New: Latest on Kroenke, Rams and NFL in STL

[dbrooks25]

I just think removing teams from cities that clearly support the NFL is stupid as hell. If the city doesn't support the team, then that's another story. When I say support, I mean fan interest as well as building new stadiums when the time comes.

 

[8to12]

Best case scenario is everybody gets stadiums built and LA gets an expansion team. But that messes with the divisions.....

I like LA being barren, personally. The big rush to get back there is just an example of the owners chasing a golden rainbow. The greed is sickening.

But I don't think you're sickened by being the beneficiary of the greed of the previous Rams owner who moved the team to St Louis 20 years ago?

 

[Hacksaw]

I just think removing teams from cities that clearly support the NFL is stupid as hell. If the city doesn't support the team, then that's another story. When I say support, I mean fan interest as well as building new stadiums when the time comes.

Can't really take exception with this..

 

[drasconis]

Yeah, it would be weird if you lived in the same house as your enemy. I doubt that happens.

Maybe that "nobody to LA" ploy has some merit? IDK

Remember the Raiders have already said they would switch divisions...so if those 2 share a building they in all likelyhood would not be in the same division or conference anymore (I believe IF this happens then Rams and Raiders switch ...STL gets rivalry in KC and Raiders would get rivalry with SF (both would occur naturally and fast). I realize many here would not like the Rams changing like that...but I think the league would see it asa financial positive (Easy fan travel/easier ticket sales) and how many fans would you really lose if it was done (yeah people might be disappointed but enough to walk away....)

 

[BuiltRamTough]

Remember the Raiders have already said they would switch divisions...so if those 2 share a building they in all likelyhood would not be in the same division or conference anymore (I believe IF this happens then Rams and Raiders switch ...STL gets rivalry in KC and Raiders would get rivalry with SF (both would occur naturally and fast). I realize many here would not like the Rams changing like that...but I think the league would see it asa financial positive (Easy fan travel/easier ticket sales) and how many fans would you really lose if it was done (yeah people might be disappointed but enough to walk away....)

If the Rams are in LA, the logistics make much more sense. It would be the way the NFL intended it to be 20+ years ago. It would benefit the NFC west as far as travel and rivalries are concerned.

 

[bluecoconuts]

Best case scenario is everybody gets stadiums built and LA gets an expansion team. But that messes with the divisions.....

I like LA being barren, personally. The big rush to get back there is just an example of the owners chasing a golden rainbow. The greed is sickening.

While I agree, from a fan standpoint, letting everybody keep their teams, and LA getting an expansion is best, I don't know if the NFL will feel it's best for them, in terms of divisions, logistics, talent dilution, etc. They would need to add more than one team if they do that.

I don't think LA should be barren though, I see no reason why it should be either. The owners know this, and if their goal is to hit a certain financial benchmark, they'll need LA as well.

 

[BriansRams]

I'm not saying they're moving for sure, but wouldn't it be somewhat poetic if our Rams go back to LA and then have another fearsome foursome type of "recognition" or "notoriety?" The LA Rams was the teams name when that famous defensive line did their thing.

 

[bluecoconuts]

Remember the Raiders have already said they would switch divisions...so if those 2 share a building they in all likelyhood would not be in the same division or conference anymore (I believe IF this happens then Rams and Raiders switch ...STL gets rivalry in KC and Raiders would get rivalry with SF (both would occur naturally and fast). I realize many here would not like the Rams changing like that...but I think the league would see it asa financial positive (Easy fan travel/easier ticket sales) and how many fans would you really lose if it was done (yeah people might be disappointed but enough to walk away....)

The NFL likes to keep the rivalries, St Louis and San Francisco has fallen aside lately, but the NFL would like to keep it. They like Seattle and San Francisco lately as well, similar to Raiders and Chargers. I think if domino's need to fall, the NFL would rather not need to switch teams within divisions. If the Rams were to go to LA, then the NFC West lines up, and if the Raiders replace the Rams in St Louis, then that keeps all the AFC rivalries in place, and increases Raiders vs Kansas City. That's likely appealing to the NFL, they get essentially everything they want.

 

[ChrisW]

The NFL likes to keep the rivalries, St Louis and San Francisco has fallen aside lately, but the NFL would like to keep it. They like Seattle and San Francisco lately as well, similar to Raiders and Chargers. I think if domino's need to fall, the NFL would rather not need to switch teams within divisions. If the Rams were to go to LA, then the NFC West lines up, and if the Raiders replace the Rams in St Louis, then that keeps all the AFC rivalries in place, and increases Raiders vs Kansas City. That's likely appealing to the NFL, they get essentially everything they want.

If the Rams stay in St. Louis and switch to the AFC West then you get the instate rivalry between KC, as well as shorter travel time to Denver. You'd also get to play one game a year in the new LA stadium if both the Chargers and Raiders move.

 

[blue4]

I'm not saying they're moving for sure, but wouldn't it be somewhat poetic if our Rams go back to LA and then have another fearsome foursome type of "recognition" or "notoriety?" The LA Rams was the teams name when that famous defensive line did their thing.

View attachment 5878

Can't say I'm working up much enthusiasm for the poetry.

 

[BuiltRamTough]

If the Rams stay in St. Louis and switch to the AFC West then you get the instate rivalry between KC, as well as shorter travel time to Denver. You'd also get to play one game a year in the new LA stadium if both the Chargers and Raiders move.

Ya but then you lose the Raiders and Chargers rivalry. The only thing you lose by moving the Rams to LA is the STL fan base but you gain so much by the Rams in LA.

 

[beej]

Ya but then you lose the Raiders and Chargers rivalry. The only thing you lose by moving the Rams to LA is the STL fan base but you gain so much by the Rams in LA.

Yeah, that's the ONLY thing. God bless you too. God, no wonder...

 

[bluecoconuts]

If the Rams stay in St. Louis and switch to the AFC West then you get the instate rivalry between KC, as well as shorter travel time to Denver. You'd also get to play one game a year in the new LA stadium if both the Chargers and Raiders move.

Yeah, but there's still more disrupted rivalries. The Rams/49ers rivalry was never big in St Louis, but it used to be one of the premier rivalries from my understanding. At one point splitting them up was unthinkable, like splitting the Eagles and Cowboys.

Yeah, that's the ONLY thing. God bless you too. God, no wonder...

I don't think it was meant as a St Louis doesn't matter, and more of from an NFL standpoint of losses and gains. They will need to look at the options and weigh them out, and all sports like rivalry games because it drives up interest, changing around divisions and splitting up historic rivalries in hopes that new ones start up, isn't desirable from an NFL standpoint.

 

[D L]

But I don't think you're sickened by being the beneficiary of the greed of the previous Rams owner who moved the team to St Louis 20 years ago?

St. Louis was also screwed by a greedy owner 8 years before that.

 

[BuiltRamTough]

You lose more historic rivalries by shaking up 2 divisions then keeping 2 divisions the way they already are. I mean that's common sense.

You strengthen the rivalries in the NFC west by the Rams being in LA. That's also common sense.

You could argue logistics but it's hard to justify the idea of losing historic rivalries by changing teams in divisions.

 

[mr.stlouis]

But I don't think you're sickened by being the beneficiary of the greed of the previous Rams owner who moved the team to St Louis 20 years ago?

I was 5 when that happened. I wasn't even a fan of football at the time.

 

[mr.stlouis]

Remember the Raiders have already said they would switch divisions...so if those 2 share a building they in all likelyhood would not be in the same division or conference anymore (I believe IF this happens then Rams and Raiders switch ...STL gets rivalry in KC and Raiders would get rivalry with SF (both would occur naturally and fast). I realize many here would not like the Rams changing like that...but I think the league would see it asa financial positive (Easy fan travel/easier ticket sales) and how many fans would you really lose if it was done (yeah people might be disappointed but enough to walk away....)

Rams and Chiefs is already legit, they hate us. It would be a massive rivalry.

 

[fearsomefour]

I don't get the need for teams to switch division no matter who ends up where. SD/OAK in LA would change nothing, the Rams in LA would change nothing (except reignite the LA/SF nonsense) Oak in St. Louis.....playing KC, Denver and SD would change nothing really. KC and Denver then become more regional rivalries than they already are....although the AFC West should not be messed with, they are all good rivalries.
Denver, SD, Oak, SF, Arizona, Seattle, KC, St. Louis. I dont see any reason to move or realign anything.

 

[Hacksaw]

All 4 AFC West teams came into the league around '70. 45 years. And they were all in the AFL West before they joined the merger. You don't mess with that.
The Rams have been in the NFC for around 75 years and you don't mess with that either.

 

[dbrooks25]

You lose more historic rivalries by shaking up 2 divisions then keeping 2 divisions the way they already are. I mean that's common sense.

You strengthen the rivalries in the NFC west by the Rams being in LA. That's also common sense.

You could argue logistics but it's hard to justify the idea of losing historic rivalries by changing teams in divisions.

I get the first point, but the second one isn't true let alone common sense. The rivalries in the NFC West are just as strong as they have ever been and the Rams moving to L.A. or staying in St. Louis will not change that.