News:

Thank you for your patience during the Forum downtime while we upgraded the software. Welcome back and see this thread for some new features and other changes to the forum.

Main Menu

Rams and Raiders to Los Angeles?

Started by bing101, November 11, 2014, 09:19:29 AM

Previous topic - Next topic

bing101



Pete from Boston

Sort of a clumsily written article, awfully dependent on "sources."

Henry

This would be very interesting to see, as it's now been 20 years since the Rams and Raiders played their last game in the City of Angels. My bet is that Seattle will have an NBA team sooner than L.A. gets an NFL team, but I wouldn't hold my breath. At least the Nationals' recent run of success has made it well worth the 33-year wait Washington had to go through after losing the Senators for good.
Go Cubs Go! Go Cubs Go! Hey Chicago, what do you say? The Cubs are gonna win today!

Alps

I find it hard to believe the Rams would move back. They have a solid backing in St. Louis. I could see the Raiders or Chargers relocating, not that it's much of a relocation for the Chargers (same market either way). But why not the Jaguars? Los Angeles Pumas.

02 Park Ave

C-o-H

Pete from Boston

Quote from: 02 Park Ave on November 11, 2014, 05:23:19 PM
What about the Jets moving to LA?

Sorry, I think they're pretty firm about wanting a professional football team.

Alps

Quote from: 02 Park Ave on November 11, 2014, 05:23:19 PM
What about the Jets moving to LA?
They do enjoy the spotlight, and they don't have a majority of fans in any county...

bing101


Pete from Boston


Quote from: Alps on November 11, 2014, 07:05:48 PM
Quote from: 02 Park Ave on November 11, 2014, 05:23:19 PM
What about the Jets moving to LA?
They do enjoy the spotlight, and they don't have a majority of fans in any county...

The goal is not to make Chargers fans of LA by sending the Jets there.

Henry

Perhaps expansion is the only answer, with four new teams added, which would bring the total to 36. Then we could have six divisions of six teams each, which is practically an enlarged version of the old (1970-2001) divisional setup.
Go Cubs Go! Go Cubs Go! Hey Chicago, what do you say? The Cubs are gonna win today!

oscar

Quote from: Henry on November 13, 2014, 11:42:40 AM
Perhaps expansion is the only answer, with four new teams added, which would bring the total to 36. Then we could have six divisions of six teams each, which is practically an enlarged version of the old (1970-2001) divisional setup.

But that would undercut team owners' efforts to extract subsidies and other concessions, by threatening to leave.  The current situation, with multiple metro areas nervous about their teams leaving for L.A. or elsewhere, is perfect for the NFL. 

Enlarging divisions to six teams would mean that, if every team in a division plays games home and away with each other division team, ten games rather than the current six are tied up in divisional games.  Unless the number of games per season were expanded, that would make it impossible for each team in a division to play both a game against every team in another division within its conference, and in a division in the other conference.  Bigger divisions, with fewer inter-divisional and inter-conference games, would increase the odds that teams making the playoffs or the Super Bowl will have limited or no recent experience playing their opponents in regular-season games. 
my Hot Springs and Highways pages, with links to my roads sites:
http://www.alaskaroads.com/home.html

english si

Quote from: oscar on November 13, 2014, 12:25:25 PMEnlarging divisions to six teams would mean that, if every team in a division plays games home and away with each other division team, ten games rather than the current six are tied up in divisional games.  Unless the number of games per season were expanded, that would make it impossible for each team in a division to play both a game against every team in another division within its conference, and in a division in the other conference.
You'd just play one other division, on a five year rotation.

How about 2 conferences with 6 divisions of 3 each? 4 games intra-division, 6 games (two other divisions on a 2/3 year rotation) intra-conference and 6 games (two divisions on a 3 year rotation) inter-conference.

But yes, expansion doesn't serve the NFL well, as the supply will then meet the demand for teams.

triplemultiplex

Expansion would mean a dilution of talent and more shitty teams and therefore crappier games.  So no.
"That's just like... your opinion, man."

Alps

The other pro sports have 30. 32 is plenty for the NFL. Let's balance out the NBA and NHL first.


texaskdog

#15
Quote from: triplemultiplex on November 13, 2014, 03:14:36 PM
Expansion would mean a dilution of talent and more shitty teams and therefore crappier games.  So no.

Well once they had half as many teams but it was whites only so I think the talent pool can take it.  Especially when they talk about it in baseball.  A 32-team league with non-white players has a far stronger talent pool than a 16-team whites only league like back in the "good old days".  Granted football only had 10 teams but I don't think, unlike baseball, anyone thinks the good old days of football were it's best years.

I think what they need though is a minor league.  Then they'd have talent to draw from during the season rather than just randomly trying players out.

DTComposer

Quote from: triplemultiplex on November 13, 2014, 03:14:36 PM
Expansion would mean a dilution of talent and more shitty teams and therefore crappier games.  So no.

This argument gets thrown around every time expansion is brought up in a sport, but the numbers don't hold water.

We are at the least "diluted" (in terms of NFL teams or players per capita) than at any time since the AFL-NFL merger. We could expand to 36 teams right now and still be less "diluted" than any time since about 1990. And this only takes into account the U.S. population - the greater number of foreign-born players nowadays makes this argument even less true.

More subjectively, the prospect of an NFL career nowadays, with its potential millions of dollars, is (I would guess) much more enticing than it was in 1970, so there are probably more athletes considering it as a career than there were then, which would further knock this argument down.

So you may think there are more shitty teams and crappier games, but I don't think dilution of talent is the reason.

Henry

My prediction is that the Rams and Raiders will move back, and San Diego will have no choice but to build a new stadium for the Chargers. But if the Raiders move to San Antonio instead, then I can see the Chargers becoming the Rams' co-tenants. But anything goes, especially when it comes to the NFL.
Go Cubs Go! Go Cubs Go! Hey Chicago, what do you say? The Cubs are gonna win today!

texaskdog

Why would a city that has no team all these years immediately get two?

Brandon

Quote from: texaskdog on November 19, 2014, 01:37:06 PM
Why would a city that has no team all these years immediately get two?

No clue.  I was under the impression that the Rams were happy in St Louis.
"If you think this has a happy ending, you haven't been paying attention." - Ramsay Bolton

"Symbolic of his struggle against reality." - Reg

jeffandnicole

Quote from: DTComposer on November 16, 2014, 10:37:12 PM
Quote from: triplemultiplex on November 13, 2014, 03:14:36 PM
Expansion would mean a dilution of talent and more shitty teams and therefore crappier games.  So no.

This argument gets thrown around every time expansion is brought up in a sport, but the numbers don't hold water.

We are at the least "diluted" (in terms of NFL teams or players per capita) than at any time since the AFL-NFL merger. We could expand to 36 teams right now and still be less "diluted" than any time since about 1990. And this only takes into account the U.S. population - the greater number of foreign-born players nowadays makes this argument even less true.

More subjectively, the prospect of an NFL career nowadays, with its potential millions of dollars, is (I would guess) much more enticing than it was in 1970, so there are probably more athletes considering it as a career than there were then, which would further knock this argument down.

So you may think there are more shitty teams and crappier games, but I don't think dilution of talent is the reason.

It's all perception.  Today, your favorite team could lose to their most hated rivel, and the excuses will be plenty.  Next year, if 4 teams were added, your favorite team could lose to their most hated rivel, and the excuses will be plenty, plus "dilution" would be added and would most likely become everyone's main reason why the team lost, although I bet dilution won't be the excuse why the other team won.

Same thing with Global Warming.  No one remembers that the average high for a date is...an average.  All they know is that if it's 10 degrees warmer than average, it's because of global warming, even though global warming appears to only affect local areas on warm days, and it doesn't explain why the record high for the date was set 90 years ago and wasn't even close to being broken.

Pete from Boston

#21
Except global warming is pretty well established scientifically and "it's unusually hot this month" is not really specifically relevant.


Quote from: Brandon on November 19, 2014, 02:19:43 PM
Quote from: texaskdog on November 19, 2014, 01:37:06 PM
Why would a city that has no team all these years immediately get two?

No clue.  I was under the impression that the Rams were happy in St Louis.

LA is the second-biggest media market in the country and currently features five teams in the four majors that matter.  By comparison, New York, marginally bigger, has nine.  LA people have a lot of unspent pro sports dollars to go around.

The Rams are unhappy with their 19-year-old stadium  A modern stadium is considered obsolete after 20 years, but the Rams are impatient.

1995hoo

I believe the LA area has six teams in the four major sports, not five teams, presuming you're counting Anaheim (as most people do):

Kings
Ducks
Dodgers
Angels
Lakers
Clippers
"You know, you never have a guaranteed spot until you have a spot guaranteed."
—Olaf Kolzig, as quoted in the Washington Times on March 28, 2003,
commenting on the Capitals clinching a playoff spot.

"That sounded stupid, didn't it?"
—Kolzig, to the same reporter a few seconds later.

Pete from Boston


Quote from: 1995hoo on November 19, 2014, 05:07:45 PM
I believe the LA area has six teams in the four major sports, not five teams, presuming you're counting Anaheim (as most people do):

Kings
Ducks
Dodgers
Angels
Lakers
Clippers

Forgot about the Ducks.  Both Anaheim and the NHL are at the distant margins of my attention.

Alps

Give them one team, see what happens. I'd like to see the Rams stay where they are.



Opinions expressed here on belong solely to the poster and do not represent or reflect the opinions or beliefs of AARoads, its creators and/or associates.