stevieboy247 42 Posted May 31, 2014 Share Posted May 31, 2014 I've decided to come up with a thread regarding Los Angeles and its failures to bring the National Football League back to the second-largest media market in the United States. As many of you know, I was born and raised in Los Angeles, and I'm very familiar with the lack of an NFL team in Los Angeles, which has been going on for almost 20 years and counting. Ever since the Raiders and Rams left town, the city has failed in every capacity to bring an NFL team to town. It was announced recently that the Bills plan to stay in Buffalo and build a new arena. The St. Louis Rams, Minnesota Vikings, San Diego Chargers, and Jacksonville Jaguars are already out of the picture since they have plans to stay put in their respective cities and build new arenas in the process. You got the Oakland Raiders as a possibility, but I really don't see them returning to the city. So my opinion on all this is that although I would love to see the NFL return to L.A., I think it's going to be a very long time before Los Angeles ever has any chance of getting an NFL team. A league expansion is possible, but I don't think Commissioner Roger Goodell will consider that anytime soon. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
justin2kx 229 Posted May 31, 2014 Share Posted May 31, 2014 my question to you Stevieboy247 and anyone from LA or with knowledge for that matter, just read the article from chicagoland radio and media about ratings for blackhawks and kings game 5. Stated in the article was highlighted as this: "The Chicago Blackhawks beat the Los Angeles Kings Wednesday night by one goal in a thrilling double overtime game. It may only have been a narrow victory on the ice, but Chicago trounced Los Angeles in television ratings. In Chicago, the NBCSN broadcast had an average rating of 16.3 (approximately 570,500 households) -- the second highest rating of any NHL Western Conference Final game in Chicago TV history. At its peak, the Chicago audience blew up to a 22.9 rating (approximately 801,500 households). However, in Los Angeles, the game only drew a lousy 3.0 rating (approximately 168,000 households in that market). LA may be TV market #2, but when it comes to sports watching, that market is not even in the top 10. LA is a notoriously poor sports town -- one that cannot even support an NFL franchise, the country's #1 sport in ratings and revenue. Nationwide, it is estimated by Nielsen ratings that 2.175 million viewers watched Wednesday's Blackhawks/Kings contest, meaning that well over one-third of the entire U.S. audience came from Chicago televisions. Which team does NBC Television and the NHL hopes wins this series? The numbers speak for themselves. source: http://chicagoradioandmedia.com/news/6579-news-notes-chicago-blackhawks-ron-magers-mike-tera-barz-b96-dance-factory-wfmt-rivet-news-radio-much-more Granted the kings are NOT the lakers or dodgers, but is LA really a 'notoriously poor sports town'? And how? One with the legacy of the 'showtime' lakers and shaq and kobe era and the fernando valenzuela and kirk gibson respective eras of the dodgers not to mention pete carroll's USC run in Y2K would prove otherwise. Or is there a lot of 'bandwagoners' in LA sports (like for the kings now) that makes it notorious for the sports town? PS: anyone has the list of the top sports watching cities in the US? what's #1? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
24994J 5275 Posted May 31, 2014 Share Posted May 31, 2014 PS: anyone has the list of the top sports watching cities in the US? what's #1? For major markets (sorry, Green Bay isn't an acurate sample size), I would go with Chicago and Boston, giving the latter the edge. I remember that, despite the strong Chicago numbers, Boston drew huge numbers for last year's NHL Finals. Throw in the Pats and the Sox, and Boston seems like the logical choice. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ns8401 846 Posted May 31, 2014 Share Posted May 31, 2014 my question to you Stevieboy247 and anyone from LA or with knowledge for that matter, just read the article from chicagoland radio and media about ratings for blackhawks and kings game 5. Stated in the article was highlighted as this: "The Chicago Blackhawks beat the Los Angeles Kings Wednesday night by one goal in a thrilling double overtime game. It may only have been a narrow victory on the ice, but Chicago trounced Los Angeles in television ratings. In Chicago, the NBCSN broadcast had an average rating of 16.3 (approximately 570,500 households) -- the second highest rating of any NHL Western Conference Final game in Chicago TV history. At its peak, the Chicago audience blew up to a 22.9 rating (approximately 801,500 households). However, in Los Angeles, the game only drew a lousy 3.0 rating (approximately 168,000 households in that market). LA may be TV market #2, but when it comes to sports watching, that market is not even in the top 10. LA is a notoriously poor sports town -- one that cannot even support an NFL franchise, the country's #1 sport in ratings and revenue. Nationwide, it is estimated by Nielsen ratings that 2.175 million viewers watched Wednesday's Blackhawks/Kings contest, meaning that well over one-third of the entire U.S. audience came from Chicago televisions. Which team does NBC Television and the NHL hopes wins this series? The numbers speak for themselves. source: http://chicagoradioandmedia.com/news/6579-news-notes-chicago-blackhawks-ron-magers-mike-tera-barz-b96-dance-factory-wfmt-rivet-news-radio-much-more Granted the kings are NOT the lakers or dodgers, but is LA really a 'notoriously poor sports town'? And how? One with the legacy of the 'showtime' lakers and shaq and kobe era and the fernando valenzuela and kirk gibson respective eras of the dodgers not to mention pete carroll's USC run in Y2K would prove otherwise. Or is there a lot of 'bandwagoners' in LA sports (like for the kings now) that makes it notorious for the sports town? PS: anyone has the list of the top sports watching cities in the US? what's #1? LA has always had a sort of aloof nature to it's sports followings, outside of the Lakers and lately the Kings, what teams are regularly so good they require a diehard lifetime following? Lakers - Yes LA Kings - Only lately Clippers - No Angels - No Dodgers - Yes Outside of the Lakers and Dodgers current LA teams are not blazingly successful historiacally. Even if we broaden this out to include all of California: Raiders - No 49ers - Yes Sharks - Yes A's - Maybe Sacramento Kings - No Warriors - No SF Giants - Yes Ducks - No So 5 of the 13 teams in the state are worth worrying about year in and year out as far as following them. It's a surprisingly bad track record for such a large pool of teams, if it wasn't for the 49er's and the Lakers, I'm not sure the teams would have 13 titles. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WCAUTVNBC10 408 Posted May 31, 2014 Share Posted May 31, 2014 Philadelphia, NY, Boston and DC along with Chicago and Pittsburgh I would say shape out a list of top sports watching markets (in no particular order). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ns8401 846 Posted May 31, 2014 Share Posted May 31, 2014 Philadelphia, NY, Boston and DC along with Chicago and Pittsburgh I would say shape out a list of top sports watching markets (in no particular order). I wonder how Detroit does? The tigers are the most watched team in baseball ratings wise in the league for example, we have to be in there somewhere too. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jess 1110 Posted June 1, 2014 Share Posted June 1, 2014 If we're talking top sports towns, I'd say New York, Philadelphia, Boston, Chicago, SF/Bay Area, and Detroit, though not necessarily in that order. I don't really consider DC a big sports town with the exception of The NFL Franchise That Plays There. In fact, I think each town has certain sports they're into. New York is baseball/football. Philly is football/baseball/hockey/pro wrestling. Boston has the Red Sox and Celtics, and more recently the Patriots. Chicago = Cubs, Bears, and Blackhawks. The Bay Area has two historically successful baseball teams and two of the greatest NFL franchises ever. Detroit is hockeytown. LA is different, I think, because it's built around the entertainment industry. I've always found that market to be kind of... well, incredibly odd. There's a certain tone to their newscasts and coverage that I can't quite put my finger on. Maybe you'd call it tabloid, but I've seen footage of LA TV and NYC TV from the late 70s/early 80s and there is a clear difference. And yes, they seem to be less focused on sports than they are on showbiz. I think that's one of the things that makes the TWC Dodgers channel such a dumb move as well... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
24994J 5275 Posted June 2, 2014 Share Posted June 2, 2014 Seems a little relevant to this topic... [twitter]RaferWeigel/statuses/473251901526392832[/twitter] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.