A Team In LA

[K-9]

I've read several posts about how the NFL wants a team in LA because of the size of the TV market. The NFL may want it for that reason, but the networks that shell out billions of dollars in broadcast rights don't necessarily feel the same way.

 

There is a problem with the LA football TV market. Simply put, it historically doesn't draw a big enough audience share for the TV execs to sport wood about. When a home team routinely places third in the ratings during it's time slot, which is precisely what occurred in LA when it had teams, good or bad, then it's not as attractive to LOCAL advertisers, i.e the network affiliates. And that is the driving engine for TV revenues. Simply put, if an advertiser in LA can get more exposure running an ad during reruns of Dallas for FAR FAR less than it costs to run the ads during an NFL broadcast of the local team, well what would you do?

 

This audience indifference to NFL football is evident in the number of fans disguised as empty seats in the stadiums. Yes. LA has it's hardcore fan base, but unlike those fan bases in other cities that capture huge audience share during telecasts, there simply aren't enough in LA to go around.

 

It's great to be located in the second largest TV market country but not when that second largest TV market has lower ratings than 32nd largest TV market during football telecasts. It's about percentages, not gross numbers.

 

LA may very well get a new team. But the league will make extraordinary concessions to the networks for the television rights. And THAT will have a ripple effect that the owners aren't too happy about. Otherwise, there would be a team there already.

 

GO BILLS!!!

[whatutalkinbout?]

I've read several posts about how the NFL wants a team in LA because of the size of the TV market. The NFL may want it for that reason, but the networks that shell out billions of dollars in broadcast rights don't necessarily feel the same way.

 

There is a problem with the LA football TV market. Simply put, it historically doesn't draw a big enough audience share for the TV execs to sport wood about. When a home team routinely places third in the ratings during it's time slot, which is precisely what occurred in LA when it had teams, good or bad, then it's not as attractive to LOCAL advertisers, i.e the network affiliates. And that is the driving engine for TV revenues. Simply put, if an advertiser in LA can get more exposure running an ad during reruns of Dallas for FAR FAR less than it costs to run the ads during an NFL broadcast of the local team, well what would you do?

 

This audience indifference to NFL football is evident in the number of fans disguised as empty seats in the stadiums. Yes. LA has it's hardcore fan base, but unlike those fan bases in other cities that capture huge audience share during telecasts, there simply aren't enough in LA to go around.

 

It's great to be located in the second largest TV market country but not when that second largest TV market has lower ratings than 32nd largest TV market during football telecasts. It's about percentages, not gross numbers.

 

LA may very well get a new team. But the league will make extraordinary concessions to the networks for the television rights. And THAT will have a ripple effect that the owners aren't too happy about. Otherwise, there would be a team there already.

 

GO BILLS!!!

472990[/snapback]

 

 

 

You're right, it is about percentages. But national advertisers care about national ratings. Buffalo is not even close to big enough to move the needle on that front.

 

LA is home to 5% of the nations television viewers. The LA DMA (designated market area) is about 5.5 Million. Buffalo's DMA is about 600,00. A forty rating (a HUGE number) means about 250,000 people tuned into a given game in Buffalo. LA averaged an 8.3 rating WITHOUT a team last year. That's 450,000 viewers and they're not even trying. The numbers are not going down with a team there...no matter how apathetic you believe the sports fans in LA to be. Hypothetically, lets say that the ratings only doubled. That would mean about seven hundred thousand more viewers for an LA team than Buffalo can provide in it's best week. That's with a measly sixteen percent of the television watching universe in LA.

 

I don't know what kind of concessions the NFL would have to make to the Networks. A team in LA, without a doubt, means higher ad revenue for the networks. It's a no brainer. NFL broadcast rights tend to be sort of a loss leader for the networks anyway. They use the games to promote their other programming.

 

Besides what owner wouldn't want to be in LA. All that corporate revenue? The bigger pool of potential merchandise buyers? A high income market?

 

Bottom line...There will be a team in LA. It will be good business for the NFL. It could be very bad for Western New Yorkers.

[AKC]

Problem #1 is that no responsible parent would take their family to a South Central LA game in the Coliseum. A USC player during practice a few years back was shot there by a stray bullet flying around the neighborhood.

 

One of the LA Councilman, Mark Ridley Thomas, has effectively blocked every other viable option to using the Coliseum since he insists any team end up in his district, and in LA politics each councilman is like his own little dictator- the mayor here is an ornament.

 

Once again the Coliseum of late has become the "front-runner" for any NFL relocation/expansion. And I can tell you as a resident for 20 years there's no way they'll do any better considering how awful the surrounding neighborhoods to the Coliseum are, Fort USC offering no indication of what you're up against when you travel to South Central LA. It's like building a windowless restaurant on top of a landfill and wondering why no one wants a window seat.

[dave mcbride]

Problem #1 is that no responsible parent would take their family to a South Central LA game in the Coliseum. A USC player during practice a few years back was shot there by a stray bullet flying around the neighborhood.

 

One of the LA Councilman, Mark Ridley Thomas, has effectively blocked every other viable option to using the Coliseum since he insists any team end up in his district, and in LA politics each councilman is like his own little dictator- the mayor here is an ornament.

 

Once again the Coliseum of late has become the "front-runner" for any NFL relocation/expansion. And I can tell you as a resident for 20 years there's no way they'll do any better considering how awful the surrounding neighborhoods to the Coliseum are, Fort USC offering no indication of what you're up against when you travel to South Central LA. It's like building a windowless restaurant on top of a  landfill and wondering why no one wants a window seat.

473075[/snapback]

 

i lived in LA for 8 years (1990-98), and crime overall has declined since then. while i was there, i went to a couple of raiders games and a couple/few clippers games and never had a problem. if the coliseum is such an obstacle, then how come usc attracted 90,221 fans to an early midseason game against a middling opponent? also, usc is very close by, and its location hasn't stopped rich parents from sending their kids there in droves -- applications have gone way up in the past few years. i've been there a few times, and it's basically fine. yeah, there's more crime there than pasadena (although maybe not south pasadena), but the nfl will never get a new stadium in pasadena (and that's a good thing). basically, i think you're exaggerating how bad it is. as i recall, the coliseum is not even really in south central, which is a defined neighborhood. it's north of it by a little bit, i think.

[The Dean]

Just to clarify a few things:

 

The way FOX and CBS make most of their $ on the NFL is through ad sales at the local stations they own. (The networks usually lose $ on the NFL deal.) Both networks own big stations in LA. The question is (or one of the questions is), can they make more $ selling the local LA team, but losing the number of games they can sell? Right now, LA stations have no blackouts and fewer restrictions on game carriage than stations in markets with an NFL team.

[obie_wan]

Just to clarify a few things:

 

The way FOX and CBS make most of their $ on the NFL is through ad sales at the local stations they own.  (The networks usually lose $ on the NFL deal.)  Both networks own big stations in LA.  The question is (or one of the questions is), can they make more $ selling the local LA team, but losing the number of games they can sell?  Right now, LA stations have no blackouts and fewer restrictions on game carriage than stations in markets with an NFL team.

473195[/snapback]

 

you are correct.

 

They can pick the best game to televise each week and are not subject to the inevitable black outs if there was a home team.

 

LA will be used only as leverage to extort new stadiums in existing NFL cities.

[whatutalkinbout?]

you are correct.

 

They can pick the best game to televise each week and are not subject to the inevitable black outs if there was a home team.

 

LA will be used only as leverage to extort new stadiums in existing NFL cities.

473223[/snapback]

 

 

I'm going to disagree. Carrying the games of a home team creates a revenue stream that the affiliate would not have otherwise. Once the passion of a local fan base is added to the mix, advertising sales become based much less on the numbers (cost per rating point, cost per thousand viewers) and much more visceral. The affiliates can charge more regardless of ratings based on an increased demand. And that's a fact. And facts can be used to prove

 

And you're right, from what I know the nets do lose money on the NFL. Although, I'd have to be an idiot to believe that they don't make it up somehow. A major reason the networks spend billions of dollars on the NFL is to promote their other programming. A home team in the country's second biggest market (assuming increased ratings) would provide a much better outlet for promotion. If the networks are whining about a team in LA it is simply posturing. Overall it makes good business sense.

 

Then you have to wonder why an owner in another market, say New Orleans or Buffalo, with about one tenth the population of LA wouldn't want to move their team. Think about it. While everyone in the NFL is profitable, teams in big markets are making a lot more money than teams in small markets. Why? Local media deals, luxury boxes, and corporate sponsorship are a few reasons. These are worth much more money in LA than in Buffalo.

 

One more thing. Yes, the NFL has used LA to leverage new deals in other cities. However, a team moving to LA will not stop this. It will only fuel it. People in Buffalo/New Orleans/Jacksonville/whatever will feel even more vulnerable. "Hey it happened to New Orleans/Buffalo/Jacksonville, it could happen to us" will be the prevailing thinking. And there's plenty of markets that'll take one of these teams. Portland, San Antonio, Vegas, or others will all line up to put the pressure on the market that won't pony up.

 

It's a tangled web.

[AKC]

i lived in LA for 8 years (1990-98), and crime overall has declined since then. while i was there, i went to a couple of raiders games and a couple/few clippers games and never had a problem. if the coliseum is such an obstacle, then how come usc attracted 90,221 fans to an early midseason game against a middling opponent? also, usc is very close by, and its location hasn't stopped rich parents from sending their kids there in droves -- applications have gone way up in the past few years. i've been there a few times, and it's basically fine. yeah, there's more crime there than pasadena (although maybe not south pasadena), but the nfl will never get a new stadium in pasadena (and that's a good thing). basically, i think you're exaggerating how bad it is. as i recall, the coliseum is not even really in south central, which is a defined neighborhood. it's north of it by a little bit, i think.

473150[/snapback]

 

The general boundaries of South Central are not the old South Central neighborhood that ran three or four blocks of Central Ave., instead from MLK Blvd. south to Imperial Highway and from Western to Long Beach Blvd. would be the footprint. The Coliseum property is on MLK. USC is adjacent on the north side, sparing it from being in "South Central", but really for cartographers only. Here's a little news from the SC campus yesterday-Campus Adventures

 

South Pasadena is about 3.5 miles from the Rose Bowl, and it's far safer than the area surrounding the Coliseum. In fact the Coliseum is closer to Reginald Denny's favorite intersection at Florence and Normandy than SoPas is to the Rose Bowl.

 

I've gone to plenty of games at the property, but I'm merely taking my own life in my hands going down there. I wouldn't do it with a kid or wife, and I've heard many, many Angelenos express exactly the same sentiments.

[dave mcbride]

The general boundaries of South Central are not the old South Central neighborhood that ran three or four blocks of Central Ave., instead from MLK Blvd. south to Imperial Highway and from Western to Long Beach Blvd. would be the footprint. The Coliseum property is on MLK. USC is adjacent on the north side, sparing it from being in "South Central", but really for cartographers only. Here's a little news from the SC campus yesterday-Campus Adventures

 

South Pasadena is about 3.5 miles from the Rose Bowl, and it's far safer than the area surrounding the Coliseum. In fact the Coliseum is closer to Reginald Denny's favorite intersection at Florence and Normandy than SoPas is to the Rose Bowl.

 

I've gone to plenty of games at the property, but I'm merely taking my own life in my hands going down there. I wouldn't do it with a kid or wife, and I've heard many, many Angelenos express exactly the same sentiments.

473419[/snapback]

 

thanks for the info; it's been a while for me. that said, i do think that stuff gets exaggerated a bit. as for the site itself, i always thought that whatever its flaws it was always better than carson/irwindale etc. i'm sure the league would love a west LA or pasadena site, but they have to realize by now that it'll never happen. the nimbyism of angelenos and their general lack of interest is too powerful. as well, there's that pervasive mentality that LA is bigger than the nfl and therefore shouldn't pony up one dime to pay for a stadium. i wonder if the league will ever learn, though. they tried that garbage here (nyc) and got thoroughly burned. the population was pretty overwhelmingly opposed to the west side stadium proposal, and it went down ignominously in flames. the solution? a new stadium in in the jersey swamplands to be shared with the giants. when it's all said and done, i wouldn't be shocked if the same result happens in LA - a new stadium on the site that the league opposed because they couldn't put it anywhere else. we'll see. i can't see the league out of la for too much longer -- it doesn't make any business sense.

[AKC]

thanks for the info; it's been a while for me. that said, i do think that stuff gets exaggerated a bit.  as for the site itself, i always thought that whatever its flaws it was always better than carson/irwindale etc. i'm sure the league would love a west LA or pasadena site, but they have to realize by now that it'll never happen. the nimbyism of angelenos and their general lack of interest is too powerful. as well, there's that pervasive mentality that LA is bigger than the nfl and therefore shouldn't pony up one dime to pay for a stadium.  i wonder if the league will ever learn, though. they tried that garbage here (nyc) and got thoroughly burned. the population was pretty overwhelmingly opposed to the west side stadium proposal, and it went down ignominously in flames.  the solution? a new stadium in in the jersey swamplands to be shared with the giants. when it's all said and done, i wouldn't be shocked if the same result happens in LA - a new stadium on the site that the league opposed because they couldn't put it anywhere else. we'll see. i can't see the league out of la for too much longer -- it doesn't make any business sense.

473433[/snapback]

 

It's too bad because Carson had great dynamics- freeway access, surrounding neighborhood friendly to the concept and plenty of space to pull it off without transplanting anyone. It also had a great concept stadium (The Hacienda) drafted up by and being pushed by Mike Ovitz. The bed news was the property was formerly a commercial landfill and the toxic cleanup required would have extened the build-out time by about 6-8 more years than at other sites.

 

Add this to the garbage politics of LA and Mark Ridley Thomas once again forces the Coliseum on a League that recognizes what a huge mistake it is to rest their LA hopes on that site. I hope the league stays out versus handing this hack a short-term victory.

[Kelly the Dog]

Another thing to consider is that there will likely never be NFL games in the coliseum or the Rose Bowl for a simple reason, they completely suck for watching NFL games in the 21st century. The only chance is if they award a team or a franchise moves and they use the Coliseum or Rose Bowl for a year or two while a new stadium is being built. They would never sell out the Coliseum or Rose Bowl for an NFL team that just moved here, they could barely do it for the teams that were somewhat "home" teams like the Rams and Raiders. So the LA market could easily LOSE viewership as fewer games would be shown in the LA market when the home team was playing but not on TV.

[dave mcbride]

It's too bad because Carson had great dynamics- freeway access, surrounding neighborhood friendly to the concept and plenty of space to pull it off without transplanting anyone. It also had a great concept stadium (The Hacienda) drafted up by and being pushed by Mike Ovitz. The bed news was the property was formerly a commercial landfill and the toxic cleanup required would have extened the build-out time by about 6-8 more years than at other sites.

 

Add this to the garbage politics of LA and Mark Ridley Thomas once again forces the Coliseum on a League that recognizes what a huge mistake it is to rest their LA hopes on that site. I hope the league stays out versus handing this hack a short-term victory.

473447[/snapback]

ridley thomas has been in office how long now? i'm oppposed to term limits so i don't necessarily have a problem with a guy being in for a long time, just as long as he's good. i get the sense that the only step up for thomas, though, is the mayoralty, and a serious run is not in the cards for a long time, and probably not ever (too many people outside of his district don't like him). this only means that - like him or not - the nfl is going to continue to have to deal with him. he's not going anywhere, and he holds the cards. again, we'll see.

[AKC]

ridley thomas has been in office how long now? i'm oppposed to term limits so i don't necessarily have a problem with a guy being in for a long time, just as long as he's good.  i get the sense that the only step up for thomas, though, is the mayoralty, and a serious run is not in the cards for a long time, and probably not ever (too many people outside of his district don't like him). this only means that - like him or not - the nfl is going to continue to have to deal with him. he's not going anywhere, and he holds the cards. again, we'll see.

473510[/snapback]

 

I see on his bio that he's now a State Assembly Rep, having served 12 years on the City Council. His website lists his "greatest accomplishments", 3 out of 7 relating to jamming the Coliseum Property up the NFL's butt.

[gmac17]

It's about percentages, not gross numbers.

 

I'll go sell advertising based on gross numbers, you go sell advertising based on percentages. We'll see who makes more money.

[K-9]

I'll go sell advertising based on gross numbers, you go sell advertising based on percentages. We'll see who makes more money.

473545[/snapback]

 

You're on gmac. I'll advertise to the 60% audience share in LA watching reruns of Dallas while you advertise to the 30% audience share watching NFL football there. NFL telecasts consistantly came in third during its time slot in LA when it had a team. Sorry, but that's anathema to TV advertisers in any market, let alone the 2nd largest. In other words, it's an embarrasment for the networks and the NFL to have it's product come in 3rd in essentially a 4 horse race. And that's how it was the last time LA had a team.

 

 

Yeah the gross number of NFL viewers in LA would be larger than in most other football cities. But it's STILL the 3rd best choice for advertisers in that market. Many on this BB believe that simply because there are more viewers then it's an attractive market for the NFL and the networks. That's just not the case. At least it wasn't when LA had a team. A 70% audience share and number 1 rating in Buffalo is more valuable to local affiliates (the revenue engine) than that 30% audience share and number 3 rating in LA.

 

GO BILLS!!!

[K-9]

You're right, it is about percentages.  But national advertisers care about national ratings.  Buffalo is not even close to big enough to move the needle on that front. 

 

LA is home to 5% of the nations television viewers.  The LA DMA (designated market area) is about 5.5 Million.  Buffalo's DMA is about 600,00.  A forty rating (a HUGE number) means about 250,000 people tuned into a given game in Buffalo.  LA averaged an 8.3 rating WITHOUT a team last year.  That's 450,000 viewers and they're not even trying.  The numbers are not going down with a team there...no matter how apathetic you believe the sports fans in LA to be.  Hypothetically, lets say that the ratings only doubled.  That would mean about seven hundred thousand more viewers for an LA team than Buffalo can provide in it's best week.  That's with a measly sixteen percent of the television watching universe in LA.       

 

I don't know what kind of concessions the NFL would have to make to the Networks.  A team in LA, without a doubt, means higher ad revenue for the networks.  It's a no brainer.  NFL broadcast rights tend to be sort of a loss leader for the networks anyway.  They use the games to promote their other programming.   

 

Besides what owner wouldn't want to be in LA.  All that corporate revenue?  The bigger pool of potential merchandise buyers?  A high income market?   

 

Bottom line...There will be a team in LA.  It will be good business for the NFL.  It could be very bad for Western New Yorkers.

473074[/snapback]

 

But a team in LA really doesn't mean higher ad revenue. Ad revenue as you know is driven by ratings which are driven by audience share. If you have a lower audience share and subsequent lower ratings than 2 other networks competing in the same time slot (the situation LA had when it had a team there) that ad space sells for far less than on those other networks. It's a loser for the local affiliates and that's the bottom line. While NFL broadcasts are indeed loss leaders for the networks, they are revenue killers for the affiliates in LA. The affiliates have a huge say in the matter.

 

GO BILLS!!!