Jump to content

NFL Merry-Go-Round: Relocation Roundelay


duma
 Share

Recommended Posts

29 minutes ago, tigerslionspistonshabs said:

 

Why? Expansion or just trying to draw a higher profile team? 

An actual team in LA is getting one stadium built; the threat of a team in LA has probably gotten a dozen stadiums built.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I wonder how well any second team will do in LA.  It seems like most two-team towns have a geographic history to their fanbases.

  • Cubs/Sox, northside/southside
  • Yankees/Mets by borough, same is pretty much built in for the NHL and NBA.
  • Bay area NFL and MLB is pretty well set.

Even thought the Jets and Giants play in the same building, I think they sort of have that Yankees/Mets geographic base...I don't have a sense of whether that still occurs with younger fans, though

 

LA seems like the outlier.  They had the Rams for a long time and then the Raiders came.  I've never been to LA so I don't know whether geography was key to the two fanbases or if the Raiders national brand just enabled them to find a place.  Similarly throwing the Clippers in with the Lakers just seems crazy.  I know they have not always been in the same building, so maybe there was some geography to it.  Otherwise, who are Clippers fans?  People that wanted to be "different" or wanted cheaper ticket prices?

 

And now the idea of a second NFL team seems like a possible failure for Team #2.  The deck seems stacked against them because:

  • The Rams are already there accumulating fans
  • The Rams have LA history (or, in comparison to the Chargers, LA history that people remember and care about)
  • Playing in the same stadium, there is no opportunity for a geographic niche.

 

It makes me wonder whether the idea of a second LA team is...

 

3 hours ago, Gothamite said:

And the threat of becoming the other team in LA might get another three or four built.

...nothing but a continuation of the "LA Boogeyman."

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, OnWis97 said:

I've never been to LA so I don't know whether geography was key to the two fanbases or if the Raiders national brand just enabled them to find a place.

 

I don't think it was key, but I suspect Orange County fans (t's totally different from Los Angeles!) weren't exactly swift to get behind the Raiders.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

15 minutes ago, the admiral said:

 

I don't think it was key, but I suspect Orange County fans (t's totally different from Los Angeles!) weren't exactly swift to get behind the Raiders.

Well Orange County is not totally different, we are really just a glorified suburb of LA that happens to be it's own county, but yes the Raiders are almost universally hated here and I'm willing to bet that west LA also isn't as fond of the Raiders or their fans as well. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, AstroBull21 said:

Personally, I think the only second team that can succeed in LA is the Raiders.

 

Maybe send the Chargers to Vegas and start fresh.

The Raiders have THE agreement with those in Nevada, not the Chargers, not the NFL, not anyone else.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Gothamite said:

I think the culture clash of AFC and NFC was still lingering enough at the time to fuel an "establishment v. outsiders" vibe that can also serve to separate two teams that share a market.  And the Raiders sure fed into that.

 

That's why it was so crazy to me that the Carson stadium plan had the Raiders moving to the NFC. The AFLiest of AFL teams, the team whose owner was the AFL's commissioner and fought the merger tooth and nail?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

42 minutes ago, AstroBull21 said:

I understand that, but IF the Chargers skip on LA doesn't Oakland become next in line?

 

Yes if the Chargers opt not to move by Tuesday then the Raiders get next dibs on LA2. But just because they'll have given up Vegas in that case doesn't mean the Chargers can just jump ship to Vegas either.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, Gothamite said:

And the threat of becoming the other team in LA might get another three or four built.

 

Hollow threat that it is. Seems pretty clear after the Rams somewhat disastrous first year in LA that the NFL isn't too keen on rushing a second team into the region, particularly if they do end up pushing for more assistance for the Chargers to make the budding stadium deal there work and approve the Raiders to Vegas. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hollow perhaps.  It was a hollow threat that the Jets or Colts might move to LA, and yet they made it. 

 

If the Rams turn around their on-field product, and crowds follow, or if the new stadium results in increased cash flows, then the market will look plenty attractive to other clubs.  At least enough to leverage it. 

 

And yeah, the NFL vastly prefers that teams stay put.  That's why Goodell bent over backwards to keep the Rams in St. Louis, and why they tried so hard to encourage the other two teams to build in their home markets. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Let's also remember that San Diego is a coveted Super Bowl host city.  The NFL will do everything in its power to get a stadium built down there so that they can throw it back in the rotation.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

22 minutes ago, LMU said:

Let's also remember that San Diego is a coveted Super Bowl host city.  The NFL will do everything in its power to get a stadium built down there so that they can throw it back in the rotation.

But how much is San Diego compromised with Inglewood now under construction?

Qualcomm was basically their only all-seater, California option until Levi's.

 

Plus, at least LAX has gotten started on improving their terminals.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, dfwabel said:

But how much is San Diego compromised with Inglewood now under construction?

Qualcomm was basically their only all-seater, California option until Levi's.

 

Plus, at least LAX has gotten started on improving their terminals.

It's another city that has the tourism draw, hotel space, and weather that the league wants.

 

Plus, it actually has better weather than LA typically since most storms don't get that far south.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

22 minutes ago, dfwabel said:

But how much is San Diego compromised with Inglewood now under construction?

Qualcomm was basically their only all-seater, California option until Levi's.

 

Plus, at least LAX has gotten started on improving their terminals.

SD would absolutely be in the informal Super Bowl rotation if they build a new stadium. Obviously LA will be as well, but I don't think the NFL would snub SD just because of the presence of LA. The NFL would probably love to have two Southern California venues in regular rotation (along with the other usual suspects - Santa Clara, Miami, Tampa, Atlanta, Houston, Dallas, Arizona, and the occasional SBs in Minneapolis, Detroit, Indianapolis, and perhaps the Meadowlands).

 

In fact, I'd guess hosting the Super Bowl would be an implicit requirement of the City of San Diego putting up funds for a new stadium. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

 Share

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Terms of Use.