NFL Merry-Go-Round: Relocation Roundelay

[CubsFanBudMan]

If a second AFC team beats them there -- say, the Jaguars -- it could also send the Rams to the AFC South with Indy, Houston and Tennessee. Might be a better situation for them. Of course, joining the NFC North would be, too.

Who would you kick out of the NFC north? If two AFC teams beat the Rams to LA, that means the Vikings stay put.

Two separate thoughts. Sorry, that was unclear. It was a reference to the Vikings.

[CubsFanBudMan]

If a second AFC team beats them there -- say, the Jaguars -- it could also send the Rams to the AFC South with Indy, Houston and Tennessee. Might be a better situation for them. Of course, joining the NFC North would be, too.

In what way?

Level of competition gets bumped in difficulty. (weakest division in the league exchanged for playing Peyton Manning twice a season)

Their proximity to their opponents improves the likelihood said opponents will take over the stadium. (Good for the box office, bad for home field advantage)

Yearly travel goes down, but this is the goddamn NFL, which means travel isn't too onerous to begin with.

I think proximity builds better rivalries over time. Having the other fans in your housse can get the home crowd fired up, too, and make you not want to miss the next matchup. Travel didn't really enter my mind. I admit the NFC West has been a dream for 9-7 teams, but that can't last forever. And Manning's not playing forever, either.

[rams80]

If a second AFC team beats them there -- say, the Jaguars -- it could also send the Rams to the AFC South with Indy, Houston and Tennessee. Might be a better situation for them. Of course, joining the NFC North would be, too.

In what way?

Level of competition gets bumped in difficulty. (weakest division in the league exchanged for playing Peyton Manning twice a season)

Their proximity to their opponents improves the likelihood said opponents will take over the stadium. (Good for the box office, bad for home field advantage)

Yearly travel goes down, but this is the goddamn NFL, which means travel isn't too onerous to begin with.

I think proximity builds better rivalries over time. Having the other fans in your housse can get the home crowd fired up, too, and make you not want to miss the next matchup. Travel didn't really enter my mind. I admit the NFC West has been a dream for 9-7 teams, but that can't last forever. And Manning's not playing forever, either.

Yes, that's the theory. The practice is that as St. Louisans are physically and psychologically incapable of displaying strong emotion on a day to day basis, you just have the home team getting booed early and often.

[CubsFanBudMan]

If a second AFC team beats them there -- say, the Jaguars -- it could also send the Rams to the AFC South with Indy, Houston and Tennessee. Might be a better situation for them. Of course, joining the NFC North would be, too.

In what way?

Level of competition gets bumped in difficulty. (weakest division in the league exchanged for playing Peyton Manning twice a season)

Their proximity to their opponents improves the likelihood said opponents will take over the stadium. (Good for the box office, bad for home field advantage)

Yearly travel goes down, but this is the goddamn NFL, which means travel isn't too onerous to begin with.

I think proximity builds better rivalries over time. Having the other fans in your housse can get the home crowd fired up, too, and make you not want to miss the next matchup. Travel didn't really enter my mind. I admit the NFC West has been a dream for 9-7 teams, but that can't last forever. And Manning's not playing forever, either.

Yes, that's the theory. The practice is that as St. Louisans are physically and psychologically incapable of displaying strong emotion on a day to day basis, you just have the home team getting booed early and often.

That was not my experience as a young Cubs fan visiting St. Louis - or as an adult, so I know they are capable. Maybe Seattle, San Fran and Arizona just don't get their juices flowing.

And now that I think more of it, travel is a factor. Having to go two time zones west to play every road division game has to be a disadvantage.

[The_Admiral]

Why? They don't have road trips that keep them away from home for more time than a game in, say, Indianapolis. They don't walk to the games. They don't even fly coach. The "disadvantage" of taking a charter plane halfway across the country for a few weekends a year is being seriously overstated.

[bosrs1]

You're right that it was a stupid clause. Because the new stadiums are so far above Edward Jones in terms of revenue generation that they've no hope of renovating it to fit.

Even if St Louis had the money, which they don't. Thanks to a cranky anti-tax "take money away from those city folk" ballot measure, St Louis will have a hard enough time paying its cops and teachers, much less coming up with a spare billion or so.

That stupid clause is what will send the Rams to LA.

Well based on the LA Mayor's comments it appears the Rams and Jags will be taking a back seat to the Vikings and Chargers for the time being as they'd like those two teams as their first choices and supposedly have already had meetings with them. Which might explain why the Chargers abruptly took that 35% share they were selling off the market.

Maybe. It could also be that in the Vikings case that was just a shot across the bow to really get the Minnesota legislature's attention (as if the HeftyDome's collapse wasn't enough). They appear to actually be moving again on a stadium.

Only problem with that theory is what motivation would the mayor of LA have for sending a shot across the bow of the Minnesota legislature?

The mayor of LA? None.

The Vikings? A whole lot.

If negotiations between the Vikings and LA were made public in any way, do you think it would be without the consent and approval of the club?

By a politician in a different city? Sure. Particularly if he's that confident they'll get who they're after.

[bosrs1]

I see the Vikings moving to LA, Rams moving to LA also to play in the same stadium...

Two NFC teams in LA? No way.

I don't think the mayor's preference was the significant part of the story, but that he revealed the AEG group had a preference by mocking up Farmers Field for the Vikings and Chargers, or perhaps tipped their hand on who they had met with. Not that those two wouldn't be obvious, but as sure as some seem the Rams will be on the move, are we even sure L.A. will still be an option by the time their lease expires? The two teams they mocked up are very immediate choices.

The only way the Rams stay in St Louis is if another NFC team beats them there.

I somehow see the Vikings pulling put a deal, maybe at the old ammo dump. But the Rams? They're headed for a repeat of 1995, when a new stadium deal beckoned them out of their home and towards greener fields.

I think you also have to look at need as a very big motivating factor. Who has the greater need to be in LA and how quickly can they get there. As we've been discussing the Rams situation isn't perfect but from a structural standpoint they don't have a great need. Minnesota on the other hand is dealing with a stadium that has once again collapsed on them (and cost them 1 home game... so far) and to date has an indeterminate reopening date (and no guarantee the same thing won't happen again next season). And they've got an easy escape route as well. Meanwhile in San Diego you've got a team whose stadium flooded recently (albeit only a minor inconvenience) which is currently the third oldest in the league with a very easy escape route for a team that was already offered for sale this year (and AEG was reportedly interested in the portion that was available).

[CubsFanBudMan]

Why? They don't have road trips that keep them away from home for more time than a game in, say, Indianapolis. They don't walk to the games. They don't even fly coach. The "disadvantage" of taking a charter plane halfway across the country for a few weekends a year is being seriously overstated.

I see what you're saying. I guess it's not like the west coast road trips of the NBA or MLB. Just a longer plane ride on the travel day. Guess I let the media convince me it mattered in the NFL a few (or 10) years back with that whole Jets-Oakland thing. Shame on me.

[rams80]

I see the Vikings moving to LA, Rams moving to LA also to play in the same stadium...

Two NFC teams in LA? No way.

I don't think the mayor's preference was the significant part of the story, but that he revealed the AEG group had a preference by mocking up Farmers Field for the Vikings and Chargers, or perhaps tipped their hand on who they had met with. Not that those two wouldn't be obvious, but as sure as some seem the Rams will be on the move, are we even sure L.A. will still be an option by the time their lease expires? The two teams they mocked up are very immediate choices.

The only way the Rams stay in St Louis is if another NFC team beats them there.

I somehow see the Vikings pulling put a deal, maybe at the old ammo dump. But the Rams? They're headed for a repeat of 1995, when a new stadium deal beckoned them out of their home and towards greener fields.

I think you also have to look at need as a very big motivating factor. Who has the greater need to be in LA and how quickly can they get there. As we've been discussing the Rams situation isn't perfect but from a structural standpoint they don't have a great need. Minnesota on the other hand is dealing with a stadium that has once again collapsed on them (and cost them 1 home game... so far) and to date has an indeterminate reopening date (and no guarantee the same thing won't happen again next season). And they've got an easy escape route as well. Meanwhile in San Diego you've got a team whose stadium flooded recently (albeit only a minor inconvenience) which is currently the third oldest in the league with a very easy escape route for a team that was already offered for sale this year (and AEG was reportedly interested in the portion that was available).

The stadium is a warehouse. But you want to know why the EJD's warehouse roof didn't cave in this week during a once in a generation storm? Because that dome isn't frickin air-supported, but actually has rigid structural supports holding it up. Jesus Christ, saying the EJD is fine from a 21st Century NFL stadium standpoint is like saying the local college wood ballpark can support an MLB team, no problems.

[themightyspitz]

I've been saying from the beginning:

-Move the Jaguars to LA, make them part of the NFC West

-Keep the Rams in St. Louis, make them part of the AFC South (Indy, Nashville, & Houston are closer than Seattle, SF, and Phoenix)

-Keep the Vikings in Minnesota. LA doesn't need to pilfer another team from that state.

[scarsofthumper]

It'd make more sense to move the Vikings to LA, then move the Rams to the NFC North

[TheOldRoman]

The stadium is a warehouse. But you want to know why the EJD's warehouse roof didn't cave in this week during a once in a generation storm? Because that dome isn't frickin air-supported, but actually has rigid structural supports holding it up. Jesus Christ, saying the EJD is fine from a 21st Century NFL stadium standpoint is like saying the local college wood ballpark can support an MLB team, no problems.

I don't get how that is a bad thing. I haven't been to either stadium, but I have heard Bears and White Sox fans speak not-so-glowingly about the ear-popping and stale air you experience when walking into the Metrodome. What is the advantage of an inflatable roof?

[TheOldRoman]

The farmersfield.com website states that the stadium will hold approx. 68,000, and will be expandable to 78,000.

Building the stadium with a 68-78,000 capacity is foolish just as it was in Soldier Field. The Bears could easily sell out 80,000 every week, but instead they have one of the smallest capacities in the NFL with no room to expand. The LA stadium should seat at least 75,000 for regular games.

[rams80]

The stadium is a warehouse. But you want to know why the EJD's warehouse roof didn't cave in this week during a once in a generation storm? Because that dome isn't frickin air-supported, but actually has rigid structural supports holding it up. Jesus Christ, saying the EJD is fine from a 21st Century NFL stadium standpoint is like saying the local college wood ballpark can support an MLB team, no problems.

I don't get how that is a bad thing. I haven't been to either stadium, but I have heard Bears and White Sox fans speak not-so-glowingly about the ear-popping and stale air you experience when walking into the Metrodome. What is the advantage of an inflatable roof?

Presumably cost. It's probably cheaper to put in an inflatable roof than building rigid structural supports-at least on startup. Not sure about lifetime expenses though (electricity/maintenance/fixing the goddamn roof when a foot of snow falls on it and caves it in).

[hofflalu]

This was in a recent Sid Hartman column (he's the legendary Twin Cities newspaper columnist) in the Star Tribune about his interview with AEG's Tim Leiweke:

Leiweke said he and Vikings owner Zygi Wilf are friends.

"Zygi came down and looked at LA Live," Leiweke said. "I think Zygi really wants to figure this out in Minnesota. I personally think he will. ... I think this is the year they're going to do it and I think he's pretty committed to keeping that team and that brand a part of the culture in Minnesota.

Hartman also noted that the Metropolitan Sports Facilities Commission has a new head in Ted Mondale (Walter's son) who, in his view, will be more aggressive in pushing for a new Vikings stadium in Minnesota (I've seen some evidence of that in news reports in recent weeks).

http://www.startribune.com/sports/vikings/114764584.html?elr=KArksi8cyaiU9PmP:QiUiacyKUzyaP37D_ncyD_2yckUs

[TheOldRoman]

The stadium is a warehouse. But you want to know why the EJD's warehouse roof didn't cave in this week during a once in a generation storm? Because that dome isn't frickin air-supported, but actually has rigid structural supports holding it up. Jesus Christ, saying the EJD is fine from a 21st Century NFL stadium standpoint is like saying the local college wood ballpark can support an MLB team, no problems.

I don't get how that is a bad thing. I haven't been to either stadium, but I have heard Bears and White Sox fans speak not-so-glowingly about the ear-popping and stale air you experience when walking into the Metrodome. What is the advantage of an inflatable roof?

Presumably cost. It's probably cheaper to put in an inflatable roof than building rigid structural supports-at least on startup. Not sure about lifetime expenses though (electricity/maintenance/fixing the goddamn roof when a foot of snow falls on it and caves it in).

In the post I quoted you were saying that a non-inflatable roof was a bad thing, like it made EJD more of a joke. I don't see how having an inflatable roof would make the dome more feasible for future use.

[bosrs1]

The stadium is a warehouse. But you want to know why the EJD's warehouse roof didn't cave in this week during a once in a generation storm? Because that dome isn't frickin air-supported, but actually has rigid structural supports holding it up. Jesus Christ, saying the EJD is fine from a 21st Century NFL stadium standpoint is like saying the local college wood ballpark can support an MLB team, no problems.

I don't get how that is a bad thing. I haven't been to either stadium, but I have heard Bears and White Sox fans speak not-so-glowingly about the ear-popping and stale air you experience when walking into the Metrodome. What is the advantage of an inflatable roof?

Low cost. Air supported domes are comparatively cheap to build. But there is always the deflation risk as has recently happened to both the Metrodome and BC Place in Vancouver.

[rams80]

The stadium is a warehouse. But you want to know why the EJD's warehouse roof didn't cave in this week during a once in a generation storm? Because that dome isn't frickin air-supported, but actually has rigid structural supports holding it up. Jesus Christ, saying the EJD is fine from a 21st Century NFL stadium standpoint is like saying the local college wood ballpark can support an MLB team, no problems.

I don't get how that is a bad thing. I haven't been to either stadium, but I have heard Bears and White Sox fans speak not-so-glowingly about the ear-popping and stale air you experience when walking into the Metrodome. What is the advantage of an inflatable roof?

Presumably cost. It's probably cheaper to put in an inflatable roof than building rigid structural supports-at least on startup. Not sure about lifetime expenses though (electricity/maintenance/fixing the goddamn roof when a foot of snow falls on it and caves it in).

In the post I quoted you were saying that a non-inflatable roof was a bad thing, like it made EJD more of a joke. I don't see how having an inflatable roof would make the dome more feasible for future use.

The post I was responding to was pointing out the HeftyDome roof collapse as one of the chief reasons Minnesota needs a new stadium/won't be long for the world. That is fine. But that poster was using the absence of a roof collapse in St. Louis as a reason why the stadium would be fine with the 2009-2010 improvements they made on the stadium. If it takes the roof falling in for that poster to realize "No, this is not a competitive stadium in the 21st Century NFL", I was sort of lamenting how the dome had a "collapse proof" roof, especially in light of this week's storm.

The EJD is an on-spec stadium built on the relative cheap, which as a result, possesses the atmosphere and aesthetic appeal of a mass production warehouse. That's the bottom line and why no amount of "sprucing up" is going to get the stadium into the top third of league stadia.

[McCall]

The earliest the Rams could move is following the 2014 season, so early 2015 to be technical. That's 4 years from now. Does everybody really think 2 out of the other 3 teams with the possibility of moving, not to mention to an extent the Bills, wouldn't be there or committed to moving there by the time the Rams can opt out? That's another reason why, and I've always said it's not guaranteed, but at this time it's more likely them remaining in St. Louis than leaving. I'd say it's probably 60/40 at least. The Chargers could almost be considered a guarantee to move up the coast and take advantage of a brand new downtown LA stadium in what is already basically their market so they don't have to worry about trying to get in with the crowd of a new city. The Vikes stadium is literally falling apart with no replacement plan at the moment and the Jaguars are, well, the Jaguars. And again, though I think if the Bills go anywhere it'll be Toronto, but you can't count them out as eyeing LA either. I'd probably say the Rams are 5th on the list, if not because of a local owner, then because of the time remaining on the lease which gives everyone else a better shot at getting there before them.

[TruColor]

If a second AFC team beats them there -- say, the Jaguars -- it could also send the Rams to the AFC South with Indy, Houston and Tennessee. Might be a better situation for them. Of course, joining the NFC North would be, too.

Who would you kick out of the NFC north? If two AFC teams beat the Rams to LA, that means the Vikings stay put.

One of the reasons that the Rams and Chargers make so much sense in Los Angeles is that all existing divisional alignment stays in place. Who knows, maybe St Louis will eventually be able to lure the Jags, since their move is also a virtual foregone conclusion. And that makes sense geographically as well.

Not to turn this into a realignment thread (we all know how much we hate those), but if the Jaguars were able to get out of their lease and move to L.A., I'd move them to the NFC West, move the Rams to the NFC South, and move the Panthers to the AFC South.

Boom. Done.