Jump to content

Los Angeles NFL Brands Discussion


OnWis97

Recommended Posts

  • Replies 12k
  • Created
  • Last Reply
On 12/23/2016 at 5:35 PM, jojotarantino said:

This makes sense as well. However, it's just different for that city. I heard the Rams honored Orlando Pace and the crowd was indifferent because he never played in LA. 

That history of the franchise would be there but it just doesn't mean as much in another city. I just prefer a scenario like the Browns even if we aren't getting another team. 

 

Exactly. Robert Irsay packing up his franchise and leaving Baltimore for Indy was harsh enough, but taking the Colts name and history along with him was one big FU to the Baltimore Colts fans who supported the team all those years. Leaving the name and history with the city and fans like the Browns did in Cleveland is the classiest thing to do.

 

 

On 12/22/2016 at 9:14 AM, Ferdinand Cesarano said:

Imagine that there had never been an NFL team in San Diego; imagine that the AFL's L.A. Chargers had stayed in Los Angeles through the life of the AFL and after the merger.  In that case, football fans in San Diego would have gravitated towards one of the L.A. teams, either the Chargers or the Rams, just as football fans living 100 miles away from Pittsburgh root for the Steelers, and football fans living 100 miles away from Chicago root for the Bears.

I get that San Diego and Los Angeles are separate cities.  So are Washington and Baltimore.  So are San Francisco and Oakland and San Jose.  But, when only one city in any given cluster has a team, it naturally becomes the team for the entire region.

 

It may seem like a "cluster" to you when you're looking at that part of the country on a map, but if you've actually lived in any of these cities you would know that there's no significant connection among them whatsoever. Washington and Baltimore 40 miles apart from each other, but they are two completely different worlds. The only thing that connects them is stretches of highways. D.C. area baseball fans were eventually forced to follow Baltimore's team only because that was the only option, but we finally got our own team much to the Orioles owner's dismay. Pretending that a team in the next closest city is their own local team is not what sports fans desire, especially if they should have a team of their own. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 hours ago, daveindc said:

It may seem like a "cluster" to you when you're looking at that part of the country on a map, but if you've actually lived in any of these cities you would know that there's no significant connection among them whatsoever. Washington and Baltimore 40 miles apart from each other, but they are two completely different worlds. The only thing that connects them is stretches of highways. D.C. area baseball fans were eventually forced to follow Baltimore's team only because that was the only option, but we finally got our own team much to the Orioles owner's dismay. Pretending that a team in the next closest city is their own local team is not what sports fans desire, especially if they should have a team of their own. 

 

While I haven't lived in Washington or Baltimore, I fully understand that they are separate cities, and that they are separated by much more than the 40 miles between them.  I have visited each city on multiple occasions to explore it by bike.  (Washington is a superb bicycling city, by the way!)  And I once rode my bike all the way from New York to Washington, spending a day in Baltimore on the way.

 

Anyway, the point is that a team in a major league typically has a huge catchment area, sometimes with a radius of hundreds of miles.  You can find people who consider the St. Louis Cardinals or the Dallas Cowboys their home team (note: not just their favourite team, but their home team), yet who live far in excess of 100 miles away from those teams' parks.  For Washington to have a Major League Baseball team again is very nice; but, if it didn't have a team, then that city would fall firmly within the Baltimore team's territory.  And, likewise, when Baltimore doesn't have a team in any given league, that city is in the zone of the Washington team.  

 

In that particular area, this holds true for leagues of all sizes.  Consider the MLL's Chesapeake Bayhawks (formerly both Baltimore Bayhawks and Washington Bayhawks), which is the home team for both cities and for every place in between.  Honourable mention goes to the USFL's Baltimore Stars:  having arrived from Philadelphia and being unable to find a place to play in Baltimore, this team played its home games just outside Washington in College Park; and its ownership saw no need to call the team anything but "Baltimore".

 

Again, this does not mean that anyone thinks that Washington and Baltimore are the same culturally or any other way.  It only reflects the fact that the two cities sit geographically close to one another.

 

 

7 hours ago, daveindc said:

Robert Irsay packing up his franchise and leaving Baltimore for Indy was harsh enough, but taking the Colts name and history along with him was one big FU to the Baltimore Colts fans who supported the team all those years. Leaving the name and history with the city and fans like the Browns did in Cleveland is the classiest thing to do.

 

This is so wrong it's almost offensive.

 

While no fans like to lose a team, the relocated team's act of retaining the name and uniforms pays a great homage to that team's history, which is something that the fans must appreciate.  The Ravens can erect a statue of Johnny Unitas because he played in that city, and can elect not to give out no. 19; but the Colts honour the retired numbers of Unitas, Art Donovan, and Gino Marchetti.  And rightfully so, since that is the team for which those players played.  

 

The uniform and name emphasise the team's continuity, and keep the memory of the team's entire history alive.  (Example: Indianapolis native David Letterman wore an Art Donovan jersey to celebrate the Colts' appearance in the Super Bowl in 2007.)

 

The Los Angeles Dodgers cemented their awareness of their history when they held a Roy Campanella Day in 1959, and when they proudly displayed their 1955 World Champions banner at their press conferences during that year's World Series.

 

The Dodgers have in recent years worn the B cap several times, and always include the living Brooklyn players in their Old-Timers' Day celebrations. 

 

Try to tell Vin Scully that the Dodgers' Brooklyn history should be ignored.  Try to tell that to Sandy Koufax.  And I pity the fool who tries to tell that to Tommy Lasorda!

 

The San Francisco Giants have never stopped basking in their New York history.  Look at the cover of the team's 1983 yearbook.

 

s-l300.jpg

 

Look at the video that the team put out in 1987, called "A Tale of Two Cities".

 

 

Look at their outfield wall, which lists John McGraw and Christy Mathewson with the retired numbers, but shows "NY" because those two men go back to before the existence of uniform numbers.

 

Look at the Giants' GM Larry Baer, who issued a replacement 1954 World Series ring to Monte Irvin.  Baer has brought the Giants' World Series trophy here to New York after each of the team's three recent wins, each time describing this city as the Giants' "ancestral home" and referring to the team as "the San Francisco, formerly New York, Giants".  And under Baer the team contributed to the refurbishment of the John T. Brush Stairway at Coogan's Bluff, an outdoor stairway that once provided access to the Polo Grounds.

 

You want to see the "classiest" move (putting aside this class-conscious proletarian's dislike of that descriptor)?   Look at how the Dodgers and Giants treat their histories; that is the correct way to do it.  The Chargers should be no less respectful; they should definitely not follow the terrible example of the Browns, a practice which shows a shameful contempt for history.

 

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

Link to comment
Share on other sites

a difference is that in the St. Louis and Dallas examples, there's pretty much nothing else around for a great distance, rather than the Baltimore / Wash example where Wash is a large city in its own right.  If you're in some little trailer town in rural Texas, then Dallas would still be the center of the sphere of influence (for lack of a better term) and essentially "represent" Texas to you.  Not so in Washington, or (just about) any other large / semi-large Northeast city (not sure about Hartford for example.)

 

"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

24 minutes ago, BringBackTheVet said:

a difference is that in the St. Louis and Dallas examples, there's pretty much nothing else around for a great distance, rather than the Baltimore / Wash example where Wash is a large city in its own right.  If you're in some little trailer town in rural Texas, then Dallas would still be the center of the sphere of influence (for lack of a better term) and essentially "represent" Texas to you.  Not so in Washington, or (just about) any other large / semi-large Northeast city (not sure about Hartford for example.)

 

ok well then explain the Boston red sox/celtics/bruins that everyone in atleast southern New England consider their home teams when you have other major cities around them.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

As dumb as I think the whole Chargers to LA thing is I'm curious to see what a new logo would look like. Not a full rebrand, but a new logo. I'd like to see the horse logo modernized with an Art Deco flare. Screams LA.

 

That aside the Chargers belong in SD. Spanos is greatly overestimating his footprint in LA. Being from there I can't count on one hand how many Chargers fans I know. Despite being in the same state and only a short drive away (not considering traffic on the various cluster:censored:s of freeways between the two cities) they couldn't be further apart.

 

This is so dumb. I don't know why Spanos thought he had such a claim to LA. The city damn sure wouldn't claim the Chargers. It's one thing to want to keep the Rams out, but then to say screw it and move there AFTER the Rams already came back is idiotic. You lost man. Just take the L, pay for a building in SD, and try to be THE team in SoCal.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

21 hours ago, BringBackTheVet said:

a difference is that in the St. Louis and Dallas examples, there's pretty much nothing else around for a great distance, rather than the Baltimore / Wash example where Wash is a large city in its own right.  If you're in some little trailer town in rural Texas, then Dallas would still be the center of the sphere of influence (for lack of a better term) and essentially "represent" Texas to you.  Not so in Washington, or (just about) any other large / semi-large Northeast city (not sure about Hartford for example.)

 

By "nothing around" you mean pro teams, not big cities, right? There are plenty of big cities close to Dallas and all throughout Texas..

uta-big-sam-little-uta.png
Link to comment
Share on other sites

45 minutes ago, OldRamsFan said:

By "nothing around" you mean pro teams, not big cities, right? There are plenty of big cities close to Dallas and all throughout Texas..

 

Just glancing at a map, it's got to be around 200 miles between Dallas and Austin, which is what I'd assume to be the closest medium-to-large city. If it clarifies, by "Dallas" I mean the metro area, including FtW, Irving, etc. 

 

Off topic- Texas cities are... different.  They're "big", but less dense than even what a lot of people consider suburbs. It seems like you could practically live in Dallas but not really live in Dallas. 

"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

On 12/18/2016 at 8:38 PM, Esco said:

Maybe a color change since LA Rams could go back to Blue & Yellow. Two teams wearing shades of Blue & Yellow while sharing the same colors does clash. Even though they're not exactly the same color codes.

 

 

But the coloring of the stadium deco etc would be able to be for both teams.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 hours ago, BringBackTheVet said:

 

Just glancing at a map, it's got to be around 200 miles between Dallas and Austin, which is what I'd assume to be the closest medium-to-large city. If it clarifies, by "Dallas" I mean the metro area, including FtW, Irving, etc.

Yes, that does clarify, thanks. There are plenty of medium to big cities in the metro area.

uta-big-sam-little-uta.png
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 12/25/2016 at 0:14 PM, dont care said:

ok well then explain the Boston red sox/celtics/bruins that everyone in atleast southern New England consider their home teams when you have other major cities around them.

 

There are other cities (that may or may not be "major", depending on your definition).  However, there are no other major league teams.  The closest ones are in New York . . . which capture the western portion of Connecticut.

Most Liked Content of the Day -- February 15, 2017, August 21, 2017, August 22, 2017     /////      Proud Winner of the CCSLC Post of the Day Award -- April 8, 2008

Originator of the Upside Down Sarcasm Smilie -- November 1, 2005  🙃

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 12/25/2016 at 2:19 PM, Lee Noire said:

This is so dumb. I don't know why Spanos thought he had such a claim to LA. The city damn sure wouldn't claim the Chargers. It's one thing to want to keep the Rams out, but then to say screw it and move there AFTER the Rams already came back is idiotic. You lost man. Just take the L, pay for a building in SD, and try to be THE team in SoCal.

But knowing LA, if the Chargers are good, the fans will come out of the woodwork to support them and claim they'd been Chargers fans from the beginning. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The Chargers/Golden Charging Knights of Anaheim will fail in LA and that's a given. All I got to say on the matter.

Fly Eagles Fly, on the road to victory...

Philadelphia Eagles: NFL Champions in 1948, 1949, 1960, Super Bowl Champions in 2017-18. Philadelphia Phillies: World Series Champions in 1980 and 2008. Philadelphia 76ers: NBA Champions in 1966-67 and 1982-83. Philadelphia Flyers: Stanley Cup Champions in 1973-74, 1974-75

Link to comment
Share on other sites

29 minutes ago, ScubaSteve said:

 

Yes because they're doing swimmingly in SD

 

They've been doing fine in San Diego until their owner via his mouthpiece Mark Fabiani decided to play scorched Earth with the city of San Diego. Now they're reaping the rewards of that policy and trying to make it look like it's San Diego's fault.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

43 minutes ago, bosrs1 said:

 

They've been doing fine in San Diego until their owner via his mouthpiece Mark Fabiani decided to play scorched Earth with the city of San Diego. Now they're reaping the rewards of that policy and trying to make it look like it's San Diego's fault.

Happened in Seattle with the Sonics.

- Ownership tears apart team and is combative with naysayers

- Ownership makes player interviews to local media very difficult

- Ownership moves radio broadcasts to an obscure station no one knows

- Ownership demands the public pay for a new arena

- Ownership moves the team saying they tried everything they could but the community just wouldn't support the team  

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.