Jacksonville Jaguars Fan Forums

Well, there's the most obvious thing we'll read today.

Everybody saw this coming, except the NFL. Not enough people in L.A. are interested in football to make it sustainable. It's been tried over and over and it never works. How many time must this experiment fail, before the NFL gets a hint?

(09-16-2017, 08:32 AM)TheO-LineMatters Wrote: [ -> ]Everybody saw this coming, except the NFL. Not enough people in L.A. are interested in football to make it sustainable. It's been tried over and over and it never works. How many time must this experiment fail, before the NFL gets a hint?

1 team with a 55k seat stadium would be fine, but nooooooo, we gotta put two teams there.  

And no one in their right mind would think that San Diegans would travel to follow the Bolts, so obviously that's the primary target market the NFL chose.

(09-16-2017, 08:56 AM)flsprtsgod Wrote: [ -> ]

(09-16-2017, 08:32 AM)TheO-LineMatters Wrote: [ -> ]Everybody saw this coming, except the NFL. Not enough people in L.A. are interested in football to make it sustainable. It's been tried over and over and it never works. How many time must this experiment fail, before the NFL gets a hint?

1 team with a 55k seat stadium would be fine, but nooooooo, we gotta put two teams there.  

And no one in their right mind would think that San Diegans would travel to follow the Bolts, so obviously that's the primary target market the NFL chose.

On top of that most NFL fans in LA support the Raiders, so the Chargers certainly were never going to be welcome additions. How many Chargers fans are old enough to remember a single season 57 years ago and still live in the area?

REALLY glad that's not our Jags playing over there now...I feel bad for Chargers fans, probably very irritable when they read something like that.

I have a good friend who lives in San Diego. Huge Chargers fan before the move. He burned all of his stuff and bought Jags gear to replace it.

Not sure the NFL truly cares as much about attendance as multiple Super Bowl weeks in L.A. That is all they care about. The teams are just a vessel for that to happen.

(09-17-2017, 09:25 AM)FBT Wrote: [ -> ]I have a good friend who lives in San Diego.  Huge Chargers fan before the move.  He burned all of his stuff and bought Jags gear to replace it.

I personally know huge Browns fans who hate the Ravens.

---

(09-17-2017, 09:56 AM)StroudCrowd1 Wrote: [ -> ]Not sure the NFL truly cares as much about attendance as multiple Super Bowl weeks in L.A. That is all they care about. The teams are just a vessel for that to happen.

What the NFL cares about is the TV market. They don't need a team in Los Angeles to put the Super Bowl there.

(09-17-2017, 09:25 AM)FBT Wrote: [ -> ]I have a good friend who lives in San Diego.  Huge Chargers fan before the move.  He burned all of his stuff and bought Jags gear to replace it.

Was it because he legitimately became a Jaguars fan, or is it because he thinks San Diego can lure the Jaguars away to San Diego in relocation?

(09-17-2017, 09:58 AM)JaguarsWoman Wrote: [ -> ]

(09-17-2017, 09:25 AM)FBT Wrote: [ -> ]I have a good friend who lives in San Diego.  Huge Chargers fan before the move.  He burned all of his stuff and bought Jags gear to replace it.

I personally know huge Browns fans who hate the Ravens.

---

(09-17-2017, 09:56 AM)StroudCrowd1 Wrote: [ -> ]Not sure the NFL truly cares as much about attendance as multiple Super Bowl weeks in L.A. That is all they care about. The teams are just a vessel for that to happen.

What the NFL cares about is the TV market. They don't need a team in Los Angeles to put the Super Bowl there.

What stadium would they use if there were no teams in LA? The Super Bowl is being held in the newest, flashiest stadiums, they're not going to hold it in the Rose Bowl.

(09-16-2017, 08:32 AM)TheO-LineMatters Wrote: [ -> ]Everybody saw this coming, except the NFL. Not enough people in L.A. are interested in football to make it sustainable. It's been tried over and over and it never works. How many time must this experiment fail, before the NFL gets a hint?

The mistake that was made at least in the short term was preventing the Raiders from moving back to LA.  They are by far the most popular team there at present.

(09-17-2017, 11:44 PM)Bchbunnie4 Wrote: [ -> ]

(09-17-2017, 09:58 AM)JaguarsWoman Wrote: [ -> ]I personally know huge Browns fans who hate the Ravens.

---

What the NFL cares about is the TV market. They don't need a team in Los Angeles to put the Super Bowl there.

What stadium would they use if there were no teams in LA? The Super Bowl is being held in the newest, flashiest stadiums, they're not going to hold it in the Rose Bowl.

The NFL rewards teams for building new stadiums by using them two years after their inaugural seasons but they still use "old" stadiums (built in the 20th century). That's beside my point though. The NFL made it clear from the start they want Los Angeles to have a team because its TV market only trails New York City.

(09-17-2017, 05:41 PM)Bullseye Wrote: [ -> ]

(09-17-2017, 09:25 AM)FBT Wrote: [ -> ]I have a good friend who lives in San Diego.  Huge Chargers fan before the move.  He burned all of his stuff and bought Jags gear to replace it.

Was it because he legitimately became a Jaguars fan, or is it because he thinks San Diego can lure the Jaguars away to San Diego in relocation?

He grew up here in Jax, but retired from the Navy out in SD and loved it there, and has lived there for a good 15 years or so.  He was always a soft Jags fan when they weren't playing the Chargers, but when the team pulled up stakes and moved to LA, he and most of his fellow fans just decided to either give up on the NFL all together, or find other teams to root for.

(09-18-2017, 12:16 AM)JaguarsWoman Wrote: [ -> ]

(09-17-2017, 11:44 PM)Bchbunnie4 Wrote: [ -> ]What stadium would they use if there were no teams in LA? The Super Bowl is being held in the newest, flashiest stadiums, they're not going to hold it in the Rose Bowl.

The NFL rewards teams for building new stadiums by using them two years after their inaugural seasons but they still use "old" stadiums (built in the 20th century). That's beside my point though. The NFL made it clear from the start they want Los Angeles to have a team because its TV market only trails New York City.

And many in LA would be quite content to remain a coveted TV market that didn't have a franchise because they got the pick of the litter in what games they could see.  That changes with 2 franchises there now.  What is as predictable as death and taxes is the fans in LA not coming out to support their home town teams.  I'm not surprised that the 2 NFL games combined this weekend didn't draw as well as one college game on Saturday.

(09-18-2017, 10:28 AM)FBT Wrote: [ -> ]

(09-18-2017, 12:16 AM)JaguarsWoman Wrote: [ -> ]The NFL rewards teams for building new stadiums by using them two years after their inaugural seasons but they still use "old" stadiums (built in the 20th century). That's beside my point though. The NFL made it clear from the start they want Los Angeles to have a team because its TV market only trails New York City.

And many in LA would be quite content to remain a coveted TV market that didn't have a franchise because they got the pick of the litter in what games they could see.  That changes with 2 franchises there now.  What is as predictable as death and taxes is the fans in LA not coming out to support their home town teams.  I'm not surprised that the 2 NFL games combined this weekend didn't draw as well as one college game on Saturday.

Yeah what was the NFL thinking? Fans in Los Angeles have been buying DirecTV and NFL Sunday Ticket for years to get their weekly dose of Raiders and Chargers games.

The last part is misleading. Stub Hub Center has only 27,000 seats.

(09-18-2017, 12:16 AM)JaguarsWoman Wrote: [ -> ]

(09-17-2017, 11:44 PM)Bchbunnie4 Wrote: [ -> ]What stadium would they use if there were no teams in LA? The Super Bowl is being held in the newest, flashiest stadiums, they're not going to hold it in the Rose Bowl.

The NFL rewards teams for building new stadiums by using them two years after their inaugural seasons but they still use "old" stadiums (built in the 20th century). That's beside my point though. The NFL made it clear from the start they want Los Angeles to have a team because its TV market only trails New York City.

But you said they could hold the SB there without having to put a team there, my point was there is no place to hold a SB in LA without there being a team there with a brand new stadium.

(09-18-2017, 11:26 AM)Bchbunnie4 Wrote: [ -> ]

(09-18-2017, 12:16 AM)JaguarsWoman Wrote: [ -> ]The NFL rewards teams for building new stadiums by using them two years after their inaugural seasons but they still use "old" stadiums (built in the 20th century). That's beside my point though. The NFL made it clear from the start they want Los Angeles to have a team because its TV market only trails New York City.

But you said they could hold the SB there without having to put a team there, my point was there is no place to hold a SB in LA without there being a team there with a brand new stadium.

Technically it is possible because there are stadiums. Obviously the NFL would have no interest in using one of them because they are all old by modern stadium standards.

(09-17-2017, 09:25 AM)FBT Wrote: [ -> ]I have a good friend who lives in San Diego.  Huge Chargers fan before the move.  He burned all of his stuff and bought Jags gear to replace it.

Damn... he had to be super pissed about his team to jump ship to our team.