Again, I think the LA people are jumping in here and ignoring the context of the thread.
We were discussing the fact that in 2019, it's a whole different ballgame than the 1950s-60s when most two-franchse cities became two franchise cities. Nowadays, it would be much more difficult for any city to add a second franchise in any major sport because sports fandom is already baked into whatever franchises currently exist.
The only example of a city adding a second franchise in one of the four major leagues that we have in the past 50 years is Los Angeles adding the Charges (the Rams in this case would be the legacy team, since they were an LA team for decades before moving to St. Louis.)
It's not working out great so far, and many in the NFL offices and across the league are concerned at just how poorly it's going. It's got nothing to do with LA as a city, as it would be the same in any city. You can calm down the LA boosterism. LA is a massive market, nearly on par with New York, so if they can't add a second team in the most popular sport, no city can.
As for bringing up the raiders:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Handro
Sure, in 20 years the Chargers might be a Jacksonville-level team in terms of popularity and revenue if they have a little bit of success and maybe some luck drafting superstar QB. But I think it's pretty clear ROI would be way better for a team to be introduced to a city with no current franchise than to compete with a legacy franchise as the #2 show in town. Watch Vegas embrace the Raiders way beyond what we've seen with the Chargers in LA.
|
LA folks: Relax. Not sure if this is just insane civic pride/defensiveness gone awry or we've found some actual Los Angeles-based Chargers fans in the wild, lol.