Page 1
Page 1
Started By
Message
locked post

Question about football in Los Angeles

Posted on 5/25/12 at 6:28 am
Posted by lsuguy13
RIP MATT
Member since Mar 2004
9509 posts
Posted on 5/25/12 at 6:28 am
This might be a stupid question but why couldnt they start an expansion team like the Texans did 10 or so years ago?
Posted by St Augustine
The Pauper of the Surf
Member since Mar 2006
70822 posts
Posted on 5/25/12 at 6:34 am to
because everything is perfectly set up right now
Posted by DCSportsBeerMan
Bethesda, MD
Member since Jul 2011
1705 posts
Posted on 5/25/12 at 6:56 am to
I would assume its becuase we have 8 divisions with 4 teams each. Nice round number.
Posted by cjared036
Houston, tx
Member since Dec 2009
9569 posts
Posted on 5/25/12 at 7:04 am to
Need approval from the league and team owners.
Posted by jdutto3
Atlanta
Member since Dec 2006
704 posts
Posted on 5/25/12 at 7:50 am to
Yeah, they should just move an already existing less attended franchise there, how can that fail.
Posted by Sophandros
Victoria Concordia Crescit
Member since Feb 2005
45219 posts
Posted on 5/25/12 at 7:53 am to
Because if there is a team in LA, then the owners won't have LA to use in order to hold municipalities hostage when they want new stadiums.

Plus, advertisers don't like having the second largest market blacked out for half the season.
Posted by M Le Rip
Member since Mar 2012
954 posts
Posted on 5/25/12 at 8:19 am to
quote:

Because if there is a team in LA, then the owners won't have LA to use in order to hold municipalities hostage when they want new stadiums.

Also, many of the existing owners would rather not have a new owner get to cash in on all that L.A. money; they'd probably feel a lot better if one of them got to move their team to L.A. instead.
Posted by Akit1
Baton Rouge, LA
Member since Jul 2006
8194 posts
Posted on 5/25/12 at 8:24 am to
I was always under the impression that Houston sorta snaked LA back when they got the Texans. Houston sold themselves better to the NFL, while LA thought the NFL was just going to give them a franchise.
Posted by M Le Rip
Member since Mar 2012
954 posts
Posted on 5/25/12 at 8:28 am to
quote:

I was always under the impression that Houston sorta snaked LA back when they got the Texans. Houston sold themselves better to the NFL, while LA thought the NFL was just going to give them a franchise.
Obviously Houston was more proactive when it came to providing an NFL-ready stadium.

The problem with Los Angeles is that it doesn't have a stadium with less than a 90,000 seating capacity, and that means they can sell 89,999 tickets every game and be in the top 3 in NFL attendance but still be blacked out in the 2nd biggest tv market in the country; that's why the Rams moved to Anaheim in the first place to a smaller, easier-to-fill stadium that was out of the city enough that a big chunk of Los Angeles would be exempt from blackout restrictions. If L.A. has a 70,000-seat stadium in the middle of the city, it's all gravy.
This post was edited on 5/25/12 at 8:31 am
Posted by H-Town Tiger
Member since Nov 2003
60731 posts
Posted on 5/25/12 at 8:33 am to
quote:

Because if there is a team in LA, then the owners won't have LA to use in order to hold municipalities hostage when they want new stadiums.


ding, ding ding

quote:

Plus, advertisers don't like having the second largest market blacked out for half the season


you still get a game when the home team is blacked out
Posted by TigerintheNO
New Orleans
Member since Jan 2004
44101 posts
Posted on 5/25/12 at 8:36 am to
quote:

you still get a game when the home team is blacked out


how many games does LA get each week now? 3?
Posted by H-Town Tiger
Member since Nov 2003
60731 posts
Posted on 5/25/12 at 8:48 am to
quote:

how many games does LA get each week now? 3?


I would assume so. That's what we got in Houston after the Oilers left and before the Texans started in 2002.
This post was edited on 5/25/12 at 8:49 am
Posted by cjared036
Houston, tx
Member since Dec 2009
9569 posts
Posted on 5/25/12 at 9:31 am to
Another big reason Houston got the team over LA is because Bob McNair got a lot of oil and gas related companies(headquartered here in Houston) to pledge to buy huge season ticket packages. All but guaranteeing sell outs each and every year.

Having the city in a position to help finance the deal was also a huge factor. HLSandRodeo also pledged a huge amount of support$$$$ for the deal.

Houston having a previous NFL/AFL history also added some flak to their argument.
Perfect mix of success in this deal....

The oilers left because no stadium deal was in place. The owner was incredibly incensed that the Astros got their city financing deal before he did. (teams no longer wanted to share facilities). The Oilers would still be here if they were a just a bit patient, three more years and a deal would have gotten done.

Another large factor for LA Not making my progress it the fact that there is two competing stadium bids for a stadium. Coupled with the fact there are a lot of special intereats that would love to get some attention from a Hugh profile deal. I honestly doubt a deal ever gets done.

Bob McNair had the whole city of Houston behind his efforts. NFL made the obvious choice.

Typos in this. Posting from iPhone
This post was edited on 5/25/12 at 9:32 am
Posted by ottothewise
Member since Sep 2008
32094 posts
Posted on 5/25/12 at 11:43 am to
They had the Rams. decades. Rams owners moved "franchise" to St Louis which had the Chicago/St Louis/Az Cardinals.

They had the Raiders, briefly and could not build a stadium.

The answer to your question is

1. sure, if you had a franchise.

2. they dont have a franchise.





first pageprev pagePage 1 of 1Next pagelast page
refresh

Back to top
logoFollow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News
Follow us on X, Facebook and Instagram to get the latest updates on LSU Football and Recruiting.

FacebookXInstagram