Rams and Raiders to Los Angeles?

[oscar]

The NFL purposely left the Cowboys in the NFC East due to the strong rivalries between all 4 current division teams (Eagles, Giants, Redskins, Cowboys).

Yep. When the NFL realigned into four-team divisions, the Cardinals were left out (moved from the NFC East to the NFC West, partially offsetting the three former NFC West teams moved to the new NFC South). They were not happy about losing the Cowboys as a division rival, or the resulting loss of ticket sales.

[triplemultiplex]

That wouldn't be much fun to watch, would it? Which is probably why the NFC East is the most-watched division in the entire NFL, no matter how bad it may be now.

That's more a statement about population than the intensity of the fandom.

[1995hoo]

The NFL purposely left the Cowboys in the NFC East due to the strong rivalries between all 4 current division teams (Eagles, Giants, Redskins, Cowboys).

Yep. When the NFL realigned into four-team divisions, the Cardinals were left out (moved from the NFC East to the NFC West, partially offsetting the three former NFC West teams moved to the new NFC South). They were not happy about losing the Cowboys as a division rival, or the resulting loss of ticket sales.

It was also why the first season after the realignment saw the NFC East play the NFC West, with Dallas visiting Arizona–a sort of consolation prize for the Cardinals.

[Henry]

So it looks like the Chargers have played their last game in San Diego, and the Rams have done the same in St. Louis; fortunately, they both won. Hopefully the Raiders will win their potential final game in Oakland, which will be played against (gasp!) the Chargers; can anyone say coincidence?

[Alex]

So it looks like the Chargers have played their last game in San Diego, and the Rams have done the same in St. Louis; fortunately, they both won. Hopefully the Raiders will win their potential final game in Oakland, which will be played against (gasp!) the Chargers; can anyone say coincidence?

Why not also move the Jacksonville Jaguars to L.A. and we can have the NFL Los Angeles division...

[KEVIN_224]

But then who would play in London every year?

[Alex]

But then who would play in London every year?

Well since they'd all play in Carson,  some of the Los Angeles teams would default their home games there.

Then Roger Goodell and Mike Helton can cheer how they completed their mutual railroading of their respective sports. 

[Henry]

So it looks like the Chargers have played their last game in San Diego, and the Rams have done the same in St. Louis; fortunately, they both won. Hopefully the Raiders will win their potential final game in Oakland, which will be played against (gasp!) the Chargers; can anyone say coincidence?

Why not also move the Jacksonville Jaguars to L.A. and we can have the NFL Los Angeles division...

But then who would play in London every year?

Well since they'd all play in Carson,  some of the Los Angeles teams would default their home games there.

Then Roger Goodell and Mike Helton can cheer how they completed their mutual railroading of their respective sports. 

[tidecat]

Isn't team location pretty irrelevant, since the NFL lives and dies on TV revenue? As long as people in L.A. can watch NFL games, that's all the league really cares about. It's the team owners that would benefit from ticket and merchandise sales.

Stadium revenue is not insignificant, and IIRC, less of it is shared with the league, as opposed to TV revenue, where everyone gets the same share.  Premium seating is especially hot right now, with high-end experiences driving stadium design (like a club that stretches the length of the field).

To your point, it really wouldn't matter if a team played in Atlanta or Athens, as long as a capacity crowd is there on game day, and the team gets the bulk of the operational revenue.  Of course, the closer to a major population center, the easier it is to sell premium seating to corporate buyers, but for the right experience, distance is no issue.

[tidecat]

The NFL purposely left the Cowboys in the NFC East due to the strong rivalries between all 4 current division teams (Eagles, Giants, Redskins, Cowboys).

Would much rather see the Texans, Broncos, and Cardinals (or even texans, saints, & titans) in a regional rivalry with the Cowboys.

Putting Dallas in the South splits up Atlanta and Carolina, or Atlanta and Tampa Bay.  Moving Tampa Bay to the East would probably be the more palatable of the two.

There was talk of an "AFC Gulf Coast" division back in the 1990s when Carolina and Jacksonville were added, which would have included New Orleans, the Houston Oilers, and the three Florida teams.

[Alex]

At this point, why doesn't every team that can't get a subsidized stadium deal join the Los Angeles bandwagon?

Chargers, Raiders and Rams file for relocation to Los Angeles

The San Diego Chargers quit dipping their toe in the baby pool and took a plunge into the deep end Monday night, officially filing papers with the NFL for relocation to Los Angeles.

The Raiders and Rams also filed relocation papers on Monday.

We have tried for more than 14 years, through nine separate proposals and seven different mayors, to create a world-class stadium experience for fans in San Diego. Despite these efforts, there is still no certain, actionable solution to the stadium problem. We are sad to have reached this point.

What happens next is in the hands of the NFL's owners, who will meet in Houston on January 12-13. The Chargers have pledged from the outset to respect whatever decision the League ownership makes.

The Rams were less ... wordy.

The St. Louis Rams informed the National Football League today that the Rams propose to relocate to the greater Los Angeles metropolitan area. The relocation would be effective for the 2016 NFL League Year.

Making matters potentially awkward, Spanos said the Chargers will stay in San Diego if the owners don't approve the team's relocation.

"Well we're back here and we'll be here for the next year for sure," Spanos said. "We'll look at all the possibilities with the city and see what our alternatives could be."

Any team that does relocate will be subject to a $550 million relocation fee per NFL.com.

I read another article that talked about the Raiders and Chargers willing to share a stadium for home games. How would that work with both being in the same division? Oh wait, I forgot, they will be in the new Los Angeles Division with the Rams...

Will a metro area that has been without a team for 20 years support two or three teams? Ignoring the whole stadium blackmailing motivation, why not approve just one relocation and see how that fares first?

[texaskdog]

The NFL purposely left the Cowboys in the NFC East due to the strong rivalries between all 4 current division teams (Eagles, Giants, Redskins, Cowboys).

Would much rather see the Texans, Broncos, and Cardinals (or even texans, saints, & titans) in a regional rivalry with the Cowboys.

That wouldn't be much fun to watch, would it? Which is probably why the NFC East is the most-watched division in the entire NFL, no matter how bad it may be now.

Broncos are usually good, and they played each other in a super bowl.  Texans would be an in-state rivalry.  Cardinals were in the east for years and thus have a history.

[texaskdog]

The NFL purposely left the Cowboys in the NFC East due to the strong rivalries between all 4 current division teams (Eagles, Giants, Redskins, Cowboys).

Would much rather see the Texans, Broncos, and Cardinals (or even texans, saints, & titans) in a regional rivalry with the Cowboys.

Putting Dallas in the South splits up Atlanta and Carolina, or Atlanta and Tampa Bay.  Moving Tampa Bay to the East would probably be the more palatable of the two.

There was talk of an "AFC Gulf Coast" division back in the 1990s when Carolina and Jacksonville were added, which would have included New Orleans, the Houston Oilers, and the three Florida teams.

I think any "radical realignment" would begin with 4 teams geographically close getting together.

[Henry]

Well, the New York metropolitan area has three NHL teams (New York Rangers, New York Islanders and New Jersey Devils), so there is precedent in having three teams in a single area. However, I still don't see L.A. following suit, seeing that two AFC rivals (Raiders and Chargers) are working together on the same stadium proposal (Carson). I predict that the Rams and Raiders go, although I would like to see the Rams try to work things out with St. Louis. Failing that, I could also see the Rams and Chargers be the ones to relocate, with the Raiders working things out with Oakland (and possibly reach a compromise with the A's).

[english si]

Ignoring the whole stadium blackmailing motivation, why not approve just one relocation and see how that fares first?

Or, better yet, relocate them to less desirable places to punish them for their stadium blackmailing.

Chargers to Chisinau, Raiders to Rangoon, Rams to Ramallah - that sort of thing

[ARMOURERERIC]

Spanks will pay a 550$mil fee to move to LA but can't come up with $200m to make a local stadium deal work.

Right now the biggest loss locals fear if the Chargers leave is that of Azteks football.

[triplemultiplex]

So LA has three definite suitors...
Time to bring back:

NFL edition.

[Henry]

So now that the Chargers, Raiders and Rams have officially applied to move to Los Angeles, would you like to bet who actually gets to move there?

Going back to the New York example, I just remembered something...

Well, the New York metropolitan area has three NHL teams (New York Rangers, New York Islanders and New Jersey Devils), so there is precedent in having three teams in a single area.

In addition, there were three MLB teams in the area for 54 years (New York Yankees, New York Giants, Brooklyn Dodgers), and they set the precedent long before the NHL teams did. Of course, the Giants and Dodgers play out west (in San Francisco and L.A., respectively).

[swbrotha100]

If only one team can move for the 2016 season, it makes sense that it would be the Rams. The L.A. Coliseum will only host one NFL team on a temporary basis. No other site in or around Los Angeles wants to host an NFL team temporarily. That and Stan Kroenke is the only one of the three owners who can build his own stadium (in Inglewood) without help from other owners or outside investors. The NFL also won't have to realign the NFC West and AFC West.

[bing101]

http://fox2now.com/2016/01/09/nfl-commissioner-says-rams-stadium-proposal-is-inadequate/


Well the Chances of Los Angeles getting the Rams are increasing with this press conference mentioned by Goodell. Supposedly the Proposal is inadequate.

Well Live and Die in LA the NFL edition Coming soon.

[Pete from Boston]

Reminds me of Major League Baseball's transparent manipulation of the Expos situation to shape the outcome of that process.  This Goodell statement is right out of that particular book of blackmail.

[bing101]

http://www.latimes.com/sports/nfl/la-sp-nfl-la-stadium-20160110-story.html


Update Oakland, St. Louis and San Diego do not have adequate proposals according to Goodell.

[TravelingBethelite]

Is anything 'adequete' to Goodell? Was there? Will there ever be? I don't think so. 

[bing101]

http://abc7.com/sports/hundreds-rally-outside-la-memorial-coliseum-to-bring-rams-back/1152995/

Well here's a Rams Fans rally at The LA Coliseum.

[Henry]

I think it's safe to say that the Rams are going back to L.A., and resume their rivalry with the 49ers. Sort of a football version of Dodgers-Giants: same cities, different sport.

Reminds me of Major League Baseball's transparent manipulation of the Expos situation to shape the outcome of that process.  This Goodell statement is right out of that particular book of blackmail.

The NBA also did this with the Sonics, IIRC. Which is part of the reason why they're the OKC Thunder now.