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.
New: Latest on Kroenke, Rams and NFL in STL
- Thread starter STL-Rams
- Start date
-
To unlock all of features of Rams On Demand please take a brief moment to register. Registering is not only quick and easy, it also allows you access to additional features such as live chat, private messaging, and a host of other apps exclusive to Rams On Demand.
- Status
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?
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
Pro Bowler
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
Legend
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.
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
Legend
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.
BuiltRamTough
Pro Bowler
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
Legend
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.
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.
St. Louis was also screwed by a greedy owner 8 years before that.
BuiltRamTough
Pro Bowler
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.
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
Legend
mr.stlouis
Legend
Rams and Chiefs is already legit, they hate us. It would be a massive rivalry.
fearsomefour
Legend
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.
Denver, SD, Oak, SF, Arizona, Seattle, KC, St. Louis. I dont see any reason to move or realign anything.
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.
The Rams have been in the NFC for around 75 years and you don't mess with that either.
Last edited:
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.
- Status