The Dolphins Make Me Cry.com - Forums

This really makes no sense. LA has had trouble supporting one franchise.  There isn't enough support for 2.  Which ever team has more success over the next few years will emerge as team A will get the bulk of the ads and fans the other will whither and be forced to move.

Chargers in a 28,000 seat stadium for 2 years. That will be funny to see. Miami will play them in that stadium next year too.

Spano's did this to raise the value of the team so he can sell it eventually. Good move for him, feel bad for the people of San Diego, this is bad for the NFL.

LA had the second highest total attendance for home games in the league (Dallas was first).

the last home game the stadium was empty.  http://thebiglead.com/2016/12/11/los-angeles-rams-already-cant-fill-their-stadium/

There aren't enough fans to support 1 team let alone 2. And SD fans aren't driving to support an owner who just left their city. That number you are quoting was padded early season. Once the novelty wore off of having a football team back in town, people stopped going

Don't fall into that trap of how empty the stadium looks. The facts are it is a huge stadium that no one in the league would fill regularly and the last game was meaningless. It's no surprise attendance stunk, if you consider the tied for the highest attendance on week 17 stinking. You can't refute they had the second highest average in the league. Have the Rams start winning games and then let's see what happens.

I should also throw out there that the Rams regularly (throughout the season) had more fans at home games than their opponents for away games.

Football is new.  Of course they are going to do well the first few home games.  But if one team goes 11-5 and wins a playoff game, while the other goes 5-11, the weaker team is in for a lot of empty seats.  Only way both teams survive is if both teams win playoff games in the next three years, otherwise the LA equivalent of the Jets is going to have a hard time filling seats.

Everyone on the fence between the Chargers and Rams, abandons the Chargers.  I am not say zero is the right number for LA. But 2 is too many.

You guys should check out these attendance numbers so you understand who is and who isn't selling tickets. The Jets averaged the sixth highest home attendance average last year.

http://www.pro-football-reference.com/years/2016/attendance.htm

I don't disagree there either. My only argument is LA has been selling tickets at a higher pace than most of the league. People have a perception no one is going because they play in an huge stadium.

I don't know why they like to put 2 teams in the same city.  I wish they'd cut that crap out.

Big cities can support it. The league has debated  putting a 2nd team in Chicago for many years and it has never been totally off their radar. It let's them "double dip" on TV rights, one in the AFC and one in the NFC. So two networks pay bigger money to get a team in the 2nd biggest market in the country with 2 teams in LA.

The reason the NFC TV package gets more money and their Sunday pregame show gets higher ratings than the AFC is the NFC TV markets (Chicago, Philly, Dallas, Was DC, the "A" team in NYC..etc) are bigger.

While in the AFC you have smaller markets in general, (Cleveland, Pitt, Miami, the "B" team in NYC, Baltimore...etc)

Bingo. It's new and the novelty wore off. People may have bought tickets but end of the year they didn't go to the games. Next year they might not even buy them.

Two teams in this city will be a disaster. Keep an eye on the lease SD signs in LA. If its short Spanos and his family will do this to raise the value of the team, then sell it eventually and let the new owner move it to a new city (probably St.Louis or London) 

I read the other day that the population for greater LA is 18 million people, so there are enough people to support two teams.  Also, there is a pretty high percentage (25% I believe) of LA area fans that traveled to San Diego for games, so now all of those fans will have a shorter drive.  As for putting people in the seats weekly, if you have a winning, competitive team people will show up, if you stink like the Rams did this year they will stay home.  But the big thing here is that the Rams won't even care if people come to the game because the seats have already been sold.  Between PSL's, luxury boxes and corporate sponsorships the Rams made about $1 BILLION dollars by moving, not to mention the value of their franchise almost doubled.  The same will be true of the Chargers.

I think pretty much any new team can get supported if they're winning.  And they can't if they're losing.

But if the NFL makes all of the decisions about money today, it screws them in the long term.  These two-team cities always have a beloved team and a 2nd rate team.

My view point changed a bit when I saw Baba booey's post about the T.V,and NFC/AFC post.

I feel it's better for the league,as in most cases bad for the fans.I feel like more fans are probably going to be hurt than gained in this situation (SD ---> LA vs a St. Louis to LA move)

I admit, I've never been a fan of a hometown team that moved in any sport.So I struggle with how the fans of this team will react that are not in/from San Diego,as I can only base it on how I feel.I'm strange.. :D

That is not allowed on the Internet.  Please turn off your computer and do better next time.

^^^ :D

Our only examples (at least in what I call the modern NFL) have been the Giants/Jets and the Rams/Raiders. While I can agree on the past LA scenario, I don't think the Jets should be considered a second rate team in NY.  They are pretty loved by their people.

Jets are most definitely team B.  They have a long enough history and more than enough fans to sell out every game.  But they like the Mets don't have nearly the following as their big brother.  I think the only twin teams on close to equal footing is white sox and cubs.

^^^Perceptions don't fall in line with my link though. They average about 5k less people than the Giants. Maybe it is semantics but I don't consider that second rate. Obviously no one would ever average the same so one will be lower. Given that, I would call second rate in this scenario needing to be much lower then 5k a game. Give the Jets success and that number is easily passed.

Well at least the Chargers have a really cool new logo!  :D

Jets are a successful franchise but second rate.  Both are season ticket sold out so using attendance rates is misleading.  Jets have a 1-2 year waiting list for season tickets.  Giants have a 25 - 30 year waiting list.  For every person you see in NYC wearing Jets clothing you will see 15 with Giants.  Try buying a Giants tickets and Jets tickets on the secondary market.   Prices are quite different. 

I'm thinking about Lakers/Clippers, too.  As good as the Clippers are and as bad as the Lakers get, the Clippers are still a poor-man's Lakers.

The Knicks are NBA basketball, even though they are hot garbage.  Brooklyn is what's left over.

The Jets are clearly the B team in NYC and it's not even close. They played in "GIANTS STADIUM" for over 20 years and were the little brother in big brothers house. In the New Stadium the Giants called all the shots and got the "better" of everything in the deal. The Jets don't have the fan support of the Giants and its not even close.

Jets, Mets, Nets, Isles.  All are the stepchild teams.

With Rams/Raiders it was a bit different; the Rams had 30+ years to build a fanbase as LA's primary team before the Raiders arrived.  The Raiders did well in LA, but the Raiders have a weird fanbase; if they are playing well, you can put them in half the cities in the league and they would become the A team.  You would be shocked to hear how many Bay Area fans fully intend to stick with the Las Vegas Raiders.  If the Rams and Raiders had both moved back this year, the Raiders would have been the A team even if they were as bad as the Rams.

I agree based on recent history: the Rams were fine in LA until the Raiders moved into town in the 1980s, then attendances dropped so much they packed up for St Louis. While LA has enough of a population to support two teams, back then it didn't have enough die hard football fans to do it come rain or shine, success or hard times - have things changed enough for that to happen now?

Out of curiousity, anyone know what kind of fanbase/attendances the old AFL LA Chargers averaged in 1960/61 before moving to San Diego?