NFL Merry-Go-Round: Relocation Roundelay

[CubsFanBudMan]

Couple of other nuggets I just saw:

Chargers, Raiders both willing to move to NFC

http://mweb.cbssports.com/nfl/eye-on-football/25272862/raiders-and-chargers-willing-to-switch-divisions-if-co-tenants-in-los-angeles

San Antonio willing to be temp home for Raiders

http://mweb.cbssports.com/nfl/eye-on-football/25272633/raiders-to-san-antonio-city-willing-to-host-team-on-temporary-basis

...perhaps hoping for an OKC Hornets scenario.

[Gothamite]

Sam Farmer also tweeted out that his scenarios from April still hold up, FWIW:

http://www.latimes.com/sports/nfl/la-sp-0408-nfl-stadium-scenarios-20150408-story.html

Well, duh. Of course they do, Sam, because you covered all the bases up to and including "none of the three move". The only scenario he didn't lay out is "all three teams move to LA".

[IceCap]

The Chargers and Raiders are both original AFL teams. Neither should move to the NFC. The Chargers doing it will be bad enough. The Raiders though? Al Davis' team? The man who helmed the AFL itself against the NFL machine? His team? Leaving the AFC? That's as close to sacrilege as you can get in sports.

Moving them to San Antonio, but keeping them in the AFC, is preferable. At least telling two California cities to go themselves as they build a new arena on the cheap elsewhere is an appropriate Al Davis-esque move.

That doesn't even touch on the fact that the AFC West is the most tradition-laden four-way rivalry in the AFC. Four original AFL teams, and they all hate each other. It's the AFC answer to Dallas-Washington-New York-Philly.

Breaking that up to spare the feelings of the Best Fans in Baseball™ who, if attendance records are to be believed, don't even care about NFL football? Thanks, but no.

I'm sorry, but everything about St. Louis in this just reinforces the idea that they only see the NFL as a means to justify their own importance. They like to say "we have a NFL team," but only care to try and save it by putting together terrible deals when the team already has one foot out the door anyway.

You're the kid who ignores a toy all day, only to yell "IT'S MINE" when another kid, who actually likes the toy, tries to pick it up.

In terms of solving all the problems though? How about this? The Chargers stop acting like a bag of dicks and accept the very generous proposal from the city of San Diego. The Raiders then move into Stan's stadium along with the Rams. Everyone gets a new place to play and you don't need to break up historic rivalries to make the realignment work. So it's already got one up on the "Rams stay in St. Louis" plan.

The only real loser is the city of St. Louis, but even they come out ahead by not having to build a stadium they can't afford. Sure, you lose your precious NFL status symbol, but it's not like anyone there really cares anyway. The Rams aren't exactly the Cardinals.

[STL FANATIC]

I think the point you're ignoring is that San Diego's offered plan is just as good as St. Louis'.

Not exactly.

Financials are similar, sure. Although even then St. Louis is asking for $100 million less from the Rams than San Diego is for the Chargers.

But the Chargers and NFL have publicly stated that the San Diego plan is not good enough and they don't believe securing the public funding involved is truly viable without significant legal challenge.

While the Rams certainly haven't committed to their involvement in the St. Louis plan, neither they nor the NFL have publicly denounced the plan. In fact they've publicly applauded and encouraged it (with the caveat that it's not concrete yet).

[STL FANATIC]

The Chargers and Raiders are both original AFL teams. Neither should move to the NFC. The Chargers doing it will be bad enough. The Raiders though? Al Davis' team? The man who helmed the AFL itself against the NFL machine? His team? Leaving the AFC? That's as close to sacrilege as you can get in sports.

Moving them to San Antonio, but keeping them in the AFC, is preferable. At least telling two California cities to go themselves as they build a new arena on the cheap elsewhere is an appropriate Al Davis-esque move.

That doesn't even touch on the fact that the AFC West is the most tradition-laden four-way rivalry in the AFC. Four original AFL teams, and they all hate each other. It's the AFC answer to Dallas-Washington-New York-Philly.

Breaking that up to spare the feelings of the Best Fans in Baseball who, if attendance records are to be believed, don't even care about NFL football? Thanks, but no.

I'm sorry, but everything about St. Louis in this just reinforces the idea that they only see the NFL as a means to justify their own importance. They like to say "we have a NFL team," but only care to try and save it by putting together terrible deals when the team already has one foot out the door anyway.

You're the kid who ignores a toy all day, only to yell "IT'S MINE" when another kid, who actually likes the toy, tries to pick it up.

In terms of solving all the problems though? How about this? The Chargers stop acting like a bag of dicks and accept the very generous proposal from the city of San Diego. The Raiders then move into Stan's stadium along with the Rams. Everyone gets a new place to play and you don't need to break up historic rivalries to make the realignment work. So it's already got one up on the "Rams stay in St. Louis" plan.

The only real loser is the city of St. Louis, but even they come out ahead by not having to build a stadium they can't afford. Sure, you lose your precious NFL status symbol, but it's not like anyone there really cares anyway. The Rams aren't exactly the Cardinals.

It's almost not responding to a line of thinking like this. Your mind is made up. St. Louis is a bad football town because attendance isn't outstanding. Quality of the product is irrelevant to you. You've decided the city can't afford to build the stadium without having a grasp of the city and regions finances. All of that is extremely subjective and borderline ignorant. So I'm not going down that road. Debated those points before. Not worth it.

But I will say that retaining alignment based rivalries is an outstandingly terrible reason to dictate relocation scenarios. Just beyond awful. The AFL doesn't exist anymore. Fans will still enjoy the games. Re-alignment happens in sports.

Don't get me wrong. I like rivalries. I like protecting them.

But if that's even a blip on the radar for which cities lose their team then people aren't thinking straight—even for the world of sports.

[IceCap]

The Chargers and Raiders are both original AFL teams. Neither should move to the NFC. The Chargers doing it will be bad enough. The Raiders though? Al Davis' team? The man who helmed the AFL itself against the NFL machine? His team? Leaving the AFC? That's as close to sacrilege as you can get in sports.

Moving them to San Antonio, but keeping them in the AFC, is preferable. At least telling two California cities to go themselves as they build a new arena on the cheap elsewhere is an appropriate Al Davis-esque move.

That doesn't even touch on the fact that the AFC West is the most tradition-laden four-way rivalry in the AFC. Four original AFL teams, and they all hate each other. It's the AFC answer to Dallas-Washington-New York-Philly.

Breaking that up to spare the feelings of the Best Fans in Baseball™ who, if attendance records are to be believed, don't even care about NFL football? Thanks, but no.

I'm sorry, but everything about St. Louis in this just reinforces the idea that they only see the NFL as a means to justify their own importance. They like to say "we have a NFL team," but only care to try and save it by putting together terrible deals when the team already has one foot out the door anyway.

You're the kid who ignores a toy all day, only to yell "IT'S MINE" when another kid, who actually likes the toy, tries to pick it up.

In terms of solving all the problems though? How about this? The Chargers stop acting like a bag of dicks and accept the very generous proposal from the city of San Diego. The Raiders then move into Stan's stadium along with the Rams. Everyone gets a new place to play and you don't need to break up historic rivalries to make the realignment work. So it's already got one up on the "Rams stay in St. Louis" plan.

The only real loser is the city of St. Louis, but even they come out ahead by not having to build a stadium they can't afford. Sure, you lose your precious NFL status symbol, but it's not like anyone there really cares anyway. The Rams aren't exactly the Cardinals.

It's almost not responding to a line of thinking like this. Your mind is made up. St. Louis is a bad football town because attendance isn't outstanding. Quality of the product is irrelevant to you. You've decided the city can't afford to build the stadium without having a grasp of the city and regions finances.

I've decided all of this looking at the evidence available to me. All you're doing is attempting to spin that into some pro-St. Louis narrative.

And it needs to be noted. You felt the need to tell me I wasn't worth responding to. As you were responding to me.

I'll tell you what I told IslandStyle. Stop assuming criticism of your team, or even home town, is a personal insult. It's not. I'm being critical of the government of St. Louis and the Rams' "fanbase" in general. I'm not attacking STL FANATIC personally.

All of that is extremely subjective and borderline ignorant. So I'm not going down that road. Debated those points before. Not worth it.

Subjective? Ignorant? Try objective (as in the facts we have available) and informed (as in the opinion arrived at by analyzing these facts).

The question is "is St. Louis a good NFL market?" All we have are attendance figures to go on. And they suggest it isn't. You can argue that they aren't representative for whatever reason. It's my opinion, based on the numbers we have, that your attempts to argue otherwise are lacking as a counter-argument.

But I will say that retaining alignment based rivalries is an outstandingly terrible reason to dictate relocation scenarios. Just beyond awful. The AFL doesn't exist anymore. Fans will still enjoy the games. Re-alignment happens in sports.

Don't get me wrong. I like rivalries. I like protecting them.

But if that's even a blip on the radar for which cities lose their team then people aren't thinking straighteven for the world of sports.

So you like rivalries. And want to retain them. So long as your home town doesn't lose its status symbol. Got it.

The Portland Trailblazers voted to move the Sacremento Kings to Seattle simply because Paul Allen liked the old Blazers/Sonics rivalry. The NFL realigned and kept Dallas in the NFC East against all geographic logic to preserve a four-way rivalry. Leagues have always taken rivalries into consideration when relocation and realignment comes up.

As for the AFL no longer mattering? We're only five years removed from an all-out season long AFL nostalgia trip. If the NFL is willing to pretend that the AFL's legacy still matters for the sake of merchandise sales? The least they can do is pretend it matters when someone tries to suggest moving Al ing Davis' team out of the AFC to spare the feelings of people who would rather watch a Cardinals game on TV then go see the Rams play in person.

[HedleyLamarr]

You think attendance shouldn't matter or hasn't played a part in this. You are sadly mistaken on that.

The reason why attendance figures matter is that there's only 8 home games all year (10 if you include the preseason, but these are just extra revenue games for NFL teams). There's only 8 chances to see the home team play in a 365-day calendar year. And, as I've stated numerous times, football games aren't so much games as they are day-long and weekend-long events. The reason why attendance figures matter is because the NFL, vastly more so than MLB or NBA or NHL, is catered towards being able to draw fans from a team's primary and secondary markets. The other leagues depend heavily on the locals showing up because of their schedule structure. The NFL is one game a week, on the weekend (or at night), about twice a month. It looks bad on the league when a market can't fill a 60,000-ish seat building for the most popular sport in the country. It does show that the city or the surrounding 100-mile radius around the city just doesn't care about the NFL. St. Louis is getting outdrawned by Jacksonville annually, and they've had it worse than the Rams the last few years.

Think about it....would Kroenke even be entertaining the thought of leaving St. Louis if they were drawing at 95% or higher capacity? This is where I agree with Gothamite about fans being able to have their say in this: football is the least-demanding sport to attend. It's one game to go to every two weeks, more-than-likely on a Sunday afternoon. The bulk of the home schedule doesn't have to worry about cramming in a sporting event onto a work/school night. There aren't 2-6 home games per week to attend like there is with hockey or baseball.

[STL FANATIC]

Ice, I've posted lists of attendance figures compared to records of multiple franchises time and time again. I've broken it all down. It's not about being pro-St. Louis (of course I am, though), it's hard facts. And they're repeatedly dismissed. Because the St. Louis Rams don't have a legacy to any of you. The LA Rams do, and moreover right now, the San Diego Chargers do. So screw the 19 year history of the St. Louis Rams.

(And yes, screw it. I saw one hell of a football team for a few years, but I've also seen worse football up close than any of you have ever suffered through. A predominantly miserable 19 years it's been.)

--

It's not objective when you ignore the numbers every time they're posted. Only the St. Louis fans get held t the attendance standard here and there is NEVER any allowance for how bad the football team is. Ever. You don't care. And that's—yes—ignorant of the way the majority of sports market in this country are.

But that's not even why I used the word ignorant. That was about the financing. I've studied the numbers. I've studied the budget. I've studied the funding sources. I've studied the laws that created them. And I've read every projection that's come out concerning the future numbers. And the conclusion is that St. Louis can absolutely afford to build the stadium. It will probably make a little money for the state and be somewhere between a small financial loss and small financial gain (depending on multiple factors including inflation) for the city. It may not be the best use of the funds, but the funding stream does already exist, it does have limited use, and it is primarily generated from out of owners. I don't believe the stadium is a must build, and I don't fully support the stadium plan, but financially? It's fine. And we can afford it. It's wouldn't be the boondoggle that these things have the potential to be.

--

Calling it a status symbol is such a freaking straw man. Nobody that supports the stadium gives two craps about the status of the NFL. That IS a selling point, but it's just that. People that want the stadium want it because they're Rams fans.

I know I don't care about it as a status symbol, that's for sure. I think the NFL gets knocked down a couple pegs in the next 10-15 years. I think telling the NFL to screw off would be a status symbol.

But God help me I love my Rams. And that's the only reason I have any desire to see this through. I don't give a flying flip about the status of it and neither does anyone else in reality.

But for what it's worth, even if I did only care about it as a status symbol, that's still a heck of a lot better reason to keep a team somewhere than the division a team plays in.

--

Bottomline, I know you're not attacking me personally. But you're attacking two things I take a great deal of pride in and know a great deal about. And I'm going to call you out when you're wrong about them.

Prioritizing factors on what matters for relocation is opinion. We have different ones. And technically your judgement on the St. Louis market is opinion too. But an opinion based on a faulty understanding of the facts warrants correction.

[bosrs1]

I think everyone overthinks the marketability of these teams. I think we've seen enough case studies in sports and specifically in LA that if a team is successful it will find pretty strong support, and if it's notespecially if the other isit will probably lack support.

If both teams are successful then I suspect they'll do just fine drawing from the large LA area including (especially if the Chargers are involved) San Diego.

On field results will largely dictate support after an initial honeymoon stage.

Wouldn't go that far. Chargers are going to lose at least 50% of their existing fanbase from San Diego if they move north.

[STL FANATIC]

You think attendance shouldn't matter or hasn't played a part in this. You are sadly mistaken on that.

Let me stop you right there. I said that attending stupid rallies doesn't make a difference.

I believe that attendance of actual football games CAN make a difference.

I also believe that performance of the football team has a dramatic impact on difference and the Rams have been historically bad. Furthermore, I think it's hogwash to expect a city to show up to support a team that's been historically bad and has one foot out the door.

Would raucous full houses help St. Louis' cause? Yes. Has the attendance been so bad in the context of the performance of the football team to warrant a negative market against the market? I absolutely don't believe so.

But that's an uphill battle that I can't win around here.

[HedleyLamarr]

What you seem to forget was that Jacksonville was in about as rough a shape as any team in the league. You name the city, and the Jaguars seemed to be heading there. Despite their product not getting any better on the field (it can be argued it's worse than before Khan got the team) and without-a-doubt being a worse product on the field than the Rams in the last five years, Jacksonville's attendance is rising. Jacksonville's had just as many body parts out the door as the Rams have had, but their fans are showing up. And that's a town and surrounding area that's not exactly known for being affluent.

Kroenke realizes what kind of market St. Louis is. He's making his decision based on the totality of the Rams' tenure in town. What he sees is that if the Rams aren't playing in 2-of-3 Super Bowls every few seasons, fans aren't coming out.

This is St. Louis's do-or-die moment about coming out to support the team. You can either give Kroenke a reason to keep the Rams in St. Louis or you can say "I wish I had gone to more games". Attending NFL games doesn't guarantee turning a huge profit, but it sure does guarantee keeping the product around longer.

[STL FANATIC]

Wait, so you're argument is that Shad Khan showing care, certainty and investment in the Jacksonville market turned things around?

The same Shad Khan who wanted to buy the Rams until being pushed out at the absolute last minute by Stan Kroenke despite the fact that from that day all the way through to the present Stan Kroenke has not met NFL ownership standards?

Interesting.

Yeah. Kroenke was planning to move from the day he exercised his right. Khan would have changed the trajectory of the Rams franchise immensely.

What you have to realize Hedley, is that there has been almost no in-between "playing in 2-3 Super Bowls ever few seasons" and being historically awful from which to judge the St. Louis fan base on. I mean, yes, they've been ALMOST .500 the past few years. But that has come on the back of the worst stretch of football in league history. Haven't had a winning team in over a decade. "We don't totally suck any more" isn't a great marketing plan when you treated them to historically awful football for so long prior.

Anyways, this year is a lost cause. Attendance this year won't make a difference. The deals that are going to be struck will be struck. I may attend a game or two, but I won't be wasting my money for the sake of making a statement. And neither should anyone else.

By the way—and I've mentioned this umpteen times here—the Rams have very publicly and very frequently stated outright that they do not blame the fans for less than stellar attendance because they realize they screwed up the product.

[rams80]

Aside from when the players call the fans out or ask "Why the hell does the home stadium sound like its the opponent's home stadium?"

[Gothamite]

What you have to realize Hedley, is that there has been almost no in-between "playing in 2-3 Super Bowls ever few seasons" and being historically awful from which to judge the St. Louis fan base on.

And what you have to realize, Fanatic, is that to a neutral observer, it seems pretty clear that St. Louis doesn't care much about the Rams, not even when it became clear that they might lose them, and that showing the tiniest bit of interest might help keep them in town.

Which is okay. That's a perfectly legitimate choice, and nobody thinks less of the city for it. But be honest about that choice, own it. Excuse-making only goes so far.

This season probably is a lost cause. But that's in part because fans didn't bother to show up last season, or the season before that, or the season before that, when it was clear the Rams weren't long for St. Louis and the case could still be made that they wanted the team. Meanwhile, fans in LA were organizing rallies. Pretty stark difference, and don't think that's not part of Kroenke's pitch to the NFL.

[Gothamite]

By the wayand I've mentioned this umpteen times herethe Rams have very publicly and very frequently stated outright that they do not blame the fans for less than stellar attendance

Yes, you have - and now those statements are demonstrably PR, trying to make the best of a bad situation.

Kroenke to NFL: St. Louis doesn't work as home for his Rams

It's true that the Rams are not so stupid as to say negative things about their customer base in public. Not until they were freed to move. But they've made their true feelings clear before, and are now reportedly saying it outright behind closed doors to the people who are in a position to do something about it.

[Dexter Morgan]

@AlbertBreer Here's the video presentation on Carson's bid to be the NFL's home in Los Angeles. Shows more than just the stadium http://www.tout.com/m/25a864

[infrared41]

I've also seen worse football up close than any of you have ever suffered through. A predominantly miserable 19 years it's been.)

Dear, STL FANATIC,

You're kidding, right?

Signed,

Cleveland Browns fans

[Dexter Morgan]

I've also seen worse football up close than any of you have ever suffered through. A predominantly miserable 19 years it's been.)

Dear, STL FANATIC,

You're kidding, right?

Signed,

Cleveland Browns fans

and New York Jets fans. There more than a dozen teams that would gladly take the St. Louis Rams 19 years.

[TheOldRoman]

Sam Farmer also tweeted out that his scenarios from April still hold up, FWIW:

http://www.latimes.com/sports/nfl/la-sp-0408-nfl-stadium-scenarios-20150408-story.html

The first image in that story look almost exactly like Soldier Field. Woof.

[STL FANATIC]

I've also seen worse football up close than any of you have ever suffered through. A predominantly miserable 19 years it's been.)

Dear, STL FANATIC,

You're kidding, right?

Signed,

Cleveland Browns fans

and New York Jets fans. There more than a dozen teams that would gladly take the St. Louis Rams 19 years.

I'm not kidding, I just think you misunderstand what I'm saying. I certainly understand and appreciate that the Super Bowl era means my overall experience has been WAY more fortunate than yours in the past 2 decades.

But what I said is I've seen worse football. Not that I've seen exclusively worse football.

And that St. Louis Rams from 2007-2011 was the worst stretch of football in NFL history. That's just a fact.

I still respect that at least I did get to see a brief stretch of amazing football and a championship. (Then again, nobody's trying to take your teams away, so let's call it even.)