Giant step taken in the return of the NFL to LA...

Great. Explain that to the people who think the current franchise in Cleveland is the real Browns.

 

Do the Chargers really have "history?" A single Super Bowl appearance, and a few very good, OK a few great, players. In 50 years.

Anyway . . .

LA had a chance to buy into the NFL when Houston got the franchise, and refused.

The NFL demanded that taxpayer money be part of the 2002 deal, to "show commitment."

Stadiums have been planned before, and not built.

Some teams have quietly (or not so quietly) floated LA as "Our destination if we don't get a new stadium DEAL!!!!!!"

Local Politicians have thrown their support behind the decrepit Coliseum, directly leading to Peter O'Malley selling the Dodgers.

And through it all, NFL fans in Los Angeles shrug, and enjoy the fact that we get the best games every week. They no longer even foist the Rams and Raiders on the market now that both teams are completely irrelevant.

So yeah, I shrug. But I will say this: Los Angeles will be slow to support a crappy team that moved and tried to claim the market. LA has long since moved on (the clamor for the NFL is virtually nonexistent save for the politicians and obscenely rich folk), and so has the NFL.

 

Typical Raiders fan. ;D

Yes, the Chargers have plenty of history and a large fan base here. This year's season ticket issues notwithstanding, they're the most popular team around.

 

50 years.

One AFL title.

One Super Bowl appearance.

Great players including Lance Alworth, Dan Fouts, John Jefferson (almost typed "Charles Jefferson"), Charlie Joiner, Kellen Winslow, Junior Seau, LaDanian Tomlinson . . . maybe a couple I missed.

"Plenty," I suppose, to a fan base starving for some kind of sustained greatness from either of its mostly nondescript professional franchises.

 

So the New York Jets don't have "history"?

 

Most of the arguments I've seen in favor of putting a team in Los Angeles talk about how ridiculous it must be to have a market the size of Los Angeles without an NFL team.

Unless there's a massive demand in Los Angeles by NFL fans pining for a team to call their own, the NFL doesn't really *need* a franchise there. Baltimore had fans still bitter about losing the Colts and many of them wanted their own franchise. Plus, not many of them were willing to get behind the Redskins. Cleveland shit a brick when the Browns moved to Baltimore, forcing the NFL to put a team in Cleveland as the Browns. If I remember correctly, Houston made noises about wanting the NFL back after they lost the Oilers.

I'm not as familiar with St. Louis and whether or not it wanted an NFL team that badly. As for L.A., they haven't really seemed to care all that much now that the Raiders are back in Chokeland and the Lambs are in St. Louis.

 

The Jets have maybe the most historically significant Super Bowl victory ever. I can't name one that had a bigger impact.

While their overall accomplishments don't compare to the Giants', that single moment in time (as well as being one of the franchises that helped push the AFL into the mainstream) is pretty impressive.

No comparison to the Chargers.

 

If they can get more from a TV contract with an LA team - they will have an LA team. It's not just TV viewers, there is a lot of business in LA that would like to be involved with the NFL. And I don't know if the owners decide to divvy up stadium revenue with the next contract, but if they do, I'd think the NFL will want a team in LA.

 

The NFL is NOT better off without a team in LA. Home team ratings are what drive overall ratings. The Pats had a 29 rating and 51 share last Sunday. I doubt the ratings for the games shown in LA came close.
It is so obvious that if a team DOES move to LA, its first move will be to fire its coach and the second move to hire Pete Carroll.
My folks live in Ponte Vedra Beach and folks in Jax would feel very bad and small-town if the Jags left -- for about 48 hours. Then they'd go back to arguing about Urban Meyer's recruits.

 

It all depends. When the Rams and Raiders were around they got a 0 rating and 0 share for their home games, and a reduced number of overall games each weekend because of the blackouts.

The league is better off with a team in Los Angeles if it sells out. It is worse off with a team in Los Angeles that does not sell out.

 

They can build a stadium, they can bring a team.

But the elephant in the room remains: Unless that team wins consistently, people in L.A. WILL choose to do something better with their time on a sunny fall weekend than pay exorbitant prices to see crappy professional football. There are plenty of good entertainment options that already compete with each other, and the NFL won't rule the Southland just because it says so.

Especially if people have to drive all the way out to City of Industry (really?) to do it.

 

I hope the Bills won't move but once Wilson passes away they probably will. And, it'll suck. Just saying.