(01-15-2017 11:28 PM)_C2_ Wrote:  And trust me, as a native to the Inland Empire, I know about the front running out there. The Lakers popularity is through the roof when they win but crickets chirp when they aren't great. Okay, that's exaggerating but it's not nearly as big of a following.

LA's market is so big fans can be extremely casual and it's still a better idea to be the third team there than first in, say, San Antonio. I'll add the caveat that at least one team needs to be based in Orange County if three are in the area.

You say this but ignore its impact? Or think it's meaningless? I asked what about LA'S PRO SPORTS HISTORY tells you this market can support more franchises and you reply "it's really big and has lots of wealth." Yet, the Rams were not supported. The area went without a team for two decades and Houston got an NFL franchise before LA did. The Clippers would have moved if they'd been owned by anyone but Donald Sterling (and they almost did move to OC). And the Sacramento Kings DIDN'T move to OC; they chose to stay in one of the NBA's smallest markets.

Of course, we all know LA isn't getting any more pro teams (I'll give Anaheim a tiny chance to get an NBA relocation), so take that as you will. I guess the Chargers will give you a more clear-cut answer.

(01-15-2017 11:28 PM)_C2_ Wrote:  And trust me, as a native to the Inland Empire, I know about the front running out there. The Lakers popularity is through the roof when they win but crickets chirp when they aren't great. Okay, that's exaggerating but it's not nearly as big of a following.

LA's market is so big fans can be extremely casual and it's still a better idea to be the third team there than first in, say, San Antonio. I'll add the caveat that at least one team needs to be based in Orange County if three are in the area.

You say this but ignore its impact? Or think it's meaningless? I asked what about LA'S PRO SPORTS HISTORY tells you this market can support more franchises and you reply "it's really big and has lots of wealth." Yet, the Rams were not supported. The area went without a team for two decades and Houston got an NFL franchise before LA did. The Clippers would have moved if they'd been owned by anyone but Donald Sterling (and they almost did move to OC). And the Sacramento Kings DIDN'T move to OC; they chose to stay in one of the NBA's smallest markets.

Of course, we all know LA isn't getting any more pro teams (I'll give Anaheim a tiny chance to get an NBA relocation), so take that as you will. I guess the Chargers will give you a more clear-cut answer.

It's crazy to me that the clippers share an arena with the lakers, almost as crazy as the selling price for the clippers. The msft guy should buy the ducks and move the clippers to share an home with them.

(01-15-2017 11:28 PM)_C2_ Wrote:  As I said, put a team in New Jersey and New York could be split 3 ways. As far as baseball goes, it's the easiest sport to create new fans. Pre-existing loyalties are harder to break but as long as you place the park in a neighborhood with lots of people and some level of money, it will do fine. You need to create a ballpark culture where people get in the routine of showing up 80+ nights a year and have fun, regardless of whether they are big baseball fans or not. Make them build a bond with the team and stadium experience (especially young kids) and it won't matter how long and established any other team is.

LA has a lot of neighborhoods and especially beach towns where this could work and I know lots of people that hate Chavez Ravine, especially driving there and the traffic. Orange County is Orange County (many in LA bat their eye toward them), so another LA area team could work imo.

Respectfully disagree. Broadcasting rights have been well established for long enough that most potential markets are already committed to a team, like Charlotte for the Braves. Then you have teams that have been there for decades now, yet still struggle to outshine a cross-town organization (Mets and A's) or haven't had much success as the sole team in a smaller market (Brewers and Mariners).

That's not to say a third New York or LA area team wouldn't work necessarily, but it's very difficult to grow a fan base overnight. If a new team arrived there around the same time the Dodgers and Angels both became annual World Series contenders, they'd be screwed from the start. Even if both of them sucked and the new team was really good from the beginning, they'd just be winning over nearby fans in Riverside, not the hardcore Dodger faithful. And from the MLB's perspective, they'll never want to add a third team to a large market with the can of worms it opens with TV rights, they'd be much better off going somewhere with a preexisting fan base (Montreal) or a city without one clear favorite team (San Antonio, unless they like the Rangers or Astros more than I know about).

The NFL is on the opposite end from baseball because their franchises are by far the least reliant on the local market for revenue, given how they only have eight home games and sixteen overall to market to. But at a certain point it's bad for the league's image when you shove teams into markets they don't belong, like that awkward season the Titans had in Memphis or next season when the StubHub Center is painted silver and black.

(01-16-2017 09:52 AM)Brookes Owl Wrote:  You say this but ignore its impact? Or think it's meaningless? I asked what about LA'S PRO SPORTS HISTORY tells you this market can support more franchises and you reply "it's really big and has lots of wealth." Yet, the Rams were not supported. The area went without a team for two decades and Houston got an NFL franchise before LA did. The Clippers would have moved if they'd been owned by anyone but Donald Sterling (and they almost did move to OC). And the Sacramento Kings DIDN'T move to OC; they chose to stay in one of the NBA's smallest markets.

Of course, we all know LA isn't getting any more pro teams (I'll give Anaheim a tiny chance to get an NBA relocation), so take that as you will. I guess the Chargers will give you a more clear-cut answer.

The ink was dry for the Sacramento Kings to become the Anaheim Royals but politics by the NBA and a last ditch effort for a new arena by Kevin Johnson (yes, the former NBA player, who was mayor until last month) kept them there. They filed for a trademark of the name Anaheim Royals, who does that unless they're serious?

I'm not saying it would be wise to put 3 teams in LA or New York but it could be very viable. It's not as black and white as just saying "they already have two long established teams, no more will ever gain a foothold." That said, it's important to make sure regions are taken care of rather jamming them in the same arena/stadium or even city. I think the reason the New York hockey setup works so well is because each team represents a portion of the area, the Rangers for NYC, the Islanders for Long Island and the Devils for New Jersey.

(01-16-2017 03:29 PM)_C2_ Wrote:  They filed for a trademark of the name Anaheim Royals, who does that unless they're serious?

Do you know how much a trademark costs?

My point is that they had one foot out the door.

(01-13-2017 11:13 AM)bluesox Wrote:  The Anaheim angles might want a new stadium

Angles? Aren't there enough teams named after Caucasian ethnic groups and people (Fighting Irish, Vikings, Celtics, Trojans, Gaels, Scots, Blue Devils etc...)?