2011 NFL Season - A New Game
- Thread starter SmoothieX
- Start date
- Status
Probably will be the Chargers, Vikings or Raiders then.
Let me amend my previous statement. Any team who wants to move to LA, except for the Chargers or Raiders. Vikings I'm okay with.
I also hate the Patriots, but they're not likely to move so I don't have to add them to my "no" list.
NPR ran a story a couple of days ago on the likelihood of the Rams moving back to Los Angeles. They are in a place where they can break their lease in 2015, and the new proposed stadium should be ready for occupancy by the beginning of the 2016 season (if all goes according to plan). There does not appear to be any way St.Louis can (or wants to) make the required upgrades to the Edward Jones Dome.
With all private funding in Los Angeles, there should be a few less hurdles.
http://www.npr.org/2012/01/17/145326761/l-a-eyes-luring-nfl-rams-from-st-louis
I would like that very much. But, we'll see what happens. LA is not very passionate about it one way or the other.
What's wrong with the Edward Jones Dome? 
What's wrong with the Edward Jones Dome?
The way they described it in the story, the Rams have a clause in their contract which states the Edward Jones Dome must be in "the top tier" of professional football stadiums.
I don't know if it is so much that there is something wrong, as it is there have been new and upgraded stadiums since the move (Indianapolis, Dallas) that have pushed it down the list.
One of the commenters in the story said the city could spend "hundreds of millions of dollars" and still not be in the "top tier".
I don't know specifically how that is defined.
I have been there. It was okay for a dome. Nothing that great, nothing that bad.
I keep thinking it's the Edward James Olmos Dome.What's wrong with the Edward Jones Dome?
Best home field advantage ever.I keep thinking it's the Edward James Olmos Dome.What's wrong with the Edward Jones Dome?
Best home field advantage ever.I keep thinking it's the Edward James Olmos Dome.What's wrong with the Edward Jones Dome?
Instead of "the wave" they do "the glare"
^ Repeated over the PA before every game: "As of this moment...we are at WAR."
Hasn't LA stolen enough teams from Minnesota?
I wonder if Minnesota is still smarting over the Lakers.
^ Well, you can't deny that it would be an attractive option. All that is needed is a team, or teams, to commit to move there; L.A.'s got two different stadia just waiting to get built. (Stadia which will be entirely privately financed, I might add.) If you were the Vikings, for example, where would you rather play - in the dump Metrodome in Minnesota, or a sparkling new stadium in massively more media-recognized L.A.?
Well, the Vikings moving to LA would just be weird. Would they change their name? LA is known for it's large Norse immigrant population. Can the LA Vikings still be a legit rival for the Packers? Could they stay in the NFC North without actually BEING in The North, or would they trade places with the Seahawks and move to the NFC West? These are important considerations!
That's a good question about the swap. But the divisions don't really mean much anymore. I would point out that Indianapolis is in the AFC South for some reason. St. Louis is in the NFC West. Dallas is in the NFC East.
I doubt it'll end up like that. I'll bet you dollars to donuts that Manning and Irsay agree once again to restructure the contract -- probably converting the $28 million option into base salary and spreading it over the remainder of the deal.
I would think, if the Vikings move west, St. Louis will change divisions (probably to the north). Minnesota goes well with Detroit, Chicago, and Green Bay so I would be sad to see that go, though.
The Rams are playing in London the next 3 years. This, to me, is similar to having Detroit play every Thanksgiving.
Forgetting Detroit's recent (slight) upturn, they've been a crappy team for a really long time. Why do they constantly have a bad team nobody wants to watch in a big game like that, every year?
Same thing with St. Louis (no offense digits) in London. Why lock them in for 3 years into a game who's focus is trying to gain an international audience? Better to rotate teams, I would think.
Forgetting Detroit's recent (slight) upturn, they've been a crappy team for a really long time. Why do they constantly have a bad team nobody wants to watch in a big game like that, every year?
Same thing with St. Louis (no offense digits) in London. Why lock them in for 3 years into a game who's focus is trying to gain an international audience? Better to rotate teams, I would think.
- Status