Jump to content

Los Angeles NFL Brands Discussion


OnWis97

Recommended Posts

17 minutes ago, Gothamite said:
2 hours ago, Ferdinand Cesarano said:

When Milwaukee was not amongst the expansion cities named in 1969, Selig entertained ideas of buying the White Sox and moving them to Milwaukee; but he abandoned that plan upon understanding that the other American League owners would not have approved such a move.

 

The American League would not have approved the move precisely because Chicago and Milwaukee are not the same market.

 

Of course Chicago and Milwaukee are not the same market, as we see from the fact that Milwaukee has its own teams in the top leagues in three major sports.

But that does not negate the fact that Milwaukee is one of the many places located within Chicago's sphere of influence, which, like the spheres of influence of all other major cities, extends for well over a hundred miles in every direction.  If the White Sox had indeed somehow managed to move to Milwaukee, they would still have been within the greater Chicagoland region.  Such a move would not be in the same category as the team's possible move to Tampa Bay which almost happened in the late 1980s; it would be more like the 49ers' move to the outskirts of the San Francisco Bay Area region.
 

logo-diamonds-for-CC-no-photo-sig.png

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 12k
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Any "rivalry" is generally only on the side of the smaller area.  Little brother syndrome.  It's the same in PA with Pittsburgh and Philadelphia.

 

If you're talking about sports rivalry, that's certainly different.

"The views expressed here are mine and do not reflect the official opinion of my employer or the organization through which the Internet was accessed."

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 minutes ago, Ferdinand Cesarano said:

Of course Chicago and Milwaukee are not the same market, as we see from the fact that Milwaukee has its own teams in the top leagues in three major sports.

But that does not negate the fact that Milwaukee is one of the many places located within Chicago's sphere of influence, which, like the spheres of influence of all other major cities, extends for well over a hundred miles in every direction.  If the White Sox had indeed somehow managed to move to Milwaukee, they would still have been within the greater Chicagoland region.  Such a move would not be in the same category as the team's possible move to Tampa Bay which almost happened in the late 1980s; it would be more like the 49ers' move to the outskirts of the San Francisco Bay Area region.

 

No, not at all.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

25 minutes ago, Gothamite said:
36 minutes ago, Ferdinand Cesarano said:

 If the White Sox had indeed somehow managed to move to Milwaukee, they would still have been within the greater Chicagoland region.  Such a move would not be in the same category as the team's possible move to Tampa Bay which almost happened in the late 1980s; it would be more like the 49ers' move to the outskirts of the San Francisco Bay Area region.

 

No, not at all.

 

Hmm.  Well, if you're going to doubt that Mitchell Airport (located in Milwaukee) is one of Chicagoland's airports, then you'd have to take that up with the many passengers who use that airport to get to and from Chicago and its northern suburbs.

Anyway, the point here is that Chicago and Milwaukee, while separate cities with separate identities, are both part of the same larger region.  Likewise, San Francisco, Oakland, and San Jose are together part of a larger region despite all being separate cities.  The same with Washington and Baltimore.

And (bringing it all home), the same with Los Angeles and San Diego: two distinct cities situated within one geographical region.

logo-diamonds-for-CC-no-photo-sig.png

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Ferdinand Cesarano said:

 

Milwaukee is definitely within Chicago's sphere of influence.  Let's remember that, in the late 1960s, when Bud Selig was trying to get an expansion team for Milwaukee, he convinced the White Sox to play several home games a year in Milwaukee.  The White Sox wouldn't have done that if they didn't already consider Milwaukee to be part of their extended region.  

If Milwaukee didn't have teams of their own in the major sports leagues, the Chicago teams would surely be that city's "home" teams, just as the New York teams have fanbases that stretch hundreds of miles north through Upstate New York.  So, on that one, I'd say "yes" for sure.

 

Not buying this at all. 

 

No. 1, it's not like Milwaukee didn't have a baseball team of their own for over a dozen years until they moved to Atlanta just a few short years before 1969.  They were their OWN region and remained so between 1966 and 1970.

 

No. 2, the same type of thing ("exhibition" home games played elsewhere) also later happened in the NBA.  Utah Jazz played 11 home games in Las Vegas in 1983; and the Atlanta Hawks played a series of home games in New Orleans in 1984.  Neither site would be seen as being within the other's "sphere of influence" or "extended region", just as Milwaukee wasn't in Chicago's.  The teams were (1) trying to make some extra bucks, and (2) to some degree, exploring possible relocation spots-- just like the White Sox were.

It is what it is.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

24 minutes ago, Ferdinand Cesarano said:

 

Hmm.  Well, if you're going to doubt that Mitchell Airport (located in Milwaukee) is one of Chicagoland's airports, then you'd have to take that up with the many passengers who use that airport to get to and from Chicago and its northern suburbs.

Anyway, the point here is that Chicago and Milwaukee, while separate cities with separate identities, are part of a larger region.  Likewise, San Francisco, Oakland, and San Jose are part of a larger region despite all being separate cities.  The same with Washington and Baltimore.

And (bringing it all home), the same with Los Angeles and San Diego: two distinct cities situated within one geographical region.

 

I'd disagree with that. San Jose, San Francisco and Oakland are all situated within the same larger geographical and social San Francisco Bay Area (each within their own sub region, South Bay, San Francisco (the City) and East Bay respectively). But San Diego and Los Angeles are not within the same geographic region. Los Angeles is in the Greater Los Angeles area (the geographical and social equivalent to the San Francisco Bay Area) with sub regions like Orange County, San Fernando Valley, etc....

 

San Diego however is not part of the Greater Los Angeles area and is in it's own geographical and social area just as Sacramento is not part of the San Francisco Bay Area or Orlando is not part of the Tampa Bay Area to give an east coast equivalent.

 

Now if you want to say both Los Angeles and San Diego are in Southern California like San Francisco, Oakland, San Jose and Sacramento are in Northern California, that's fair. But the east coast equivalent to "SoCal or NorCal" is saying Philly, and New York are both in the "Mid-Atlantic".

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, B-Rich said:

No. 2, the same type of thing ("exhibition" home games played elsewhere) also later happened in the NBA.  Utah Jazz played 11 home games in Las Vegas in 1983; and the Atlanta Hawks played a series of home games in New Orleans in 1984.  Neither site would be seen as being within the other's "sphere of influence" or "extended region", just as Milwaukee wasn't in Chicago's.  The teams were (1) trying to make some extra bucks, and (2) to some degree, exploring possible relocation spots-- just like the White Sox were.

 

True about the Jazz and the Hawks.  But those were neutral-site games.  While of course one team was the designated home team, there was no expectation that that team had any special claim to that area.  In that way, those games are like the NFL games in London.

I think it's more common for teams to play in areas that are already within their fanbase regions.  For instance, the Brooklyn Dodgers played games in Jersey City when they were making New York City aware of their desire to get out of Ebbets Field.  Also, the Celtics used to play games in Hartford every year.  And recently the Buffalo Bills have played games in Toronto.  The Washington Wizards play some games in Baltimore.  I am sure there are a few more examples of this that I can't think of right now.  In all of these cases, the teams played in other places within the same region, places where their fans were already located.  The White Sox playing in Milwaukee fits this pattern.

logo-diamonds-for-CC-no-photo-sig.png

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 12/19/2016 at 9:49 PM, Gothamite said:

 

Where did you read that?  It doesn't make any sense.  The Chargers, like the Rams, would be based out of Inglewood.  On the west side of the city.  To try and create their "market" clear on the other side of town would be insane. 

 

Oh, wait.  Chargers. Yeah, I could see that. 

 

i haven't head anything about this, but it does sound very possible. each team has to have its own practice facility and facility to house hundreds of employees. plus, i highly doubt both teams target the same market/audience. they need to "divide and conquer" for both teams to survive

 

GRAPHIC ARTIST

BEHANCE  /  MEDIUM  /  DRIBBBLE

Link to comment
Share on other sites

22 minutes ago, Ferdinand Cesarano said:

 

True about the Jazz and the Hawks.  But those were neutral-site games.  While of course one team was the designated home team, there was no expectation that that team had any special claim to that area.  In that way, those games are like the NFL games in London.

I think it's more common for teams to play in areas that are already within their fanbase regions.  For instance, the Brooklyn Dodgers played games in Jersey City when they were making New York City aware of their desire to get out of Ebbets Field.  Also, the Celtics used to play games in Hartford every year.  And recently the Buffalo Bills have played games in Toronto.  The Washington Wizards play some games in Baltimore.  I am sure there are a few more examples of this that I can't think of right now.  In all of these cases, the teams played in other places within the same region, places where their fans were already located.  The White Sox playing in Milwaukee fits this pattern.

 

The NBA Ended the "Neutral Site" designation in 1974, and home games played away from home were still treated as normal home games.  A list of where those games were played  (not including games in Mexico or Europe) -

Atlanta - Charlotte, Louisville & New Orleans
Boston - Hartford, Providence & Springfield
Buffalo - Toronto
Golden State - San Jose (an entire season)
Kansas City - Omaha & St. Louis
Los Angeles C. - Anaheim & Inglewood
New Jersey - Princeton
New Orleans J. - Baton Rouge, Biloxi
New Olreans H. - Oklahoma City (two seasons)
Seattle - Tacoma (an entire season)
Utah - Las Vegas
Washington - Baltimore
 

Obviously, there were some that were displaced by their arena being remodeled (Seattle & Golden State) and one due to natural disaster (New Orleans).  Others were looking for possible relocation (Buffalo/Toronto the most obvious, but also probably Atlanta/Charlotte. Louisville & New Orleans) and some were just venues that they felt were areas where they could cultivate interest (Kansas City/Omaha & St. Louis, Washington/Baltimore and Baltimore/Hartford, Providence & Springfield)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

1 hour ago, HighCheese said:

They chant beat LA at padre/dodger games

 

57 minutes ago, BrianLion said:

To be fair everybody chants "Beat LA" when one of their soulless teams is in town ;) 

 

 

Isn't it pretty common to chant "Beat [opposing team's city here]!" at games involving that team?

 

A real rivalry is when fans chant about cities or teams that aren't even involved in the game, like Patriots fans chanting "Yankees suck!" at their Super Bowl parade, or Minnesota fans chanting "Milwaukee Sucks!" when leaving the NASL for MLS, two leagues in which Milwaukee doesn't even have a team.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

37 minutes ago, BrandMooreArt said:

 

i haven't head anything about this, but it does sound very possible. each team has to have its own practice facility and facility to house hundreds of employees. plus, i highly doubt both teams target the same market/audience. they need to "divide and conquer" for both teams to survive

 

I'm not sure that's actually true, but in any case it's pretty hard to stake out geographic territory when you play in the same venue.  And marketing to Orange County while playing in Inglewood would be a very stupid idea.  

 

I would expect the two teams to carve out their own identities, but not based on geography.  Establishment v. outsiders is always a classic.  AFC v NFC is pretty meaningless in this age of inter-conference play, but there are others.  Style of play, team culture, team history, anything but geography.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

36 minutes ago, Gothamite said:

 

 

 

 

Isn't it pretty common to chant "Beat [opposing team's city here]!" at games involving that team?

 

A real rivalry is when fans chant about cities or teams that aren't even involved in the game, like Patriots fans chanting "Yankees suck!" at their Super Bowl parade, or Minnesota fans chanting "Milwaukee Sucks!" when leaving the NASL for MLS, two leagues in which Milwaukee doesn't even have a team.

 

Been going to Padres games for years. The only time Pads fans have any kind of mass anti-opponent chant is when the Dodgers are in town. Never heard a "Beat SF" or "Beat Arizona" chant.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Gothamite said:

 

I'm not sure that's actually true, but in any case it's pretty hard to stake out geographic territory when you play in the same venue.  And marketing to Orange County while playing in Inglewood would be a very stupid idea.  

 

I would expect the two teams to carve out their own identities, but not based on geography.  Establishment v. outsiders is always a classic.  AFC v NFC is pretty meaningless in this age of inter-conference play, but there are others.  Style of play, team culture, team history, anything but geography.

 

 

Yeah the Bolts will be based out of OC, but the geographic distinction will be meaningless with them both playing in Inglewood. Want to see what the differentiation will be, look at the Lakers and Clippers. They have no distinction in terms of geography on where they draw their fans from. The Angels and Ducks, especially the latter have some geographic distinction, but of course both actually play in Anaheim (even if the Angels pretend otherwise).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

20 minutes ago, bosrs1 said:
47 minutes ago, Gothamite said:

I'm not sure that's actually true, but in any case it's pretty hard to stake out geographic territory when you play in the same venue.  And marketing to Orange County while playing in Inglewood would be a very stupid idea.  

 

I would expect the two teams to carve out their own identities, but not based on geography.  Establishment v. outsiders is always a classic.  AFC v NFC is pretty meaningless in this age of inter-conference play, but there are others.  Style of play, team culture, team history, anything but geography.

 

 

Yeah the Bolts will be based out of OC, but the geographic distinction will be meaningless with them both playing in Inglewood. Want to see what the differentiation will be, look at the Lakers and Clippers. They have no distinction in terms of geography on where they draw their fans from. The Angels and Ducks, especially the latter have some geographic distinction, but of course both actually plan in Anaheim (even if the Angels pretend otherwise).

 

The Giants and Jets have fanbases that extend in different directions.  The Giants' fanbase extends through North Jersey and Connecticut, while the Jets' fanbase extends onto Long Island.  These patterns began before the teams started sharing a stadium, and were down almost entirely to geography: the Jets played at Shea Stadium, which is closer to Long Island; the Giants played at Yankee Stadium, which is closer to New Jersey and Connecticut. 

It is going to be tough for the Chargers.  Several people here have reported that most San Diego fans are done with them.  So there is probably no point in the team trying to market to those fans.  And early reports suggest that L.A. fans have already decided to reject the team.  But, in fairness, no one knows if that's really the case; the crowd at one Laker-Clipper game cannot be assumed to be representative of the entire town's sports fans.  If even a small fraction of the area's football fans can be lured to support the Chargers, that's still a lot of people.  

Still, that's a big "if".  I am willing to bet that, barring a huge winning streak right out of the gate, the Chargers will languish in L.A., and that this move will quickly be seen as a fiasco.  Whereas, if it had been the Raiders returning, that would probably have been a big hit.

logo-diamonds-for-CC-no-photo-sig.png

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, BrianLion said:

I think crossing state lines also plays a big role at least from a fan psyche perspective.

 

Sure San Diego and LA are 2 hours+ away drive, but you're still in the same state and region. Whereas Philly and Baltimore are almost equidistant to that yet they're two states apart.

 

Cleveland to Columbus might be a better comparison because A) you're still in state, and B ) you arent moving to a "rivals" city.

 

Crossing state lines definitely plays a role in fan psyche--a great example is all the Green Bay fans living just over the St. Croix River from Minnesota in Wisconsin. Despite being included in the Twin Cities Metropolitan Statistical Area, residents of St. Croix and Pierce Counties, Wisconsin, are overwhelmingly Packers fans, not Vikings fans.

Visit my store on REDBUBBLE

Link to comment
Share on other sites

24 minutes ago, Gothamite said:

Exactly.  The Clippers attract a mix of contrarians who won't follow the glamorous team and people who don't want to pay the glamorous team's prices.  

 

We'll see what the Chargers can do to set themselves apart.  

 

Winning and playing in the supposedly more "intimate" venue is about all they can do (though I'd argue anyone who thinks Stub Hub Center is intimate has never been there or to another MLS venue. It's got one of the most distant fields from the stands in MLS). Once they move in with the Rams winning is about the only way they can differentiate themselves. And God help them if the Rams figure stuff out and get good at the same time or before them. I mean it took the Clippers 30 years to become relevant. And even with the Lakers currently the worst team in the NBA they're still about even in the market (both selling out games and getting close to even media coverage).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

22 minutes ago, Gothamite said:

Exactly.  The Clippers attract a mix of contrarians who won't follow the glamorous team and people who don't want to pay the glamorous team's prices.   

It's funny you mention that, as I've always thought that the Clippers would be wise to brand themselves as the blue-collar team of LA - the opposite of the glamorous, star-studded and flashy Lakers. It would have been pitch-perfect branding back in '06, when we had a scrappy team with Sam Cassell's veteran savvy, Elton Brand's dominance down low, and Quinton Ross' defense.

 

Certainly beats empty slogans like "It Takes Everything," "Together We Will," "Pure Basketball" or "Love the Game."

xLmjWVv.png

POTD: 2/4/12 3/4/12

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.




×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

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