NFL in LA

GopherHomer

Am I Though?
Joined
May 11, 2009
Messages
2,494
Reaction score
0
Points
36
If the powers that be want to move this thread, so be it and I apologize.

With the theory that hangs around the Gopher fan universe that the injection of the Vikings into the marked played at least some role in the program going from national power to what we are today, is there a chance that the Rams (and possibly the Chargers or Raiders) move into the Los Angeles market will have a similar negative impact on UCLA or USC? Or has modern society/$$$ already decided who will succeed in college football? No agenda here, just want to get people's thoughts...
 

If the powers that be want to move this thread, so be it and I apologize.

With the theory that hangs around the Gopher fan universe that the injection of the Vikings into the marked played at least some role in the program going from national power to what we are today, is there a chance that the Rams (and possibly the Chargers or Raiders) move into the Los Angeles market will have a similar negative impact on UCLA or USC? Or has modern society/$$$ already decided who will succeed in college football? No agenda here, just want to get people's thoughts...

I think that market is big enough to have all 3 (or 4) and still be highly successful at all of them. (18 million people vs. 3.5 million people).
 

I didn't do any digging but I think USC/UCLA are somewhat niche audiences in LA. I don't believe either sells out all the time. LA is a massive market but I don't think it is a great sports market. Too much to do, and too many people from away. The Lakers are the only real legendary team in LA.
 

LA has had an NFL team for a long time (longer than they haven't, in the timeline of major professional football in the United States) and it hasn't particularly slowed down the collegiate success in the area. From 1946-1979, the Rams played in LA (before moving to Anaheim for 14 years), with the Raiders there from 1982-1994.

USC won 5 national championships in the years that LA had a team ('62, '67, '72, '74, '78) and has won two since those teams left ('03, '04). UCLA's only national championship came during the Rams' tenure ('54).

Since 1946, USC has captured 28 conference titles - 20 in the 45 years when there was a professional team in the city of Los Angeles (44% of the years), 8 in the 23 years when there was not a professional team (35% of the years).

Likewise, since 1946, UCLA has captured 15 conference titles - 13 in the 45 years when there was a pro team in LA (29% of the years), 2 in the 23 years when there was not a professional team (9% of the years).

There are a ton of other things happening in there - rise and fall of other conference teams, particularly Washington, Oregon and Stanford, conference realignment, shifting dynamics in college sports generally - so it's really tough (impossible) to say that simply the presence of an NFL team led to success or failure of the major college programs. If anything, the trend would suggest that the major college teams were more successful when they shared the city with an NFL team.
 

I like that the Rams moved back. I don't think LA will have an issue supporting them. However, if the Chargers were to move there as well, I could see problems developing. That's a lot of teams in 1 state, but the cities do a nice job supporting individual baseball teams, so I don't see why they would struggle supporting NFL teams.
 


I like that the Rams moved back. I don't think LA will have an issue supporting them. However, if the Chargers were to move there as well, I could see problems developing. That's a lot of teams in 1 state, but the cities do a nice job supporting individual baseball teams, so I don't see why they would struggle supporting NFL teams.

Umm, it's the same number of teams in the same state whether or not the Chargers move.
 



I didn't do any digging but I think USC/UCLA are somewhat niche audiences in LA. I don't believe either sells out all the time. LA is a massive market but I don't think it is a great sports market. Too much to do, and too many people from away. The Lakers are the only real legendary team in LA.

LA is almost too massive. If you put an NFL team here or there anywhere in the LA basin, much of the opposite portion wouldn't dare get on the freeway if not absolutely necessary to drive to a game. Where they want to put the rams isn't exactly a great spot, not right on a free way, next to the airport traffic when you do and in a terrible neighbor hood, I can see them turning into the Tampa Rays
 






I understand wanting to put a team in LA, but why 2? Let's see if they can keep 1 first.
 



I understand wanting to put a team in LA, but why 2? Let's see if they can keep 1 first.

They didn't really lose the Rams and Raiders. Rams owner was from St. Louis and wanted to move back home to be with her kids. Raiders owner was, well, insane.
 


They didn't really lose the Rams and Raiders. Rams owner was from St. Louis and wanted to move back home to be with her kids. Raiders owner was, well, insane.

LOL
 

They didn't really lose the Rams and Raiders. Rams owner was from St. Louis and wanted to move back home to be with her kids. Raiders owner was, well, insane.

Sure seemed like it towards the end of his life. The main reason he moved the Raiders back to Oakland is the NFL wanted him to share a new stadium in So Cal with another team. Sound familiar huh? He never paid a relocation fee for that either because: "as the NFL had never recognized the Raiders' initial move to Los Angeles, they could not disapprove of the move or request a relocation fee, which had to be paid by the Los Angeles Rams for their move to St. Louis"

Oh, he also got millions from a city in the L.A. suburbs when a "play or pay" deal fell through: " In August 1987, it was announced that the city of Irwindale paid Davis US$10 million as a good-faith deposit for a prospective stadium site.[20] When the bid failed, Davis kept the non-refundable deposit."

So crazy, good football mind, evil, a great businessman? All would fit with Mr.Davis.
 

I understand wanting to put a team in LA, but why 2? Let's see if they can keep 1 first.

The NFL doesn't want two. They want one.
Multiple owners want to go though.


The NFL would rather have San Diego in San Diego...which is why they haven't officially announced a move yet IMO. They are leveraging big time.
 

The NFL doesn't want two. They want one.
Multiple owners want to go though.


The NFL would rather have San Diego in San Diego...which is why they haven't officially announced a move yet IMO. They are leveraging big time.

I don't know about that. An LA NFL team in the NFC and the AFC is a boon for TV revenue. Even if it had been the Raiders and Chargers, one would have immediately been switched to the NFC and likely swapped out with the Rams or Cardinals, as neither has a vote in realignment (teams that have relocated since 1982 have lost that privelege).
 




Top Bottom