Quote:Los Angeles would hate to be lumped in with half a state. We wouldn't stand for it.
My line of thinking is because the University of Southern California has historically been the most popular College Football team in the Los Angeles area, I think that the segment of the population that are USC fans would react favorable to the name Southern California Chargers. Granted, it would probably turn off UCLA fans. Yet, in terms of keeping as many San Diego Chargers fans from abandoning the team and attracting the USC fans, it's a name that should at the very least be test marketed.
Quote:My line of thinking is because the University of Southern California has historically been the most popular College Football team in the Los Angeles area, I think that the segment of the population that are USC fans would react favorable to the name Southern California Chargers. Granted, it would probably turn off UCLA fans. Yet, in terms of keeping as many San Diego Chargers fans from abandoning the team and attracting the USC fans, it's a name that should at the very least be test marketed.
I do respect your opinion. But in reality, it would not be correct. USC fans are mostly Dodgers fans as well. They hate the fact that the Angels try to market the LA area when in fact they are not from there.
Moreover, USC is actually in Los Angeles, while UCLA is not.. They would not like the "Souther California" title for an NFL team.
Also, USC fans are mostly Raider fans anyway.
Quote:I do respect your opinion. But in reality, it would not be correct. USC fans are mostly Dodgers fans as well. They hate the fact that the Angels try to market the LA area when in fact they are not from there.
Moreover, USC is actually in Los Angeles, while UCLA is not.. They would not like the "Souther California" title for an NFL team.
I certainly respect your opinion. Being that you are much more familiar with the Los Angeles area than I am, it wouldn't surprise me if I am off base on this.
While Pasadena isn't technically in Los Angeles, being that it's so close to LA, isn't the perception that it's much more associated with LA than the city of Anaheim?
Quote:I certainly respect your opinion. Being that you are much more familiar with the Los Angeles area than I am, it wouldn't surprise me if I am off base on this.
While Pasadena isn't technically in Los Angeles, being that it's so close to LA, isn't the perception that it's much more associated with LA than the city of Anaheim?
D6. Sorry if I'm not comprehending, can you re-phrase your question?
Quote:D6. Sorry if I'm not comprehending, can you re-phrase your question?
No problem.
Pasadena is much closer to the city of Los Angeles than Anaheim from a geographic standpoint. As a result of Pasadena being so close to LA mileage wise, isn't Pasadena often associated with Los Angeles?
Because Anaheim is in Orange County and a much greater distance from LA, I can understand why the Anaheim Angels changing their name to the Los Angeles Angels of Anaheim wasn't a popular decision in Orange County or in the much more immediate LA area.
Quote: No problem.
Pasadena is much closer to the city of Los Angeles than Anaheim from a geographic standpoint. As a result of Pasadena being so close to LA mileage wise, isn't Pasadena often associated with Los Angeles?
Because Anaheim is in Orange County and a much greater distance from LA, I can understand why the Anaheim Angels changing their name to the Los Angeles Angels of Anaheim wasn't a popular decision in Orange County or in the much more immediate LA area.
Yes Pasadena is associated with Los Angeles.. Literally takes me 7 min(I've timed lol) to Dodger Stadium and just under 15 min to Staples Center via the 110 freeway. Of course that's without traffic.
I understand what you are saying in terms of team name. "What would be wrong with claiming a whole area so everyone San Diego to Los Angeles alike will be happy" (at least that's how I was interpreting it).
The problem lies in terms of how prideful LA is. They didn't wait this long to "share" a team. They want a team that they can call their own. The CALIFORNIA (place team name here) would not fly.
Most Angel fans and Dodger fans hate that the Angels are called The Los Angeles Angels of Anaheim.
Lol in fact, the Dodgers sell a shirt at games that says "The Los Angeles Dodgers of Los Angeles" lol. Kind of a backhand to the Angels.
Quote:Yes Pasadena is associated with Los Angeles.. Literally takes me 7 min(I've timed lol) to Dodger Stadium and just under 15 min to Staples Center via the 110 freeway. Of course that's without traffic.
I understand what you are saying in terms of team name. "What would be wrong with claiming a whole area so everyone San Diego to Los Angeles alike will be happy" (at least that's how I was interpreting it).
The problem lies in terms of how prideful LA is. They didn't wait this long to "share" a team. They want a team that they can call their own. The CALIFORNIA (place team name here) would not fly.
Most Angel fans and Dodger fans hate that the Angels are called The Los Angeles Angels of Anaheim.
Lol in fact, the Dodgers sell a shirt at games that says "The Los Angeles Dodgers of Los Angeles" lol. Kind of a backhand to the Angels.
Thanks for your additional input.
What you mentioned is something the Chargers ownership should seriously look at before making the commitment to move to Carson. CA. I truly believe that there goal would be to keep a large portion of their fan base in the San Diego area, as well as build on their fan base in the Los Angeles area.
Interestingly, the New York Islanders could have a similar problem when they move from Nassau County, Long Island to the Borough of Brooklyn for the 2015-16 NHL season. Which is a MUCH closer distance than San Diego is to Carson, CA. The Islanders ownership wants to keep their fan base from Long Island and Queens but build their fan base in Brooklyn. If they keep the New York Islanders name, they aren't going to attract many people from Brooklyn, which has been Rangers territory for generations. If they change the name to Brooklyn Islanders, they are going to lose many of their current fans.
Quote:Thanks for your additional input.
What you mentioned is something the Chargers ownership should seriously look at before making the commitment to move to Carson. CA. I truly believe that there goal would be to keep a large portion of their fan base in the San Diego area, as well as build on their fan base in the Los Angeles area.
Interestingly, the New York Islanders could have a similar problem when they move from Nassau County, Long Island to the Borough of Brooklyn for the 2015-16 NHL season. Which is a MUCH closer distance than San Diego is to Carson, CA. The Islanders ownership wants to keep their fan base from Long Island and Queens but build their fan base in Brooklyn. If they keep the New York Islanders name, they aren't going to attract many people from Brooklyn, which has been Rangers territory for generations. If they change the name to Brooklyn Islanders, they are going to lose many of their current fans.
First, Brooklyn is still on Long Island, and still part of New York State, so NY Islanders works.
The problem with LA Chargers/Raiders in Carson is more like:
Orchard park to buffalo 16.6 miles
Arlington to Dallas 21 miles away
Santa Clara to San Francisco 45 miles
East rutherford NEW JERSEY to New York City 14 miles... and another state
How is a team in Carson 18 miles from Downtown really any different, call them LA.
Quote:Thanks for your additional input.
What you mentioned is something the Chargers ownership should seriously look at before making the commitment to move to Carson. CA. I truly believe that there goal would be to keep a large portion of their fan base in the San Diego area, as well as build on their fan base in the Los Angeles area.
Interestingly, the New York Islanders could have a similar problem when they move from Nassau County, Long Island to the Borough of Brooklyn for the 2015-16 NHL season. Which is a MUCH closer distance than San Diego is to Carson, CA. The Islanders ownership wants to keep their fan base from Long Island and Queens but build their fan base in Brooklyn. If they keep the New York Islanders name, they aren't going to attract many people from Brooklyn, which has been Rangers territory for generations. If they change the name to Brooklyn Islanders, they are going to lose many of their current fans.
Moving to Los Angeles and keeping the San Diego fan base is going to be hard to do.
A lot of Charger fans will be salty about the move.
I think its pretty far to consider it a fan base when its 2 hours away.
I could be wrong.
Even thought i am not a Rams,Raiders,Chargers fan................ IMO i think the Rams coming back makes the most sense. Then the Raiders, then Chargers.
However
when the Rams do get to LA, I'm going to predict the Raiders are going to start focusing on San Antonio. Kinda makes sense with the rumors and silver and black theme (Spurs).
Quote:First, Brooklyn is still on Long Island, and still part of New York State, so NY Islanders works.
The problem with LA Chargers/Raiders in Carson is more like:
Orchard park to buffalo 16.6 miles
Arlington to Dallas 21 miles away
Santa Clara to San Francisco 45 miles
East rutherford NEW JERSEY to New York City 14 miles... and another state
How is a team in Carson 18 miles from Downtown really any different, call them LA.
Brooklyn is technically ( geographically ) on Long Island. But it's not associated with Long Island. If Islanders ownership thinks that they are going to capture most of the sports base in Brooklyn without the name Brooklyn associated with the team, they are in for a reality check. Much like going back to the New York Nets name would have failed when the team moved from New Jersey to Brooklyn a few seasons ago, instead of doing what was necessary, changing the name to Brooklyn Nets. While the franchise is now struggling on the court, off the court they went from the bottom of the heap to a top 5 revenue team largely because of the move AND name of the team becoming Brooklyn.
In essence, the point of all of this related to the discussion is that it illustrates the situation the Chargers will deal with if they move to Carson, CA. or anywhere else in the Los Angeles area. Teal Curtain brought up great points that I wasn't aware of regarding the LA market. But because the Chargers are much more popular in San Diego than the Nets were in New Jersey, the downside from a San Diego standpoint of changing the name of the team to Los Angeles, instead of Southern California, is much greater than in the case of the Nets. If the Chargers are called the Los Angeles Chargers, that will signify to me that they are looking for the Los Angeles market to eventually become the vast majority of their fan base in California.