2007-07-07 08:15:38 · 17 answers · asked by eldeseo 7 in Sports ➔ Football (American)
Preface all of this by saying that I am a HUGE football fan!
The city won't be held hostage by owners demanding big $$$$ for stadium upgrades, and the people who live here have kinda become used to it. There are sooooo many things to do that not having a game to go to on Sundays doesn't seem all that bad any more. A bad taste was left in our mouths after the Rams and Raiders. And it is not like we are football deprived. There are two good college programs in the city, the Chargers are just a couple hours away (less of a drive than many Green Bay/Denver/Dallas/Pittsburg fans make), and the 49ers and Raiders just a few hours up the coast. Plus we get all the games on T.V. The public outcry is not there.
Besides, some would argue that having USC is almost like having a pro team.
2007-07-07 08:54:34 · answer #1 · answered by USCCruiser 2 · 1⤊ 0⤋
Lack of support. Neither the Rams, nor the Raiders could make a go of it. And yes, they were good. The L.A. Raiders won 2 Super Bowls and were not a joke when AL figured he could make more money being in the poor part of San Fran than in L.A.
The L.A. Rams went to (but lost) the Super Bowl in 1980 although they were down for 4 years before the move and the fairweather LA "fans" abandoned them.
I pity the people of Cleveland, Baltimore, Houston, and St Louis, but LA brought it on itself.
The expansion team, or whomever goes there, should be league owned. It will be a loss leader.
2007-07-07 17:18:00 · answer #2 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
YES. L.A. REFUSES to support a team when they have one. The Raiders were playing in an aging LA Coliseum and nothing would be done about building a new stadium and the Rams, well no one would show up either way. So the Raiders went back to Oakland and the Rams went to St. Louis. There was a time when the Seahawks were going to move there, but Paul Allen bought them while the Commish was trying to block the move.
2007-07-07 16:07:39 · answer #3 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 0⤋
The Rams did well there but the Raiders couldn't really do well there so they went back to Oakland where they started. It may be that Los Angeles would be better classified as a college town, which means that they are more interested in college sports than professional with the exception being basketball.
2007-07-07 17:12:43 · answer #4 · answered by Jeffrey W 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋
TI don't buy the fact that the reason why they have no team there is because there is so much other things to do in certain cities,because look at Birmingham,AL. There is not that much else outside of Auburn and Alabama football and they have no team.If that was the case then what other place would you want you have Birmingham,Louisville,Jackson,Miss.;Lincoln,Neb.several other cities that support football but have no team.Los Angles just won't support a pro team.College football dictates the attention of the fans now.
2007-07-07 16:26:58 · answer #5 · answered by BEJEWELED 5 · 0⤊ 0⤋
I am a die hard Rams fan. As a kid, I went to nearly every Rams home game in the 70s in LA and 80s in OC. But I have to say, SoCal has some of the worst fans in the world. They do NOT get behind their team like in other areas (Green Bay, Denver, KC, Chicago).
One theory is that there is so much else to do in Southern California. (What else, other than tipping cows, are you going to do in Green Bay in the Fall/Winter). The NFL has to compete with Disneyland, The Beach, Snow Skiing, Hollywood, Traffic, and the list goes on. So they have re-established teams in Houston and Cleavland because those people will pay to see a game even if their team sucks.
You do not see to many people planning their vacations to Houston or Cleavland do you? I live in Las Vegas now. Our Mayor has been trying to get a Professional team here for years. But MLB, NBA and/or NFL do not want to compete with all that there is to do here.
2007-07-07 15:31:33 · answer #6 · answered by Adrenaline Junky 2 · 0⤊ 1⤋
Last I heard was that the city/county refuses to levy public taxes to pay to upgrade/rebuild the Coliseum, which the NFL views as substandard for a NFL team. Add to that the fact that LA drove the Raiders back to Oakland. I do not see a team there anytime soon.
2007-07-07 15:27:33 · answer #7 · answered by somathus 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
LA has never been a great NFL sports town. The Rams, the Raiders and the Chargers all left LA for better places.
2007-07-07 16:05:43 · answer #8 · answered by Tommy 7 · 1⤊ 0⤋
From what I have learned from friends who live in LA is that the "City of Angels" is a basketball town, and the people there don't really get behind football.
2007-07-07 15:42:24 · answer #9 · answered by None Profound 5 · 5⤊ 0⤋
Because they need a new stadium, Or they could renew the coliseum but, City officials really haven't made any plans in either direction.
2007-07-07 16:10:12 · answer #10 · answered by ? 5 · 0⤊ 0⤋