NFL@L.A.: Rose Bowl

Rose Bowl conducts study for NFL team

October, 21, 2011
10/21/11
1:10
PM PT
Rose BowlIcon SMIHow would housing an NFL team affect traffic in and around the Rose Bowl? Any ideas?

The Rose Bowl and Pasadena officials are moving forward with plans to conduct a traffic study to measure the impact of an NFL team playing at the stadium on a temporary basis.

The study, which is expected to be completed in December, would measure traffic in and around the Rose Bowl over four days, including UCLA’s Oct. 29 game against Cal, said David Dunn, general manager of the Rose Bowl.

The preliminary study is being conducted due to the possibility of an NFL team moving to Los Angeles as early as next year but it would be up to the NFL and the team’s owner where the team played. The Los Angeles Memorial Coliseum would also be in the running to serve as a temporary home.

“This is really more done by the city because its part of the process they go through to understand the impact of additional events. They need to understand the traffic implications,” Dunn said on Friday. “They did traffic studies in 2005 when we were negotiating with the NFL for a long-term scenario. Since we’re in the middle of football season they want to double check the traffic counts from different areas and different intersections. It’s really data collecting. That’s all this is.”

It might be difficult measuring the impact of an NFL team playing at the Rose Bowl by comparing it to UCLA football games this season. The 3-4 Bruins are only averaging an announced crowd of 53,828 per game in the 94,000-seat stadium with the actual attendance figures being lower since those attendance figures only measure tickets accounted for and not the actual number of fans attending the game. Dunn said the Rose Bowl has also collected data in the past for Rose Bowl games and a U2 concert which drew capacity crowds.

(Read full post)

NFL@LA mailbag

October, 6, 2011
10/06/11
9:32
AM PT
Welcome back to the NFL@LA mailbag where I’ll be answering your NFL in Los Angeles questions every Thursday. You can send me a question in the comments section below, on Twitter or you can find me on Facebook. We’re pretty flexible around here. And remember if you didn’t get your question answered or want to discuss anything further we will have an NFL@LA chat on Friday at 1 p.m.

OK, now let’s get to this week’s questions.

Which team has the best chance of moving into L.A.?
--trojan1953


I’ve been saying for the past year the team that has the best chance of moving to Los Angeles is the San Diego Chargers. Quite simply, I don’t see how the Chargers are going to get public funding for a new stadium. After a decade of trying and being turned down from one location to the other, I believe they will move two hours north to Los Angeles where they will be in the second biggest media market, play in the league’s newest stadium and become one of the most valuable franchises in sports. Since AEG wants to own a third of the team that moves into Farmers Field first, they also make sense because the Chargers are willing to sell Alex Spanos’ 36 percent share of the team for estate planning purposes.

Are the Rams losing games on purpose just to ease the move back to LA?
--paintpim


Interesting thought but, no, that’s not the reason why the St. Louis Rams are 0-4. The same goes for the 0-4 Minnesota Vikings. Those teams are just that bad with no ulterior motives. They will be in competition all season with the Indianapolis Colts, Miami Dolphins and Kansas City Chiefs for the top pick in next year’s NFL draft.

Is it possible that Chargers might be able to pay less to move because they could claim that they already have a market? Is it possible that that the NFL might say you would actually have LA and San Diego and therefore pay full or even more to move?
--Darrinsca


(Read full post)

SPONSORED HEADLINES


TEAM LEADERS

PASSING
Philip Rivers
ATT COMP YDS TD
73 49 522 4
RUSHINGCARYDSAVGTD
R. Mathews 23 71 3.1 1
D. Woodhead 14 37 2.6 0
RECEIVINGRECYDSAVGTD
A. Gates 13 177 13.6 3
K. Allen 10 92 9.2 0