For any L.A. NFL journalist or former journalist....

They don't seem to mind going when USC is home.

 

Don't forget the Rambis Youth.

 

I'll give you two takes on this.

1. You're absolutely right. USC has the biggest piece of shit fan base I've ever seen; they're even more obnoxious, more self-entitled and tons more arrogant than UGA fans- and that's really saying something. USC has a tremendously gifted team, but their fans make it impossible to cheer for them. It's like the Raiders' fans have checked their battle gear at the door.

2. Back in the latter days of LA Raider Nation, SC wasn't exactly a big draw, either.

 

The city doesn't want to spend nearly a billion dollars to publicly finance a stadium when, somehow, it fills 92,000 seats for each USC game and its image doesn't need (see: Houston) the validation an NFL team supposedly brings. With all there is to do, paying to see a losing NFL team is not high on most Angelenos' wish list. It takes a long time, and a lot of winning, for a team to catch on in LA. The Rams had their following, but the Raiders didn't draw that well. The number of fans of the opposing team at Chargers games, even in a strong season like this, shows that the NFL is in fine shape in Southern California without an LA presence.

 

The loss of the NFL left a gaping hole in Los Angeles.

(Maybe someone who was a journalist rather than the college student I was when all this went down can correct my facts)

Dodgers owner Peter O'Malley wanted to fill the void by putting up a state of the art stadium in Dodger Stadium's vast parking lot. Of course, he also knew as an NFL owner he would get gobs of revenu-sharing money, and it is said the NFL owners wanted a class act like him in their club.

But the politicians were somehow seduced by the LA Coliseum people, who continue even now to ignore the fact the NFL absolutely positively does not want a team in the Coliseum. The mayor asked O'Malley to step out and throw his support behind the Coliseum. Seeing the economic realities of baseball, he put the Dodgers up for sale in January 1997.

And THAT, the loss of O'Malley as a local owner, is the legacy of LA losing the NFL. And that sucks.

As for the NFL . . who cares? The league is known for asking for large sums of public money (the story goes they asked for upwards of $100 million of tax dollars to bring the NFL back, and were gently reminded that A. we have plenty of rich people to finance such an endeavor, so tax dollars are unnecessary; and B. Isn't it better to use that money for schools anyway?).

LA gets the best TV games every week, and doesn't have a local team charging 80 bucks for the cheapest ticket. As they have a tendency to do, Angelenos can root for whomever they please.

 

Err ... not as true as one would think.

We get a TON of Raiders and Rams games on the broadcast channels during the season. Last year, we got a lot of Chargers games. This year, we're getting more than our share of Saints games (Reggie Bush as the local tie-in, I guess.)

There have been several "best of the week" games this season that we've missed because we get the fucking Raiders instead.

 

Outing alert: Piotr Rasputin is

 

Piotr,

Your recollection of the O'Malley story is correct. When he wanted to build a football stadium, the politicos asked him to back out and support the Coliseum. He did.

AEG, the company that built Staples Center (largely with private funding), later proposed building a football stadium near Staples. The politicos chased AEG off too.

So the politicos want the NFL to play in the Coliseum. The NFL does not want to, especially if it has to pay for the renovations. Stalemate.

 

USC says it will negotiate with the Rose Bowl in an obvious power play with the Coliseum. Fans go psycho.

http://www.latimes.com/sports/la-sp-coliseum30nov30,1,5016398.story?coll=la-headlines-sports

But this belongs in this thread because mayor Antonio Villaraigosa finally stood up and said "Stop the BS with the Coliseum. We're not getting an NFL team."

http://www.latimes.com/sports/la-sp-rose29nov29,1,1445170.story?coll=la-headlines-sports

 

UCLA's got to be thrilled by this. They moved to the Rose Bowl in the first place because they were sick of playing second fiddle to SC at the Coliseum.

 

you obviously don't smoke weed.

 

I think this was true in 1998, not now. No owner has any bargaining leverage by talking to LA, because said owner still doesn't have a stadium to play in in LA, doesn't want to shell out $1 billion to build one, and knows there isn't a municipality in the LA area with the means to build one.

Edit: holy crap, this thread is from a year ago.