The NFL in Los Angeles

L.A. in general has bad fan bases that pretty much are broken up by the gang culture. I see it in to many industries how the SoCal marketing gets a hold on anything and they try and make it there own with the SoCal charm (I find is sickening).

It’d be interesting to know how the tv deal would have been affected over the last 17 years if a team or two had been in LA. People there watch football anyway so the networks are getting access. Seems tough to figure out one way or the other. I’d think the tv deals would have been worth more but it’s tough to say.

but Angel stadium is always packed. We need some NFL in Anaheim anyways!

As an LA hater from the 50s, I was resentful that a team with “part-time fans” was kicking my team’s ass. Seemed like they could buy better players because of their revenue advantages. Times have changed. Give ‘em a franchise – I’m still not even yet.

Des Moines would get an NFL team. The Barnstormers just don’t cut it for me.

A recent gallop poll found 37% of Americans can’t even find the U.S. on a map, including 2% who thought the U.S. was located in the color-coded inset legend

We’ve got to stop Manraj responding to these cold-call telephone polls. It’s giving you guys a bad name.

Also, I totally had to Google ‘Tanqueray’.

Well, I’ve lived here for all of my 35 years and I’ve been in a serious amount of pubs, and I ain’t never heard nobody talk about tanqueray! Although I get the whole Brits-drink-gin-and-tonic joke. Gordon’s is the best known brand of Gin, I think. I don’t drink gin.

They’re good, so you can grab onto a bunch of young fans and front runners and they have a large so-cal base already.

Any other team and I think it’s doomed to, while not complete failure, mediocrity. That being said, mediocre team in LA, better than mediocre team in Jacksonville for the league. And someone footing out the bill to build a giant complex that you can have super bowls and events in, also a plus for the NFL.

They’re not going to bring fans in with the LA Jag-i-uars though if they’re going 8-8 every year. Bring in the Chargers and they go 13-3 and they’ll have something.

And I think they are the most likely to.

Fans show up to Dodger’s games in the 3rd inning and are gone by the end of the 7th.

Why you ask? Because the Dodgers suck right now. And so does our “owner”. (I think the bankruptcy filing today was a step towards the right direction for this franchise.)

And I disagree with the Lakers statement.

Im convinced this was written by somebody who does not live in this city. I dont understand why we get such a bad rep. Is it because weve been jaded by the lakers? We are a spoiled city of champions. I assure you we love our sports. I hope we get a football team that isnt the raiders or the chargers.

The Dodgers just filed for bankruptcy, the Trojans football team is on probation, the Bruins football team is awful, the Clippers are irrelevant and nobody down there cares that much about the Kings. The only thing standing in the way of a good NFL team owning LA is the Lakers.

Then there’s the fact the NFL seems to be doing just fine without a team in L.A. With two teams in L.A., revenue from TV contract was $900 million. Seventeen years later with no team in L.A., TV revenue has more than tripled to $3.1 billion.

First of all, that is extremely misleading. You cant compare revenue in terms of 1994 dollars vs. 2011 dollars. Prices have gone up and you must account for inflation. A quick google search and you can see that 900 million in 1994 equates to approx. 1.3 billion in 2010 (yes i know we are in 2011). While still not as much, the difference is significantly smaller than your 900 million figure.

Second, to just insinuate that revenue is up due to the fact that there are not teams in LA is crazy. Have you thought about the fact that the product on the field is better? Or the rise of cable packages and HD TVs where people are more comfortable than ever to stay at home rather than go to a game? Now you can watch your favorite team every Sunday regardless of where you live. In 1994, there was no way to watch a Niner game if you lived in Florida unless they were playing Miami. So of course there is going to be more revenue from TV than from 17 years ago.

I said revenue is up in spite of the fact there’s not team in L.A. There’s a big diference. In other words, it doesn’t seem the NFL has been really hurt by not having a team in L.A. Even adjusting for inflation, that’s still almost a 250% increase in 17 years. How many other companies can say they’ve grown that much over the same time? And if you’re going to mention inflation then I’ll mention that the economy has been in the toilet yet it hasn’t seem to have done anything to slow down the NFL’s growth.

As for the product on the field being better, I disagree. I don’t find the NFL more entertaining today then I did in the 90’s or even the 80’s. It was just as exciting to watch games then as now. You are right that with Direct TV people have more access to their favorite team and the NFL gets $700 million a year for their deal with them. So that still leaves $2.4 billion from their regular revenue streams, around a 200% increase from 1994. In other words, what I said was true. The NFL hasn’t seem to have been hurt much by not having a team in L.A. all these years.