Rank your city's sports teams by popularity

[DCReid]

Originally Posted by BrandonJXN

Not only that, the Rams moved to LA the very next season after they won the NFL Championship. Out of LA's major sports teams, only the Kings, Sparks, LA Galaxy, and LAFC originated and never left. Every team that played in Inglewood won a championship (except the Chargers) and the Rams are the only team win a championship in 3 different cities.

LA sports is a complicated mess but fascinating nonetheless.

Well, if coveted NYC teams like the Brookyln Dodgers and New York Baseball Giants picked up and moved, anything can happen. I could see Austin/San Antonio getting a team eventually despite the Cowboys present stranglehold on the state. Possibly will be the Chargers or Jacksonville, or even the Jets. Or maybe they will add a few more teams including Canada, Mexico and London.

[badrunner]

Originally Posted by BrandonJXN

Not only that, the Rams moved to LA the very next season after they won the NFL Championship. Out of LA's major sports teams, only the Kings, Sparks, LA Galaxy, and LAFC originated and never left. Every team that played in Inglewood won a championship (except the Chargers) and the Rams are the only team win a championship in 3 different cities.

LA sports is a complicated mess but fascinating nonetheless.

The Angels originated in LA and never left the area. The name goes all the way back to 1892. They used to play in old Wrigley Field in South LA when they were in the Pacific Coast League.

[BrandonJXN]

Originally Posted by badrunner

The Angels originated in LA and never left the area. The name goes all the way back to 1892. They used to play in old Wrigley Field in South LA when they were in the Pacific Coast League.

The Angles play in Orange County. Which they have been since 1966. Which is assuredly not Los Angeles. Only 4 teams have originated in Los Angeles and play in Los Angeles.

[rusted root]

Originally Posted by BrandonJXN

The Angles play in Orange County. Which they have been since 1966. Which is assuredly not Los Angeles. Only 4 teams have originated in Los Angeles and play in Los Angeles.

The history of baseball in California does not start with Major League Baseball.

[thoughtcriminal]

Originally Posted by rusted root

The history of baseball in California does not start with Major League Baseball.

I've often wondered how the baseball landscape would have changed had the Pacific Coast League been granted Major League status in the 1950s, like they wanted. They were granted "4A" status, meaning that they were above the triple-A level, and could draft players same as the NL and AL, but would not be considered a true major league just because the old leagues didn't want the competition. It's an interesting thought experiment.

[JHikka]

Originally Posted by DCReid

Well, if coveted NYC teams like the Brookyln Dodgers and New York Baseball Giants picked up and moved, anything can happen.

Eh, those teams moved because MLB was stuck in a situation where they had multiple teams overlapping in the same markets. It was easier (and wiser) for them to remove these options and spread teams out more evenly across the continent. Today's situations are much different.

Originally Posted by DCReid

I could see Austin/San Antonio getting a team eventually despite the Cowboys present stranglehold on the state. Possibly will be the Chargers or Jacksonville, or even the Jets. Or maybe they will add a few more teams including Canada, Mexico and London.

I'm under the assumption that if any team ends up in London it'll be Jacksonville. Both London and Mexico City are well ahead of Toronto at this point.

[Buckeye Native 001]

Didn't the Angels play their first few seasons at Dodger Stadium while Anaheim Stadium was under construction?

[BrandonJXN]

Originally Posted by Buckeye Native 001

Didn't the Angels play their first few seasons at Dodger Stadium while Anaheim Stadium was under construction?

From 1962-1965. Played in Angel Stadium onwards. They really need to be renamed the California Angels.

[thoughtcriminal]

Originally Posted by BrandonJXN

Only 4 teams have originated in Los Angeles and play in Los Angeles.

Kings, LA Galaxy, LAFC, and the Chargers?

[Crawford]

Originally Posted by DCReid

Well, if coveted NYC teams like the Brookyln Dodgers and New York Baseball Giants picked up and moved, anything can happen. I could see Austin/San Antonio getting a team eventually despite the Cowboys present stranglehold on the state. Possibly will be the Chargers or Jacksonville, or even the Jets. Or maybe they will add a few more teams including Canada, Mexico and London.

LOL, the Jets are one of the most valuable teams in the NFL. They play in the biggest market in the stadium with the highest revenue producing suites. They could go 0-17 forever and still be among the most valuable teams.

And no team is going to Canada or Mexico anytime soon. London is too far for a permanent team. No one would want to play or coach there.

Also, 1957 has no relevance to sports economics in 2022. Ancient history.

[Steely Dan]

Originally Posted by DCReid

Well, if coveted NYC teams like the Brookyln Dodgers and New York Baseball Giants picked up and moved, anything can happen

Those moves were mainly the result of MLB's stubbornness about not letting the PCL rise to major league status. They didn't want to "share" baseball with the PCL, so they shut them out and then moved those two New York teams to LA and SF to muscle the PCL out of its own territory. They were the two largest cities in the nation at the time without MLB, and their continued strong growth in the immediate postwar period meant that MLB had to find a way to bring their product to the California market.

A lot of the team reshuffling from east to west could have been avoided if MLB had simply allowed the PCL teams already in LA and the Bay Area into the big leagues.

At the time, LA had the original "Los Angeles Angels (PCL)" and the "Hollywood Stars", while the bay area had the "San Francisco Seals" and the "Oakland Oaks".

Imagine a less stubborn world where the Dodgers would've just stayed put in Brooklyn, as they should have.

[Quixote]

Originally Posted by mrnyc

a little more? we also lost the olympics to los angeles too (thats why the enormous old municipal stadium was built).

oh and we got some bengals cleveland stories in cleveland too mang.

most tortured sports city -- bar none.

Please. The Cleveland Browns were established and began playing the same year as the Rams. And for what it’s worth, they beat the LA Rams in 1950 and 1955.

And what about the Washington Red… Commanders? The originated in Boston and nearly won an NFL championship the year before they left.

[Quixote]

Originally Posted by JManc

I wonder if the Rams will actually stay in LA now. Like permanently.

Uh, yeah? The NFL prints money, and its absence from the second largest market was a missed opportunity in that sense.

LA’s also a much more passionate sports city now as the city’s demographics have shifted from the progeny of legacy white Midwestern transplants to working class and lower-middle-class Latinos (the would-be white ethnics in other cities).

The Rams are here to stay. Permanently.

[sopas ej]

Originally Posted by mrnyc

a little more? we also lost the olympics to los angeles too (thats why the enormous old municipal stadium was built).

For a while, I've been trying to find New York City's bid book/plan for its bid to host the 1984 Summer Olympics, but I've never found it.

I'm curious about it because at the time of bidding for those Games, NYC's plan was considered too expensive, so LA was chosen by the USOC to be the US candidate city. I'd like to know where the proposed venues were and what new construction would have been involved.

I think NYC has only tried twice to host a Summer Olympics, with the 2012 bid being the only time that NYC was an official Olympic candidate city.

[BrandonJXN]

Originally Posted by thoughtcriminal

Kings, LA Galaxy, LAFC, and the Chargers?

Chargers played in LA for one year before moving to San Diego...only to return.

[Quixote]

Originally Posted by BrandonJXN

Not only that, the Rams moved to LA the very next season after they won the NFL Championship. Out of LA's major sports teams, only the Kings, Sparks, LA Galaxy, and LAFC originated and never left. Every team that played in Inglewood won a championship (except the Chargers) and the Rams are the only team win a championship in 3 different cities.

LA sports is a complicated mess but fascinating nonetheless.

The Angels and Ducks are from here as well, but that’s OC.

Honestly, the only team LA “stole” was the Dodgers, who had a long and storied history in Brooklyn. That being said, the Dodgers have now spent more time in LA (63 seasons) than Brooklyn (57 seasons) going all the way back to 1901 when the AL was formed. They have 5 more seasons to play until they match the number of seasons in Brooklyn as an NL team; 12 more until they match the full 75 seasons.

The Dodgers have more World Series titles and appearances as an LA team (unlike the Giants, who took 53 seasons to win a WS as an SF team). Factoring out their Brooklyn years, they still boast more Rookie of the Year Awards (by far) and are tied for the most CY Young Awards (that’s already excluding the ones Koufax and Dryadale won in LA, because of their Brooklyn connections). And Jackie Robinson was from Pasadena (moved here when he was 1 years old; went to John Muir, PCC, and UCLA).

[Steely Dan]

^ another "unexpected" fact of the dodgers' tenure in LA: they now play in the 3rd oldest ballpark left in all of MLB, ever since the closure of the original yankee stadium (1923) in 2008.

only the two remaining truly old-school "jewel box" ballparks, fenway (1912) & wrigley (1914), are older than dodger stadium (1962).

and angel stadium (1966) down in anahiem is now the 4th oldest ballpark in all of MLB.

most people probably wouldn't expect a "new" MLB city like LA to have 2 of the 4 oldest ballparks left in all of MLB, but here we are.

[edale]

Originally Posted by Quixote

LA’s also a much more passionate sports city now as the city’s demographics have shifted from the progeny of legacy white Midwestern transplants to working class and lower-middle-class Latinos (the would-be white ethnics in other cities).

Hm, I'm not seeing this. LA has always had a huge base of working class Latinos-- I'm not sure that community is really growing as a percentage of the city or county. Also, I think a lot of recent immigrants are among the most apathetic about football. I was in Koreatown Saturday night and you would have never guessed the Super Bowl was happening down the street, or that the local team was playing. It's hard to imagine immigrants from Asia and Central America are going to be passionate LA sports fans from the jump.

Then you have transplants from all over the country who end of up in LA, but still cheer for their home teams. This helps to explain why SOFI was basically majority visiting team fans for most Rams and Chargers games. Finally, you have a huge creative and queer community in LA-- two groups not really known for their passionate sports fandom. Awards season is arguably a bigger deal in LA than any sports post-season.

Now, just based on sheer size of LA alone, you have enough of everybody to find support for most things. I don't doubt that the Rams have pretty passionate fans, and I'd imagine East and South LA are where many of those fans live. East LA's support for the Dodgers is absolutely legit-- those are some of the most passionate baseball fans I've ever encountered. But overall, I don't find the same passion for sports here as I've encountered in other cities.

[Buckeye Native 001]

Originally Posted by Steely Dan

and angel stadium (1966) down in anahiem is now the 4th oldest ballpark in all of MLB.

most people probably wouldn't expect a "new" MLB city like LA to have 2 of the 4 oldest ballparks left in all of MLB, but here we are.

Angel Stadium underwent two massive renovations, one adding seats in 1979-1980 to accommodate the Rams (for a while, it was the largest MLB ballpark by seating capacity IIRC?) and another in 1997-1998 to remove those seats.

There's parts of the stadium that feel newer than its age (seats, exterior, idiotic outfield rock formation) and other parts (the inner concourses, bathrooms and concession stands) that are straight out of 1966. Its an odd mishmash of different eras.

Dodger Stadium looks and feels like its barely been touched aside from some minor upgrades here and there. That's part of its charm.

As for the NFL, when I lived in Orange County from 2002 to 2007 it felt like the Raiders never left Southern California and there were some bandwagon Chargers fans during the Schottenheimer/Brees/Tomlinson era, but hardly any Rams fans.

[badrunner]

Originally Posted by Quixote

Uh, yeah? The NFL prints money, and its absence from the second largest market was a missed opportunity in that sense.

LA’s also a much more passionate sports city now as the city’s demographics have shifted from the progeny of legacy white Midwestern transplants to working class and lower-middle-class Latinos (the would-be white ethnics in other cities).

The Rams are here to stay. Permanently.

The entire stadium reportedly smelled like weed in the second half