You guys have me totally surprised that nobody has gotten into the whole Anahiem Angel/LA Angel debate.

I'd be interested in knowing how you see it. Me? I think the following:

1. the owner of a team can name it anything he wants

2. LA Angels makes just as much sense as another team that once played in the same stadium, LA Rams

3. Anahiem is much more than a suburb, but it is hardly a city with suburbs. These guys became the Anahiem Angels, not the Orange County Angels. What is the attaction with the name "Anahiem" if you live in Newport, Santa Ana, or Irvine?

4. LA Angels has tradition in both the PCL and AL.

5. The team will be far more successfully in marketing with LA as its name.

6. The AL will have much more attractive match ups with "LA" on a teams uniforms. Take your pick: New York Yankees vs. LA Angels or NY Yankees vs. Anahiem Angels. Boston Red Sox vs. LA Angels or Boston Red Sox vs. Anahiem Angels? Seattle Mariners vs. LA Angels or Seattle Mariners vs. Anahiem Angels.

7. Mice and other rodents should be left out of decision making.


PS...and on another subject, personally I think Bay Area A's would sell a lot better than Oakland A's.

We know you hate LA, so stop trolling.

We know you hate LA, so stop trolling.

Let me get this straight: I said the team should be the LA (not Anahiem) Angels and I'm trolling? OooooooooooooooKaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaay.

EDSG25, i think the reason the fans in OC dont want the Angels known as the LA Angels is because they view themselves as totally different than the bigger brother up north. I personally think it would be great to have them named the LA Angles (Even though its redundant) and they would bring in more money and more recognition. Anaheim is the biggest city in OC and it represents the whole area, so thats why many people in OC want the name to stay, but since its part of the LA metro it would be appropriate. LA Angels sounds more intriuging than Anaheim. On a side note, the Angels draw over 3 million every year lately, with 3.4 million last year (Behind the Dodgers and Yankees.)so the only extra revenue they would bring in would be in television contracts since LA is more recognized.

EDSG25, i think the reason the fans in OC dont want the Angels known as the LA Angels is because they view themselves as totally different than the bigger brother up north. I personally think it would be great to have them named the LA Angles (Even though its redundant) and they would bring in more money and more recognition. Anaheim is the biggest city in OC and it represents the whole area, so thats why many people in OC want the name to stay, but since its part of the LA metro it would be appropriate. LA Angels sounds more intriuging than Anaheim. On a side note, the Angels draw over 3 million every year lately, with 3.4 million last year (Behind the Dodgers and Yankees.)so the only extra revenue they would bring in would be in television contracts since LA is more recognized.

Just think: if the Angels had just done what the Rams did when they moved to the stadium and kept "LA", none of this would be happening. I do understand what you are saying about Orange County, a place that always sought its own identity, but truthfully Orange County Angels would make more sense than the current name.

As I said, I think from a MLB viewpoint (particularly an AL viewpoint), LA Angels would be a lot more welcome than Anahiem Angels.

I agree 100% . i dont think the name will change though, cause the angels signed an agreement with the city in which the city provided some funds for the renovation of the Big A and the angels promised to keep anaheim in the name for 30 years i think.

I agree 100% . i dont think the name will change though, cause the angels signed an agreement with the city in which the city provided some funds for the renovation of the Big A and the angels promised to keep anaheim in the name for 30 years i think.

Maybe. But I suspect the Rams broke a much bigger contract when they skipped town to StL, not that many years after the stadium went through extensive football renovation. Am I right?

another theory I'll run by you, LASF: if the Rams had stayed in the Colliseum, I believe too things would never have happened:

LA as a two team city: the Raiders would have stayed in Oakland; the AFC would never made it to town

LA as a zero team city: the Rams would be thrieving today....and probably in an LA stadium of their own, not shared by the USC or UCLA.

LASF, a few more questions for you if you don't mind; I'd like to draw from your expertise:

what effect (if any) do SBC and Petco have on LA and the question of whether the Dodgers will ever have a new stadium?

First, let me say that Dodger Stadium is a classic. Unique. There are no clones and magnificent still applies.

That said, Dodger Stadium is rightfully called "stadium". Its symmetrical lines, parking lots in the outfield (and behind each deck), lack of walkability, lack of relationship with urban environment (although the backdrop is priceless) is somewhat out of tune with what MLB wants today. Do you see a new ball park for the Dodgers any time in the future?

*********

I get the feeling if the Rams hadn't moved to Anahiem (let alone St. Louis), the Ram-49er rivalry (already special) would have been one of the top in the NFL and on equal status with Dodgers-Giant. Would you agree?

*********

If the Pac-10 follows the XII/SEC/ACC route and goes to 12 team/championship game format, who do you see as the two new means? And, more importantly, would you expect at least one to be in Calif?

My guess: Cal, Stanford, SC, and UCLA:

• don't want in-state recruitement competition

• view themselves as academic peers with no place for Fresno or SDSU who they see as being far more inferior in the classroom than on the field or b'ball court

************

I realize that you are 500 miles removed but still in-state and interested: in the long run, can the A's compete with the Giants for Bay Area fans? The Giants were always the glamour franchise as the one who went west first, had that NY Giant tradition, and representing SF and not Oakland. There was only one knock for the Giants vs. the A's: Candlestick. Now that it's gone and SBC packs them in as well as any retropark, and with the chances of an East Bay or South Bay stadium rather dim, can the A's last? And if they go....Vegas? Sacto?

Any insight you can give would be greatly appreciated.

LASF, a few more questions for you if you don't mind; I'd like to draw from your expertise:

what effect (if any) do SBC and Petco have on LA and the question of whether the Dodgers will ever have a new stadium?

First, let me say that Dodger Stadium is a classic. Unique. There are no clones and magnificent still applies.

That said, Dodger Stadium is rightfully called "stadium". Its symmetrical lines, parking lots in the outfield (and behind each deck), lack of walkability, lack of relationship with urban environment (although the backdrop is priceless) is somewhat out of tune with what MLB wants today. Do you see a new ball park for the Dodgers any time in the future?

*********

I get the feeling if the Rams hadn't moved to Anahiem (let alone St. Louis), the Ram-49er rivalry (already special) would have been one of the top in the NFL and on equal status with Dodgers-Giant. Would you agree?

*********

If the Pac-10 follows the XII/SEC/ACC route and goes to 12 team/championship game format, who do you see as the two new means? And, more importantly, would you expect at least one to be in Calif?

My guess: Cal, Stanford, SC, and UCLA:

• don't want in-state recruitement competition

• view themselves as academic peers with no place for Fresno or SDSU who they see as being far more inferior in the classroom than on the field or b'ball court

************

I realize that you are 500 miles removed but still in-state and interested: in the long run, can the A's compete with the Giants for Bay Area fans? The Giants were always the glamour franchise as the one who went west first, had that NY Giant tradition, and representing SF and not Oakland. There was only one knock for the Giants vs. the A's: Candlestick. Now that it's gone and SBC packs them in as well as any retropark, and with the chances of an East Bay or South Bay stadium rather dim, can the A's last? And if they go....Vegas? Sacto?

Any insight you can give would be greatly appreciated.


No prob with the questions. Dodger Stadium is a gem, albeit an older one. I personally would wish for a new stadium downtown, that ties in the community, has bars all around it and is part of the city. The current Dodger stadium is so out of the way, not near mass transit (imagine it in DT LA next to Staples, witht he blue, expo, redlines are near by) and is truley a stadium palced without thinking based on the automobile. there has been some mention of a new stadium soon, but everytime the topic comes up people go nuts. Dodger fans love Dodger stadium, so i dont think well see one in the near future. I mean the team draws 3.5 million a year so i guess why change it if it aint broke.

I agree with the football assesment. If the rams were still here it would be a great rivalry between the two teams. it was back then and would only have strenthened in my opinion. Also, the teams did not leave LA because of fan apathy, on the contrary, team support was very good until it became obvious that they were leaving in the last two seasons. Both teams wanted new stadiums and the deals didnt work so the made good on thier threats and moved from LA. Georgia frontieri (Rams Owner) and AL Davis are hated here in LA by football fans. you mention their names and my blood boils.

I like the fact that the PAc 10 doesnt have a tournament. maybe im old school but i like the way the conference is right now. More teams would dillute the recruiting, but USC is never gonna have problems recruiting and the other cali schools are in Cali, so talent will come. by the way, i hope cal makes it to the rose bowl, because in my opinion they are the second best team in the nation behind the Trojans.

The A's are the ugly stepchild of the Giants. they have very vocal fans, but theya re few and far between. they couldnt sell out playoff games and rarely draw over 20,000 a game. i think SF is too small of a city to support two teams and i wouldnt be suprised to see the A's move. Both sacto and vegas were what i was thinking in terms of the team moving, because they are both growing and can rally around a local team. And becasue the A's dont draw well and have a low revenue, they cant keep the home grown talent that they always seem to have. LA can support two teams casue the area is so huge and there are so many people here. Botht e Angels and Dodgers drew over 3.4 million last year, the only metro to draw over 6 million for two teams and we have done it 3 times i believe and i wouldnt be suprised if we comine for over 7 million next year.

I hope these answers are helpful. if you have any more questions, post them and i will try to answer.

Totally agree with you on how conference championship game sucks.

as you know, we're (Big Ten) are with you (Pac Ten) as the holdouts. In all honesty, the two conferences are joined at the hip. A good percentage of Coast and Midwestern fans would have been happy to have stayed out of the BCS mess and make the season end the way it is supposed to: B10 vs. Pac-10 in Pasadena.

Meanwhile, these are the last two conferences that hold out for sanity in big time college football and the only two that are every bit as concerned about their academic reputations (which is stellar) as their athletic reputation.

IMHO, we don't need the ACC, XII, SEC, Big East, etc. The Big Ten and Pac Ten create a better world.

^ 100% agreement between us on this topic.

I liked the California Angels, but am not a fan of regional/state titles, so... LA Angels sounds funny kinda, with the two A's, unless you say Los Angeles Angels. Anaheim at least sounds good.

Arte Moreno is even considering giving the team the official title of Los Angeles Angels of Anaheim. Haha. That is ridiculous. Lets call the new MLB expansion team the Los Angeles Nationals of Washington D.C.. too.

Arte Moreno is even considering giving the team the official title of Los Angeles Angels of Anaheim. Haha. That is ridiculous. Lets call the new MLB expansion team the Los Angeles Nationals of Washington D.C.. too.

maybe the concept of Oriole Park at Camden Yards gave them ideas of how to name a baseball team, too.