So how are they gonna fill the 70k+ seats for football? They wouldn't. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
redman Posted May 28, 2003 Share Posted May 28, 2003 TEG- ten years ago, you were right about Vegas. However, that's changed. That valley has been the fastest growing urban area in North America. There are a heck of a lot of permanent residents there. Whether they'd make a good fan base may be another question, but Vegas isn't "all tourists" any more, sort of the same way that LA wasn't "all movies" after WWII. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Evil Genius Posted May 28, 2003 Share Posted May 28, 2003 Redman, You may be right on that - but they have failed to support any team that has been in town (including the 51's). That leads me to think that football would be a hard fill there too. Besides, it would have to be a Domed stadium right? Who wants another Dome? :doh: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
flashback Posted May 28, 2003 Share Posted May 28, 2003 Originally posted by redman LOFL from a San Diegan! I think bandwagons are built in San Diego! So, because San Diego is a bigger bandwagon town than LA, LA fans aren't bandwagoners? Is that what is passing for a logical argument today? When the pot calls the kettle black, I suppose the kettle turns bright white, huh? Congrats to the Lakers and Dodgers, BTW. Even in their down years they manage to get less than 1% of the population to buy tickets, all right...:thumbsup: It sounds like you have some sort of an issue with San Diego. Whatever it is, good luck with that. :peace: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dickens Posted May 28, 2003 Share Posted May 28, 2003 In the tradition of the Miami Heat...how about calling them the L.A. Sun No that's just lame besides the Suns are already a team in Phoenix. Hmm what else jumps to mind when I think about LA? How about the L.A. Smog? The L.A. Silicones? The L.A. Long Boarders? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Evil Genius Posted May 28, 2003 Share Posted May 28, 2003 Bring back the L.A. Express! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.