NFL Merry-Go-Round: Relocation Roundelay

[rams80]

Deadspin (and presumably) others report that if the Chargers and Raiders both be to LA, the Chargers and Cardinals would swap conferences.

I'm okay with this. Seattle might be the more natural candidate to switch back due to their more immediate history in the AFC, but three conference titles in a bit more than a decade gives them rights to stay, I think.

I still don't understand why the Rams (in this scenario remaining in St. Louis) wouldn't be the team to swap out.

They are totally out of place playing in the NFC West. The only reason they're their is to preserve a rivalry with San Francisco which has long dwindled, and would seem to be concretely crushed if LA gets new teams that aren't the Rams.

Move them to the AFC West where they'd have a natural rivalry with Kansas City and a not totally absurd journey to Denver.

But for some reason that scenario is never mentioned. I don't understand it.

Because some of us don't like to issue fatwas against an entire new ing Conference. And even if its been onesided, I consider Seattle a rivalry as well.

[ninersdd]

Just like the NHL playoffs last year, were talking about provel.

[The_Admiral]

It's stupid we're even talking about two teams moving to Los Angeles, to say nothing of the two teams being teams that aren't the Rams. Let's give them one -- the one building a stadium there right now -- and see how they do with that first.

[TheOldRoman]

So Admiral, what are your thoughts about the Raiders hypothetically giving everybody the middle finger and moving to San Antonio?

[rams80]

Thanks. The gooey cake sounds good. And I'm not taking shots at LA. I seriously don't know if they have a distinctive style of pizza.

"Not St. Louis" would be my guess.

And that's enough to win the pizza wars right there.

[The_Admiral]

So Admiral, what are your thoughts about the Raiders hypothetically giving everybody the middle finger and moving to San Antonio?

I think it would suck a lot because it would mean another team in a depressing dome and it would take the Raiders out of California, where they've been for 50+ years. You can say "oh, well, San Antonio has lots of Mexicans, so it kinda works," but the Raiders are counterculture, and San Antonio is, well, not. I don't want them in Los Angeles very much, either, but at least I can acknowledge that the L.A. Raiders were a cultural institution of sorts and it could be fun to give that another whirl. I'd prefer they stay in Oakland forever.

[bosrs1]

So Admiral, what are your thoughts about the Raiders hypothetically giving everybody the middle finger and moving to San Antonio?

I think it would suck a lot because it would mean another team in a depressing dome and it would take the Raiders out of California, where they've been for 50+ years. You can say "oh, well, San Antonio has lots of Mexicans, so it kinda works," but the Raiders are counterculture, and San Antonio is, well, not. I don't want them in Los Angeles very much, either, but at least I can acknowledge that the L.A. Raiders were a cultural institution of sorts and it could be fun to give that another whirl. I'd prefer they stay in Oakland forever.

Problem is the Bay Area isn't really Raiders style counterculture anymore either. The Bay Area IS the 49ers. It's all hipsters and the wine/cheese crowd now. Even Oakland is being gentrified faster than you can say "Mark Davis has no money..."

[DG_ThenNowForever]

The Raiders are better suited for a gross, depressing facility that needs to be replaced. So the Alamadome would have that going for it. The Raiders in a $2 billion palace without Darth Vader and the other Thunderdome cosplayers would be incongruent.

I wish Seattle had distinctive pizza. There's enjoyable pizza here, but like most everything in Seattle, it's too fancy for its own good, too expensive, and is prepared by people who would rather be doing something else. (Though I once had Meyer lemon and ham pizza that was incredible)

[The_Admiral]

The Raiders are better suited for a gross, depressing facility that needs to be replaced. So the Alamadome would have that going for it. The Raiders in a $2 billion palace without Darth Vader and the other Thunderdome cosplayers would be incongruent.

Funny you mention incongruity, because the grossness of the Oakland and L.A. Coliseums was offset by the beautiful California weather. Oakland in particular looks awesome on a sunny day (but no place in the NFL looks better under clear skies than Buffalo, and don't ask why). In the Alamodome, they'd be in the dark under a roof. It would be like the Jones Dome but worse. And symbolically, California stands for reinvention and clean slates, just like the Raiders. San Antonio doesn't stand for anything. It's Tulsa but bigger.

[infrared41]

So Admiral, what are your thoughts about the Raiders hypothetically giving everybody the middle finger and moving to San Antonio?

I think it would suck a lot because it would mean another team in a depressing dome and it would take the Raiders out of California, where they've been for 50+ years. You can say "oh, well, San Antonio has lots of Mexicans, so it kinda works," but the Raiders are counterculture, and San Antonio is, well, not. I don't want them in Los Angeles very much, either, but at least I can acknowledge that the L.A. Raiders were a cultural institution of sorts and it could be fun to give that another whirl. I'd prefer they stay in Oakland forever.

It probably shouldn't have, but that made me laugh. A lot.

The Raiders are better suited for a gross, depressing facility that needs to be replaced. So the Alamadome would have that going for it. The Raiders in a $2 billion palace without Darth Vader and the other Thunderdome cosplayers would be incongruent.

Funny you mention incongruity, because the grossness of the Oakland and L.A. Coliseums was offset by the beautiful California weather. Oakland in particular looks awesome on a sunny day (but no place in the NFL looks better under clear skies than Buffalo, and don't ask why). In the Alamodome, they'd be in the dark under a roof. It would be like the Jones Dome but worse. And symbolically, California stands for reinvention and clean slates, just like the Raiders. San Antonio doesn't stand for anything. It's Tulsa but bigger.

I agree. I think it's because, in between the regular snow storms and the lake effect snow storms, Buffalo gets about 10 sunny days a year. When one of those rare sunny days lands on a Bills home game, it makes for a pretty nice scene.

[The_Admiral]

This is like the Platonic ideal of football on an autumn Sunday to me. No frills, no gimmicks, no battle of the elements, just a red-white-and-blue football team on a sunny day.

EDIT: other than the pinkwashing but close enough

[DG_ThenNowForever]

I've been to a few Bills games, and each of them have been in snow, rain, wind, or a combination of all three. They've all been brutal, and they all ended with snowballs, fistfights, and urinating in the stands.

Going to NFL games is for suckers.

[infrared41]

I've been to a few Bills games, and each of them have been in snow, rain, wind, or a combination of all three. They've all been brutal, and they all ended with snowballs, fistfights, and urinating in the stands.

Going to NFL games is for suckers.

Unless you happen to enjoy constant TV times out, overpriced...well...everything, drunken fans, and spending a couple hours stuck in traffic.

[RyanMcD29]

I've been to a few Bills games, and each of them have been in snow, rain, wind, or a combination of all three. They've all been brutal, and they all ended with snowballs, fistfights, and urinating in the stands.

Going to NFL games is for suckers.

Stupid as it sounds, the only time I'd want to go to a game is a Thursday or Monday nighter because I feel like I'd miss way too much going to a Sunday game.

*removed 2nd half of post because I didn't realize this wasn't the 2015 season thread*

[IceCap]

Ice,

What I'm opposed to is letting the billionaire owners dictate the sports landscape on their own whims.

That's false, and you know it. Billionaire building his own stadium with his own money on his own land. Your objection to it is entirely based on him not doing it in your home town. You're only making yourself look foolish by pretending that your objection to Kroenke's plan is fuelled by anything but a desire to see the Rams stay in a city they don't want to play in. You're putting your own selfish desires and supporting a plan that will cost St. Louis hundreds of millions ahead of a plan that won't cost anyone but Stan Korenke a dime.

I'm not dense enough to not recognize or admit that this is a business. But it's also a very unique business that relies on the goodwill of the citizenry and fans to be successful. And I'm entitled to my opinions on what is morally justifiable business.

Yes. Sports are dependent on the goodwill of the citizenry to be successful. The team's failure to cultivate that in St. Louis and the surrounding communities is exactly why the market is not one the NFL has to be in.

Relocating teams is NOT a dream scenario. This WHOLE situation stinks. (And yes, the Rams relocation from LA to St. Louis also stunk. As did the Cardinals relocation from St. Louis to Phoenix.)

Either way, someone's going to relocate. I rather it be the team owned by the guy who is building his own stadium with his own money and whose move won't disrupt the league alignment or historical rivalries.

As for the Rams' move from LA to St. Louis? If you truly recognized how much that stunk you'd realize why so many LA-area fans are excited at the prospect of the Rams returning. And why the Rams returning to LA won't be the travesty you're making it out to be.

And you're starting to look silly by continuing the status symbol refrain. Why is it so hard to believe that sports fans just like having a sports team?

This is where it became clear to me that you're no longer interested in civil conversation. You have, in a very transparent yet underhanded manner, called my posts something barely worth replying to, called me a hypocrite, and are now calling me "silly." Your attempts to throw out insults and then duck behind a wall of civility are noted, and not appreciated.

You know why I'm focused on the status symbol thing? It's because that is what I see this ultimately being about. It's about St. Louis being so in love with itself that the Best Fans in Baseball™ can't bare to see their track record blackened by the fact two NFL teams decided St. Louis wasn't working for them.

It's not about what's best for the Rams. The team itself has made it clear it wants to go elsewhere. It's not about what's best for the league. LA over St. Louis is a no-brainer. It's certainly not about what's best for St. Louis. Not spending millions on a complex that won't Revitalize Downtown™ is always preferably to spending millions. No, there's nothing wrong with sports fans liking sports, but the only empirical data we have suggests that the St. Louis faithful don't actually care about the Rams.

So we're left the status symbol. It's all the NFL, via the Rams, are to St. Louis. A city whose citizenry have cultivated this myth about themselves, and who can't let the NFL go because it just might suggest they really aren't the world class city and world class fanbase they keep insisting everyone recognize them as.

And that my friend...that's silly.

[Cosmic]

This is like the Platonic ideal of football on an autumn Sunday to me. No frills, no gimmicks, no battle of the elements, just a red-white-and-blue football team on a sunny day.

EDIT: other than the pinkwashing but close enough

Then you'd be happy to hear that the Bills are tapping the brakes on the new stadium train.

[Still MIGHTY]

To answer the question of what a Los Angeles style of pizza is, it's either barbecue chicken pizza or some transplant's version of New York pizza.

[STL FANATIC]

That's false, and you know it. Billionaire building his own stadium with his own money on his own land. Your objection to it is entirely based on him not doing it in your home town. You're only making yourself look foolish by pretending that your objection to Kroenke's plan is fuelled by anything but a desire to see the Rams stay in a city they don't want to play in. You're putting your own selfish desires and supporting a plan that will cost St. Louis hundreds of millions ahead of a plan that won't cost anyone but Stan Korenke a dime.

The Carson project isn't costing anyone but it's principles a dime either. (This actually isn't quite true. Both projects will likely cost taxpayers tens of millions — chump change in this game of stadiums.) And it will satisfy two teams desires.

And no, it's not false. C'mon man. I have opposed team relocation every single time it comes up. And I know that you know that.

My objection to the plan is screwing over a city that has invested much, received little, and yet continued to give reasonable support to his team. The man even disrupted the sale to a guy who would have invested and committed to St. Louis in order to plot his exit to LA (after 15 years earlier plotting their exit from LA).

Yes. Sports are dependent on the goodwill of the citizenry to be successful. The team's failure to cultivate that in St. Louis and the surrounding communities is exactly why the market is not one the NFL has to be in.

Well, alright. I agree with you here. It is the Rams failure entirely.

Either way, someone's going to relocate. I rather it be the team owned by the guy who is building his own stadium with his own money and whose move won't disrupt the league alignment or historical rivalries.

I mean, fair enough if you place that much value on the historic rivalries. I think that should be a very minor factor. All involved are relying on their own assets to accomplish their move, so Kroenke is no better than the others in that regard.

And these guys are free to do what they want with their teams right? That's your stance? So if they want to re-align, they really just ought to go for it.

As for the Rams' move from LA to St. Louis? If you truly recognized how much that stunk you'd realize why so many LA-area fans are excited at the prospect of the Rams returning. And why the Rams returning to LA won't be the travesty you're making it out to be.

I do realize how much it stunk. It's like the exact same thing. They had an antiquated stadium and drew terrible attendance because the team didn't put forth a respectable product. (Only the product in St. Louis has been worth and St. Louis invested in a brand new building just two decades ago something, something the LA market never did for them.)

In a perfect world LA never would have lost the Rams. And St. Louis would have had some other team—probably the Cardinals. I'd be all for fixing the wrong the Rams did to LA if it didn't take another wrong to accomplish it.

The only reason I at all consider the Chargers to LA option as not awful (and it still is) is that at least they're still in the general area. At least it's still southern California. Still would suck, but it's something.

This is where it became clear to me that you're no longer interested in civil conversation. You have, in a very transparent yet underhanded manner, called my posts something barely worth replying to, called me a hypocrite, and are now calling me "silly." Your attempts to throw out insults and then duck behind a wall of civility are noted, and not appreciated.

I mean noted, but you've called me a liar about ten different ways throughout this conversation, so I'm not sure I'm going to apologize for it.

You know why I'm focused on the status symbol thing? It's because that is what I see this ultimately being about.

And that's ultimately what this comes down to. Your misread of the St. Louis market. I can't make you believe me even though I've given stats in the past that show St. Louis doesn't treat the Rams any worse than most markets facing terrible products over a sustained period. And I certainly can't surround you with everything I'm surrounded by that makes the intentions of the region entirely clear. You believe what you want to believe from afar. I'm telling you that you're flat out wrong.

This is about football fans wanting a football team. Period.

[STL FANATIC]

To answer the question of what a Los Angeles style of pizza is, it's either barbecue chicken pizza or some transplant's version of New York pizza.

Serious question. Is California Pizza Kitchen pizza based on anything at all authentic to California? Or is it just the name of a place?

[Still MIGHTY]

To answer the question of what a Los Angeles style of pizza is, it's either barbecue chicken pizza or some transplant's version of New York pizza.

Serious question. Is California Pizza Kitchen pizza based on anything at all authentic to California? Or is it just the name of a place?

It's not just a name, no. The base is a New York style pizza (thin but bendable crust, etc) but with unique changes to the pizza, i.e. barbecue chicken. (BBQ instead of marinara, chicken instead of a beef, red onions and cilantro)

For CPK itself, it was founded in California by a Californian. It's HQ is in California. It's become its own brand and chain, but it was originally just California.