DawgTalkers.net Forums DawgTalk Tailgate Forum The mistake that is the LA Chargers

On just about every subject I’ll hear from fans who don’t agree with me, which is fine.

I’ve written often about how the Los Angeles Chargers‘ relocation is the worst in modern American professional sports history, how L.A. didn’t want the Chargers and how its apathy has grown more obvious now that games have started. I’ve yet to hear from one fan who has argued with me on this subject. Everyone seems to agree that the Chargers’ move was ill-conceived.

Even Los Angeles Mayor Eric Garcetti can’t pretend to be fired up. When you read this quote, keep in mind that every single time a team has moved in modern sports history, it has generated plenty of excitement in its new city.

“We embrace any team that comes, we’re certainly happy to have the Chargers in L.A.,” Garcetti said during a recent interview on “The Dan Patrick Show.” “But I think we could have been happy with just one [team], too.” (Ouch!)

That one team would be the Los Angeles Rams. During the interview, Garcetti (who is an admitted Rams fan) said getting the Chargers was “gravy.”

It’s amazing. Through the years, cities have treated landing a new pro team like a historic, city-changing event. In many ways, it is. Los Angeles didn’t exactly go crazy about the Rams, but there was some buzz. There’s practically none for the Chargers, and Garcetti said the city would have been fine had the Chargers stayed in San Diego.

“Absolutely. Absolutely, and I said that at the time,” Garcetti said. “I said it’s great and both the Raiders and the Chargers, it would have been nice if they could have stayed put where they are because Oakland and San Diego have huge fan bases, there’s a big tradition … I’m glad the Chargers will build up a fan base and it really is Southern California, but I believe in players playing for a long time on teams, and teams staying in a city for their lives.”

You have to wonder what the NFL thinks about moving two teams to Los Angeles now, especially with photos of a half-full Los Angeles Coliseum for Rams games and stories of the Chargers’ issues filling a 27,000-seat stadium in Carson, California. The Chargers and Rams both played home games Sunday and they didn’t have a higher combined attendance figure than the USC-Texas game the previous day. Maybe it turns around for the Rams and Chargers, especially when the new stadium in Inglewood opens, but no other relocated teams have struggled this much early on.

The NFL has to privately wonder if it would have been better off taking Chargers owner Dean Spanos’ relocation fee and all the other costs associated with moving a team and put that money toward a new stadium in San Diego. Everyone would have been better off. But Spanos and the league had their feelings hurt that San Diego taxpayers didn’t pay for a new stadium, then they made what appears to be a bad business decision.

The Chargers’ move has such little momentum, you have to wonder if Los Angeles will even still be their home years from now. If they move again, the mayor of Los Angeles wouldn’t seem to mind, and everyone else in the city might not even notice.

Chargers should've stayed in san diego, and the Rams should've stayed in St. Louis.

Chargers should've stayed in san diego, and the Rams should've stayed in St. Louis.

Chargers should've stayed in san diego, and the Rams should've stayed in St. Louis.

the Rams should've stayed in St. Louis.

I know I'm going in December.

I live in San Diego, so I kinda felt bad for Charger fans (but only a little... that's a different discussion). I also loathe just about everything to do with LA, so watching LA teams struggle to launch is (imo) just fantastic. Everyone in California had the whole "LA is this incredible untapped market" shtick shoved down their throat for the last couple years, and now we see the results.

The Rams made sense. They still had somewhat of a fan base in LA and the NFL needed/wanted the market. Also, the owner is building a stadium from the future for the team to play in (along with new TV studios for NFL Network). It makes sense.

The Chargers made no sense. They have very few fans in LA and it was a total cash grab by their owner. They will be tenants in someone else's stadium. Dumb. Dean Spanos probably should not own an NFL team.

I read that USC drew more fans last Saturday to their game in LA than both professional LA teams combined.

I read that USC drew more fans last Saturday to their game in LA than both professional LA teams combined.

I read that USC drew more fans last Saturday to their game in LA than both professional LA teams combined.

USC is the football team when they are rolling. Sam Darnold puts butts in seats.

Also read this morning that someone with "sources" is saying that the NFL is *already* considering moving the Chargers back to LA. I have a hard time believing that they couldn't see this mess coming. Like oober says, I can forgive the Rams a bit, because they're not great and they play in a bad stadium for a pro team. But the Chargers are just a wreck.

I'm honestly wondering if moving them to Stubhub was a bit of a "bluff" by the league to try and get San Diego to pay for a new stadium. I really don't see any way they would of thought moving to LA would be a viable move, so it's the only reasoning I could come up with. The "threats" of moving to LA weren't working anymore, so maybe they thought if they just temporarily moved, it would kick the city of San Diego into action to build a new stadium (sort of like the Browns).

I just don't know that it's going to work. It seems like most people in San Diego have the feeling of "screw the NFL" rather than "Oh crap, we need to pay for a stadium". So I'm not sure what the NFL does now. It's painfully obvious that LA isn't going to work.

I'm honestly wondering if moving them to Stubhub was a bit of a "bluff" by the league to try and get San Diego to pay for a new stadium. I really don't see any way they would of thought moving to LA would be a viable move, so it's the only reasoning I could come up with. The "threats" of moving to LA weren't working anymore, so maybe they thought if they just temporarily moved, it would kick the city of San Diego into action to build a new stadium (sort of like the Browns).

I just don't know that it's going to work. It seems like most people in San Diego have the feeling of "screw the NFL" rather than "Oh crap, we need to pay for a stadium". So I'm not sure what the NFL does now. It's painfully obvious that LA isn't going to work.

Chargers should've stayed in san diego, and the Rams should've stayed in St. Louis.

I'm thinking about going to the Chargers game. Tickets are going for $80 on stubhub, but I heard they were dirt cheap for the first Chargers game. Anyone have an idea of how much tickets will go for closer the the game?

I'm thinking all Browns fans on the west coast should go if they haven't already. It'll make up for the "home" game in London.

You ever been to the Colosseum before?

No, never even heard of it. However, I did attend a couple of games at the Coliseum when I lived in Huntington Beach a long time ago.

I know some don't like hearing it, but the Rams have always taken a back seat in LA. The Dodgers were always number 1. The Lakers are huge. And most fans have always preferred USC [and even UCLA back in the day] to the Rams.

My point was that USC plays in the same place as the Rams. Am I mistaken? I know they used to. I thought they still did?

So the New Jersey Jets?

The New Jersey Giants?

You do realize that a lot of teams play in the suburbs outside of the city that is in their names, right?

My point was that USC plays in the same place as the Rams. Am I mistaken? I know they used to. I thought they still did?