Prickly Pete

Uhh...yeah. That's not what I was getting at.......Meh, nevermind.

Gee, I guess the NFL won't do it then, huh? Are you really worried about things being "unfair" for the NFL?

Thank You. I feel like a star already!

Yes, you do. Any topic I have posted in since the Deflate Gate , you attack my opinion. Sorry, I'm not a farmer, so I have no idea what the joke is.

I get it, you want to contest anything I post. But obviously, WHALEY made that kind of trade!!!

I'm happy with Watkins (obviously), but if Whaley REALLY knew what he was doing, he would have traded the 2015 1st pick to get an extra first pick in the 2014 draft (the deep draft, that everyone was saying had a wealth of "1st round talent, available in the 2nd"). I won't mention Odell Beckham...

What happened to "Love it, or leave it"? Maybe that only applies when a republican is president?

I have a feeling that if the games are played in Carson, the 91 and 710 (the two I use often) are going to be torturous. I'm just not into attending sporting events (or big crowd events in general). I'm only interested in Bills football, sports-wise. I think it's appropriate for the team to pay for infrastructure improvements, because of the problems heavy traffic creates (wear and tear, jams) affect all the citizens, not just the people attending the games. It's not an outlandish demand (a billion is pretty steep though). I'm all in on the Bills, not a fan of any LA teams. I'm tempted to get back into the Sabres, but to really connect with the team, you need to watch a bunch of regular season games. When I left (1998), it wasn't really feasible to chase down their games, so I lost interest.

Exactly. And even if they pocket some of the money, at least public funds aren't being used. I have lived in LA for 17 years. I have never attended a sporting event, and don't intend to start. I only recently stepped foot in the Staples Center (for a concert). I hate baseball season (and baseball), because it clogs up the 101 freeway. There are already too many big events. clogging up traffic for 16 more football games is not a positive for me.

I know it doesn't matter what you find unreasonable, but you are attaching it to your own opinion. I would rather a city squeeze whatever they can get out of a team, than have the public paying. They may be hacks, demanding the team improve the infrastructure, but that's way better than the kowtowing that happens in Buffalo to keep the Bills. LA doesn't need the NFL. I don't want a team here, because it won't be MY team, and it will just mean more traffic in my area. I hope CA keeps losing jobs to Texas, so people will start leaving. Unfortunately, people keep coming to LA in droves instead. Please, stay away, or leave if you are here.

I remember that presser, it was a great moment. It's hard for me to pick one, but I was at the Jets game when the Kelly-era Bills clinched a playoff birth for the first time (1988), and was one of the first people on the field. It was my first year as a season ticket holder, and they didn't lose a home game. It was glorious.

It could be true, but I haven't paid attention to any country music (except Sirius Radio, WIllie's Roadhouse, which is old stuff), except to laugh at it every now and then with my daughter when I drop her off at school. Regardless, I'm certain there are good country acts out there if you dig. Eventually there will be a reactionary movement...."Grunge Country"!

I think the mainstream country acts have always been image conscious. It's not really just about being good looking. It's about having a simple image that the mass audience can relate to. Grand Ole Opry, 1947. Plenty of image calculation here... Country music is no more "authentic" than rock. Plenty of slick, attractive (in the country way) performers were part of "The Nashville Sound" going way back. "Outlaw Country" is kind of like "Punk Rock", a reaction to the slickness of the more popular acts. Those movements kind of ebb and flow, popularity wise (with slickness usually in the lead). But that Yin and Yang element is always there, in Rock or Country (or Hip Hop, or Jazz, or any style).

I'm a musician. I don't like most popular music, but there have always been manufactured acts. It is really the consumers that don't demand more challenging or variety of music. Apparently, most people will eat and enjoy whatever is served to them. Trying to convert the masses to "sophisticated jazz", or displays of instrumental prowess is futile. That kind of thing has never been popular without some window dressing. Miles Davis needed those cool suits. As far as people getting upset about image being so important, I think that is usually sour grapes. To expect to be a "star" without embodying a myth, is unrealistic. The broader the audience, the closer the performer must embody a myth. If a performer isn't attractive in the "traditional" sense, they must find a suitable mythic character to embody. Someone like John Rebennacks, a short, squat, average joe, played for years as a session musician, but when he found a character he could pull off,"Dr. John", he found an audience. Elton John... same kind of thing. Janis Joplin knew who she was, and went with it. Lady Gaga is no beauty. Adele...Amy Winehouse...plenty of average people that figured out what about themselves, a broad audience could relate to. Tony Romo will never be as cool as Tom Brady (who isn't very cool).

Something like that seems more likely. He is the face of the franchise, he is established in San Diego (and would still be nearby, to maintain connections). Anywhere else,and he is starting from scratch (Nashville is as far from Alabama as LA is from San Diego), he appears to be committed to the organization...why leave over moving an hour north? I'm sure he doesn't WANT to move, but any other change will be just as extreme, with lots of unknowns...new city, new teammates, new front office, etc.

As far as I know, the players stay with the team in a hotel the night before the game (not with their families). Pasadena is as slow as San Diego, so game day shouldn't be too "fast", if the kids are around. I don't know where the training facilities will be (does he? is he complaining without even knowing?), but Carson is south of the city, and I am thinking they will keep things towards the south, if only to keep alive some San Diego connections. Again, some gated communities of Southern Orange County, an hour up the road, are as sprawling, slow, and conservative as San Diego's. I have to believe there is more to it

I'm not comparing LA to San Diego. I'm comparing Orange County to San Diego. He lives in a gated community north of San Diego, and there are plenty of very similar communities just up the road. He could even stay in San Diego County and play in LA.

So ANY opinion or feeling, is reasonable? He can do what he likes, but the discussion is about his motivation for saying he doesn't want to play in LA. We are working with the information that has been made public, and the reason he gave doesn't make much sense. This has been discussed on the radio here in both LA and SD, and plenty questioned his statement, and countered with the same points I made. It might read well to people elsewhere in the country, though... "yeah, he doesn't want his kids in that liberal cesspool of sin, Los Angeles", but anyone that has been through the area south of LA knows that it is nothing like the city. It's the Orange Curtain.. And again, if he was REALLY super concerned, he could remain in his current home, and commute to LA. Plenty of people have longer commutes.

They are home schooled, apparently at their gated community home. Plenty of uber-safe, white-bread, country club, gated communities, a one hour drive north (they can still visit their old friends even, it's way closer than any other city he could play for). They don't have to mix with the LA locals... If he is that concerned, it wouldn't be that difficult to remain at his current home, and commute to LA. I don't think he is leveraging for more money. He is a straight shooter (I listen to a bit of San Diego sports talk), but there is likely more to it than just not wanting to move his kids to LA. It could just be a power struggle within the organization.

What are his feelings about LA? We know he says he doesn't want to play/live there, but why? And If you don't know why, how can you say is feelings are reasonable or not?

Haha, Yes, there is a high concentration of nuts in LA, but he just has to work there. San Diego just feels like a distant suburb of LA to me.

Yeah, but like I said, he could easily live in any of those beach communities or the OC, and it would be just like San Diego. It's not like he has to live in West Hollywood, or downtown LA. I found this.. http://www.celebritydetective.com/Celebrity_Homes_Philip-Rivers-house-profile.html He lives on a golf course (basically)...surely there are plenty of these country club communities peppered throughout the OC? It's not even close to the Chargers facilities, so it's not about convenience. http://www.santaluz.com/Location It's a smokescreen of some kind.

Rivers isn't coming to Buffalo. It would be great. But he's not coming. I am not buying his anti-LA stance either. I live in LA, and have spent enough time driving up and down the coast to San Diego, to know there is virtually no difference (culturally, architecturally, etc) between any place south of Long Beach, and San Diego. It's one long, homogeneous stretch, of suburban whitey-ville. If that really is a concern for him, he is truly out of his mind, and living with blinders on.

I'm not really angry with the team (though, it really is lame), it's the double standard fans that tick me off.

Oh, that is TOTALLY different. Good one!