duma

NFL Merry-Go-Round: Relocation Roundelay

Recommended Posts

No, I lost my favorite NFL team to Baltimore. I was more invested in the original Browns than any team I've ever followed. And it ain't even close.

EDIT: And I'm going to throw this in here too - us original Browns fans were the best fans in football. Period. B)

Same here. The day the Browns move was announced ended my days of being a sports fan - not a fan of the Browns, but a fan of any team, anywhere, in any sport. Because it dawned on me that pulling for a professional team's success is really no different than hoping a corporation has a successful fiscal quarter. I've not had a truly heartfelt interest in any team... never felt that adrenaline pump as a key moment was unfolding, since.

And to be honest? I don't miss it. Now I follow sports as a business enterprise, as an observer and sometimes low-level participant (buying a share of the Packers, primarily so I can occasionally get them to send me information I want but which, because I'm a shareholder, they're not legally entitled to refuse me; or the Indians or Celtics when they were public; the Saskatchewan Roughriders, etc.) It's actually more interesting to me now, looking at it in a dispassionate sense.

That said, I feel badly for Rams fans in St. Louis. I spent my morning listening to KMOX however, and judging by the people who were calling in? I think they're going to be just fine.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This question probably isn't going to win me any fans, but I'm going to ask it anyway...

To all the St. Louis Rams fans - I understand that you're upset because your team is moving back to Los Angeles. My question is this - did it ever bother you that Los Angeles Rams fans had to lose their NFL team in order for you to get one? I'm not trying to be a jerk or rub it in, etc., I'm seriously asking because back when the Browns left, there was talk of Cleveland getting a relocated team. My thinking back then was I'd never root for a team that relocated to Cleveland. It just didn't seem right to be as upset as we were over losing the Browns and then end up rooting for a team that would have basically done the same thing to it's fanbase that the Browns had done to us.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

LA Rams fans, did it ever bother you that you had to steal a team from Cleveland? I understand that wasn't the last time Cleveland lost a team, but it had to sting.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This question probably isn't going to win me any fans, but I'm going to ask it anyway...

To all the St. Louis Rams fans - I understand that you're upset because your team is moving back to Los Angeles. My question is this - did it ever bother you that Los Angeles Rams fans had to lose their NFL team in order for you to get one? I'm not trying to be a jerk or rub it in, etc., I'm seriously asking because back when the Browns left, there was talk of Cleveland getting a relocated team. My thinking back then was I'd never root for a team that relocated to Cleveland. It just didn't seem right to be as upset as we were over losing the Browns and then end up rooting for a team that would have basically done the same thing to it's fanbase that the Browns had done to us.

This is actually a really good question... any Ravens fans old enough to have been upset by the Colts can chime in too.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

LA Rams fans, did it ever bother you that you had to steal a team from Cleveland? I understand that wasn't the last time Cleveland lost a team, but it had to sting.

The NFL had about 37 fans when the Rams left Cleveland. I doubt anyone from Cleveland even noticed the Rams were gone. It's a little different today. :rolleyes: Your Spartans did a nice job against Alabama in the playoff, BTW.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I was a kid at the time so it didn't completely understand the concept of LA losing its team. Plus, it was still very early for the internet, and TV reports here in STL made it seem like no one really cared that Rams were leaving LA and that LA sports fans would be perfectly wine watching USC and the Lakers.

As for the city, they had just lost out on the expansion of not getting the Stallions. I think the city felt this was the only chance to get a team (and we were foolishly building the dome on spec) and if we wanted a team we had to take it. The joke was we'd have a great facility for tractor pulls if we didn't get a team. I also think some people felt it was "righting a wrong" from losing the football Cardinals.

Of course, if they had just built that damn dome a few years sooner we probably would still have the Cardinals and wouldn't be talking about a new stadium to replace the dome until the dome was at least paid for.

This article below claims Bidwell really didn't want to leave St. Louis, and if the city would have built the dome then he'd surely have signed a long-term lease with no "top tier" clause.

I will also still defend the dome itself. It really only needs bigger video boards, better lighting, outside windows (like Ford Field), and new seats. All of these issues were addressed with the CVC's second proposal, but again none of that mattered because of the wording of the lease.

The Edward Jones Dome is undoubtedly a better stadium than Tropicana Field, but St. Petersburg was smart enough to have an ironclad lease so the Rays are still there and probably will be there for the foreseeable future.

Now, as far as a new NFL team, I don't want to wish the sadness I feel now on another city so the only way I would want a team is either: 1. expansion or 2. a team basically having to move because stadium literally falling apart (which could apply to Raiders but don't see that happening and am not hoping for it to happen).

http://www.101sports.com/2016/01/11/stark-contrast-losing-rams-2016-losing-cardinals-1988/

I'm mostly upset because I feel like since I moved back to STL in summer 2014 it's been one crappy thing after another around here (Ferguson, Mizzou protests, flooding last month, Rams moving, Cardinals cheating scandal). And I have no friends here, no dating prospects, and may have made a mistake in moving here in the first place.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

LA Rams fans, did it ever bother you that you had to steal a team from Cleveland? I understand that wasn't the last time Cleveland lost a team, but it had to sting.

I hate this argument because of how idiotic it is. It doesn't take to genius to understand that the dynamics of pro football have changed since the end of WWII and the social impact of losing a team back in the 40's (when most of the league was constantly moving teams around anyways) is much different than it was in the 90's and how it is today.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So home games for the L.A. Rams will be Arizona, San Francisco, Seattle, Atlanta, Carolina, the Giants, Buffalo, and Miami. Which game gets kicked to London? I'm guessing divisional games and the Giants game stay stateside, probably gonna want those traveling hordes of Bills fans too, so probably one of the two NFC South games.

Also guessing the home slate is backloaded so that they play as many games as possible after USC's season wraps up.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Oh, well, that's kinda stupid. I'd want the NY-LA game at home for national television.

Just read that the Rams are keeping their headquarters in St. Louis County until March. awkwaaaaarrrrrd.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Week 1 2016: 49ers at Rams in the Coliseum

Hopefully, but it wouldn't surprise me if they do Seattle for Pete Carroll's first game back in the Coliseum.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Oh, well, that's kinda stupid. I'd want the NY-LA game at home for national television.Just read that the Rams are keeping their headquarters in St. Louis County until March. awkwaaaaarrrrrd.

To be fair, it'll take a couple months to go real estate shopping and load up the United vans.

BFDE5D2D-9939-4D34-9C72-5A0FAC28ACCF_zps

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

They're playing the Giants in London next year.

Yeah - when the Eagles played the Giants in week 17, the stakes were that the winner went to Seattle while the loser went to London.

Oh, well, that's kinda stupid. I'd want the NY-LA game at home for national television.

Just read that the Rams are keeping their headquarters in St. Louis County until March. awkwaaaaarrrrrd.

So when can they start calling themselves the Los Angeles Rams officially? I'm a little surprised their site hadn't been updated and outlets like ESPN haven't changed the name yet.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Probably the draft. The Winnipeg Jets were just "NHL Winnipeg" from sale day to draft day.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I was a kid at the time so it didn't completely understand the concept of LA losing its team. Plus, it was still very early for the internet, and TV reports here in STL made it seem like no one really cared that Rams were leaving LA and that LA sports fans would be perfectly wine watching USC and the Lakers.

As for the city, they had just lost out on the expansion of not getting the Stallions. I think the city felt this was the only chance to get a team (and we were foolishly building the dome on spec) and if we wanted a team we had to take it. The joke was we'd have a great facility for tractor pulls if we didn't get a team. I also think some people felt it was "righting a wrong" from losing the football Cardinals.

Of course, if they had just built that damn dome a few years sooner we probably would still have the Cardinals and wouldn't be talking about a new stadium to replace the dome until the dome was at least paid for.

This article below claims Bidwell really didn't want to leave St. Louis, and if the city would have built the dome then he'd surely have signed a long-term lease with no "top tier" clause.

I will also still defend the dome itself. It really only needs bigger video boards, better lighting, outside windows (like Ford Field), and new seats. All of these issues were addressed with the CVC's second proposal, but again none of that mattered because of the wording of the lease.

The Edward Jones Dome is undoubtedly a better stadium than Tropicana Field, but St. Petersburg was smart enough to have an ironclad lease so the Rays are still there and probably will be there for the foreseeable future.

Now, as far as a new NFL team, I don't want to wish the sadness I feel now on another city so the only way I would want a team is either: 1. expansion or 2. a team basically having to move because stadium literally falling apart (which could apply to Raiders but don't see that happening and am not hoping for it to happen).

http://www.101sports.com/2016/01/11/stark-contrast-losing-rams-2016-losing-cardinals-1988/

I'm mostly upset because I feel like since I moved back to STL in summer 2014 it's been one crappy thing after another around here (Ferguson, Mizzou protests, flooding last month, Rams moving, Cardinals cheating scandal). And I have no friends here, no dating prospects, and may have made a mistake in moving here in the first place.

Nah... go to some Blues and Cardinals games and make some friends. Or dating prospects. Or both.

Or go to a country bar, silently take over their TouchTunes with hip-hop via phone. Folks in Arnold love that. Wait...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I was a kid at the time so it didn't completely understand the concept of LA losing its team. Plus, it was still very early for the internet, and TV reports here in STL made it seem like no one really cared that Rams were leaving LA and that LA sports fans would be perfectly wine watching USC and the Lakers.

As for the city, they had just lost out on the expansion of not getting the Stallions. I think the city felt this was the only chance to get a team (and we were foolishly building the dome on spec) and if we wanted a team we had to take it. The joke was we'd have a great facility for tractor pulls if we didn't get a team. I also think some people felt it was "righting a wrong" from losing the football Cardinals.

Of course, if they had just built that damn dome a few years sooner we probably would still have the Cardinals and wouldn't be talking about a new stadium to replace the dome until the dome was at least paid for.

This article below claims Bidwell really didn't want to leave St. Louis, and if the city would have built the dome then he'd surely have signed a long-term lease with no "top tier" clause.

I will also still defend the dome itself. It really only needs bigger video boards, better lighting, outside windows (like Ford Field), and new seats. All of these issues were addressed with the CVC's second proposal, but again none of that mattered because of the wording of the lease.

The Edward Jones Dome is undoubtedly a better stadium than Tropicana Field, but St. Petersburg was smart enough to have an ironclad lease so the Rays are still there and probably will be there for the foreseeable future.

Now, as far as a new NFL team, I don't want to wish the sadness I feel now on another city so the only way I would want a team is either: 1. expansion or 2. a team basically having to move because stadium literally falling apart (which could apply to Raiders but don't see that happening and am not hoping for it to happen).

http://www.101sports.com/2016/01/11/stark-contrast-losing-rams-2016-losing-cardinals-1988/

I'm mostly upset because I feel like since I moved back to STL in summer 2014 it's been one crappy thing after another around here (Ferguson, Mizzou protests, flooding last month, Rams moving, Cardinals cheating scandal). And I have no friends here, no dating prospects, and may have made a mistake in moving here in the first place.

Nah... go to some Blues and Cardinals games and make some friends. Or dating prospects. Or both.

Or go to a country bar, silently take over their TouchTunes with hip-hop via phone. Folks in Arnold love that. Wait...

When it comes to dating prospects, he can definitely find someone at a Blues game...

st-louis-blues-playoff-beard-vagina.jpg?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This question probably isn't going to win me any fans, but I'm going to ask it anyway...

To all the St. Louis Rams fans - I understand that you're upset because your team is moving back to Los Angeles. My question is this - did it ever bother you that Los Angeles Rams fans had to lose their NFL team in order for you to get one? I'm not trying to be a jerk or rub it in, etc., I'm seriously asking because back when the Browns left, there was talk of Cleveland getting a relocated team. My thinking back then was I'd never root for a team that relocated to Cleveland. It just didn't seem right to be as upset as we were over losing the Browns and then end up rooting for a team that would have basically done the same thing to it's fanbase that the Browns had done to us.

Yes, it did bother me. Not initially. I was 7. I knew the team came from St. Louis, but I couldn't comprehend the circumstances.

But as I got over, it began to bother me. Dating back a few years now I've been on record as being against team relocations. I don't like the idea of them because it means a whole fan base is getting screwed. And so I did feel badly for LA.

And if I can be a little selfish, as I elaborated on earlier in the thread, I also didn't like it for myself. It's not very fun feeling like you're borrowing someone else's team. Many LA Rams fans became just Rams fans, and I guess in some ways that's cool, but they were supposed to be OUR Rams in St. Louis (just as they were supposed to be their Rams in LA—and should be now).

Team relocation sucks, and I don't support it. There was a time in sports, and this time still exists in some sports, where a professional team would lose money. In those case, sometimes relocation becomes necessarily considered. But relocation for the sake of gaining more money or to avoid spending money (on a stadium) or whatever financial greed is involved? That sucks. Because someone always gets screwed.

I tweeted earlier today that anyone who wants NFL football back in St. Louis after all of this is ignorant. I said that because the NFL has been showing itself to the world for a while now as just a terrible organization supported on a brutal sport that they have no intentions of making better.

But I followed it up with a tweet saying that anyone who wants to lure another NFL team to St. Louis after all of this is heartless. And I said that because how could someone who just went through this decided the appropriate response is to do it to someone else?

Relocation sucks. I don't wish dealing with it on anyone, whether it benefits me or not.

(I will say that I don't think the Rams moving back to LA rights a wrong. I'm happy for Los Angeles fans who got a team back. Their team even. But there was nothing right about this. It's just one wrong on top of another.)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So when can they start calling themselves the Los Angeles Rams officially? I'm a little surprised their site hadn't been updated and outlets like ESPN haven't changed the name yet.

I think the main issue is that between all of the LA Rams fans and fan clubs and general internet squatters (plus one coincidently named Rams fan), they haven't actually been able to acquire any reasonable Twitter handles or URLs. They probably don't want to use something temporary and then have to switch, so I'm sure they're trying to make some business transactions before switching things over.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Just noticed the turf doesn't go all the way to the seating bowl in the Jones Dome. lol at Jones Dome. It's funny because it's not that it stops right at the NFL-mandated dotted lines, which might be understandable, it just comes up a couple feet short.

"Well, here's the new turf. Little space on the sides there, do you think we oughta--"

"nah, we're good"

"Are you sure? I mean, might as well finish the job and all, it's just a little bit m--"

"nah, we're good"

Reggie Bush doesn't think that is very funny:

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=PLmMVPtl3JM&feature=player_embedded

Well, gee, now that I see that this happened, I find this turf issue utterly ridiculous. That took the fun out of everything.

If the CVC can spring for a few more yards of turf so that people don't run onto a concrete floor and crash into a wall, maybe the Bears and Chiefs could play each other in preseason games down there for a couple years, kinda make a half-hearted gesture to the market. Games there drew road fans really well, so imagine if games had two of them!

I hope not. If that happens then we'll get a million people saying "See how strong the interest for the NFL is in St. Louis!" and we'll be right back where we started.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Your thoughts on the move.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.