this might be a repeat of a few years back, but MOST STUPID SPORTS CITY...

not really, buck.

 

I'd say the NFL doesn't need LA, and LA doesn't need the NFL. Despite some old-school LA columnists wanting to beat that drum (and maybe carve out their own Sid Hartman-esque niche), LA fans are not clamoring to have the opportunity to spend 60-100 bucks a pop on football tickets each week.

Both the NFL and LA are thriving just fine, athletics-wise.

 

Well, OK, maybe the league doesn't need L.A. I'll accept that.

But L.A. is doing just fine without the league. I'll guarantee that.

 

i'll sign on with that in a heartbeat.

 

NFL ratings, overall, were down 3% last season in Los Angeles.
There are factors the league is quick to point out. Like, an extra day of games many weeks.
But, now there are kids in high school -- HIGH SCHOOL!!! -- that have never seen an NFL game in Los Angeles. That generation will be lost, eventually. And so will their dollars. It won't hurt the NFL big picture, may not sting. But, it is a bit sad.
And for those who say Los Angeles can't support an NFL franchise for eight games a season?
The Dodgers averaged nearly 50k a game and the Angels nearly 39k.

If L.A. had a proper venue, a reputable owner, it would be a no-brainer.

 

The NFL has really struggled without an L.A. market.

 

That's not the point. Yet, astonishingly myopic.

 

I agree with Grimace.

 

fish - it seems as though the NFL took off just fine in seattle after having a base of fans devoid of watching live pro football.

 

I don't disagree.

That said, an NFL team isn't getting the Dodgers' loyal fan base. The Dodgers will average 40K/game even if they lose 90. If an NFL team comes here and struggles, they'll soon average about 40K/game too. The Dodgers are a unique franchise in this market -- that'll never happen with any other team in L.A.

 

Exactly right. A franchise in LA would definitely help, but the NFL obviously doesn't need one to thrive.

 

Baltimore.