The Dolphins Make Me Cry.com - Forums

NFL Network Friday did a little roundtable on what is going to happen with the NFL in L.A. It was interesting. First things first....it's gonna happen. An NFL team is going to be in L.A. in the near future. But, there really are only 3 scenerio's.

1) Oakland moves back. Pretty much when Al Davis left Oakland the first time, L.A. promised him a new stadium. They lied, he never got his new stadium. Oakland then promised Al a new stadium, so he went back to Oakland, they lied and he has never gotten it. If a shovel hits dirt in L.A., Al will pack up and leave and be back in L.A.

2) San Diego is going to L.A. If the city of San Diego refuses to build the Chargers their own new stadium, then they will leave. The stadium they are in is horrible and they have to get out of it soon to keep the franchise viable. Don't be shocked if they try to undercut Al in Oakland to try and get to L.A. first. It might be a race.

3) Broncos-Rams trade owners. Don't laugh, this is legit.  Stan Kroneke who owns the Denver Nuggets, Colorado Avalanche, Colorado Rapids, and Colorado Mammoth bought the St.Louis Rams late last August. Problem is Kroneke is a Denver guy at heart. He would LOVE to have the NFL team in Denver. Pat Bowlen likes money, lots and lots and lots of money. So, how this would work is the Rams and Broncos would trade owners. Kroneke takes over the Broncos. Pat Bowlen becomes the Rams owner and then moves the team BACK to L.A. With then a 3rd team (maybe San Diego or Minnesota) moving to St.Louis. Because the only way this works is if St.Louis doesn't get left out in the cold. Sound far fetched....YES! BUT, this plan has already been run by Roger Goodell and the NFL big-wigs and they have no problem with it at all as long as a 3rd team then goes to St.Louis. And if need be it can and will be done if it means getting football back in L.A.

Kroneke is not the only owner of the Rams, but is the majority(60%) owner.  He had to divest in the Nuggets and Avalanche in order to make the purchase, so technically, his son Josh runs them now and he has until the end of 2014 to give up majority ownership of those teams.  It was Georgia Frontiere's wish that the Rams stay in St. Louis, which is why her children did not consider offers from potential owners who did not wish to keep the team here.  Playing musical teams sounds pretty far fetched to me.  Why the hell anyone would want a worse team than they already own is beyond me.

As they said last night on NFL Network its NOT the NFL's 1st choice, but it is an option.

They need LA to work this time. Putting in an old school/established owner like Bowlen is smart. Not to mention Bowlen wants to make more $$$$ as an owner and LA is gonna be a huge money franchise when it gets going. So he is more than willing to go there. Kroneke to Denver is a perfect fit for obvious reasons. As long as St.Louis isn't left out in the cold, and a team moves there....everyone involved would be happy.

NFL is happy (team in LA, no team out of St.Louis)
Kroenke is in Denver
Bowlen is in LA making more money

It works!

Stan Kroenke lives in Columbia, Missouri.  His son went to and played basketball for the University of Missouri.  He has tried to bring a NBA team to St. Louis.  Trust me.  I live here.   I hear about this stuff every day.  It may be an option but it won't happen.

I'd have to agree with options 1 and 2 but not 3. Option 3 would be the Jacksonville Jaguars moving to L.A.  They get absolutely no fan support whatsoever in Jacksonville.  I was at the Dolphins-Jaguars game in 2009, and there was about 30% Dolphins fans there and the place still wasn't sold out.  They have to put tarps over the upper level corners just to make it look good. 

^^that was discussed. Jax can't move. Their lease with the stadium and the city of Jax is iron-clad and isn't up till late in this decade making it impossible for them to move. No matter how few people go to the games

Not necessarily.  If they purchase the stadium in L.A. then they can move.  Florida law says if you're buying property, you can break your lease.

They could get out of it, it would just cost them a shit ton of money.

But you need 24 NFL owners to approve a move. It's not like when Modell moved out of Cleveland and Al moved back and forth between LA and Oakland. The NFL has changed since those days. You can't just pack up and leave. Those days are gone

And Jax owners can't pay that kind of money. They don't have it

Why would the NFL care about having a team in STL more than in MIN or SD?

I find it hard to believe that any owner is going to stand in the way of another owner moving unless that move is encroaching on one of their markets (e.g. Sacramento moving to Anaheim).

Stadium situation in St.Louis is better than BOTH SD or Minny. That's why! You reward the city's that take care of their NFL teams. St.Louis has, Minny and SD hasn't.

And the old school owners don't like teams moving for really no reason. Plus just like in real estate, location location location. Some owners don't want another team moving into their "region" of the country. Not to mention you have the re-alignment thing depending on who's moving where. So, if team X moves from "A" to "B"....it might mean YOUR team is now moving to another division

Minnesota is working on a new stadium now... is the NFL going to pull the team from out under them?

The "old school owners" didn't seem to have a problem with the Colts, Cardinals, "Ravens", or Rams moving (they actually did have a problem with the Raiders, but Al Davis fought that and won).  And realignment is not a serious threat... the league has realigned exactly once since the merger.  If they didn't have a problem with Carolina, Atlanta, and New Orleans being in the "NFC West," I doubt they'll have a problem with L.A. being in the NFC North.

The only real obstacle I see here is SD objecting to an LA team, which is unlikely for two reasons:

1) SD claiming the LA market is like Philly claiming the NY market; it's not reasonable to claim the separate media market of a larger city
2) SD would be in the running to move to LA

The Los Angeles Bills???

If the Bills did go to LA.... I would think you would then see Indy moved back to the AFC East where they were for years. See KC moved to the South possibly, and LA in the AFC West.

Why do people think teams would be moved to different divisions?  They have only realigned twice ever.

They didn't realign when Baltimore became Indianapolis.  They didn't realign when St. Louis became Phoenix.  They didn't realign when Cleveland became Baltimore.  They didn't realign when LA became St. Louis.  They didn't realign when Houston became Tennessee.  They intentionally placed Carolina in the NFC West and Jacksonville in the AFC Central.  Why would they move a bunch of teams around just because one team relocates?

If you think LA will be in the AFC East you are nuts!! Totally friggin NUTS! Makes no sense from a TV sense. You are going to invest in a state of art stadium, have a new team in the 2nd largest TV market in the country, and have them in a division with NY, Boston, and Miami!!  With LA playing its road division games, its biggest TV games, at 10am in the morning.  Stupid line of thinking. The NFL and a team is going to INVEST BILLIONS of $$$$$$$$$ in LA to make it work this time, and having them in the AFC East just is so dumb beyond belief its amazing. And some people like you see no problem with it! Unreal.

Because the NFL was STUPID in the past and didn't move a team around here or there doesn't mean they have to be STUPID in the future and make the same mistake twice.  The...."we didn't do it then so we won't do it now".....is such a stupid excuse its laughable.

Please explain how this is any different from when LA was in a division with Carolina and Atlanta (and New Orleans, to boot).

You know, you're right.  You're backing up your position with all sorts of logical thinking, whereas the only evidence for my position is, you know, what the NFL actually did.

Let me be clear on this point:  when it comes to team relocation, the NFL does not care which markets are in which time zones or which divisions make the most geographical sense.  Ask yourself the following questions:

How many AFC teams are further south than Indianapolis (who is in the AFC South)?
How many AFC teams are further north than Baltimore (who is in the AFC North)?
How many NFC teams are further east than Dallas (who is in the NFC East)?

The NFL cares more about preserving rivalries than geographic/media market expediency.  They have NEVER realigned based on media markets, and there is no reason to believe they will start.

How the hell does LA have a rivalry with NE, NY or Miami? Seriously, read what you actually write sometimes

The Rams left LA before Carolina joined.

Are you really this dense?  Do you seriously believe that Florida Panthers fans hate the Sabres?

The city of Dallas does not have a rivalry with the city of Washington, D.C.; fans of the Mavericks do not particularly hate the Wizards, and fans of the Rangers do not loathe the Nationals.  The Cowboys have a rivalry with the Redskins.

It's amazing that you need this explained to you, but the BILLS have a rivalry with the DOLPHINS, PATRIOTS, and JETS.  The rivalry is between the TEAMS, not the cities.

I guess you believe that once the Rams moved to St. Louis, 49er fans wiped the slate clean?

The NFL wets their pants every time the Colts and Patriots play each other.  I could see them wanting to move the Colts back to the east for that alone.

Also, I can see a scenario where they claim that so many cross-country, in-division road trips make for a disadvantage for the LA Bills.

All that said, I don't think you realign the whole league for 1 team, especially if it means breaking up the KC/Denver rivalry.

Brian, the NFL doesn't care about Colts-Patriots as much as they care about Brady-Manning.  Colts-Patriots was nearly meaningless for 30 years of the AFC East.  It's the '00s equivalent of the '90s 49ers-Packers rivalry; once the current personnel are gone, no one will care about it anymore.

Yes, you're right.  But for now, and the foreseeable future, that's what it is. 

Like I said, that's not a reason to do it, but if you ask Patriots' fans who their biggest rival is, they'll tell you "the Colts."

Yeah, the Lakers don't have a rivalry with the Celtics, the Knicks, or the Heat.  Nobody ever wants to watch these teams play against each other.  Theres no way an LA team could have a rivalry with NE, NY, or Miami.

Really?  You sure about that?

I think he may have been making that statement sarcastically.

IF the Bills move to LA they aren't the BILLS anymore!!!!!!!  ::)

Does Pittsburgh consider the Ravens their long standing rival because they USED to be the Browns? NO!!

Its a different team if Buffalo moves to LA with different ownership and a DIFFERENT FAN BASE!!!!. And with free agency within 2 or 3 years most of the guy who were on the team that moved will be gone anyway and what rivalry do you have. NONE!!! You just have a team in LA totally out of place in the AFC East!  ::) DID YOU REALLY NEED THAT EXPLAINED TO YOU, to quote your own words

There is a difference between teams being rivals and having them in the same friggin division. By your logic if the Celtics and Lakers were in the same division it would be smart and make sense!  ::) Thats stupid logic!!

Who's realigning the whole league??? Jesus Christ you people jump to insane conclusions! Move 3 teams. BAM, done! Just like MLB is probably gonna move one team from the National League to the American League cause it just makes sense. Nobody is saying blow it up and start over, but moving 3 teams, come on!!

What the heck are you talking about?  You need to read YOUR quote that I referenced.  I said nothing about them being in the same division.  I took issue with YOU saying "How the hell does LA have a rivalry with NE, NY, or Miami?  Seriously, read what you actually write sometimes."  Take your own advice, try reading what YOU write sometimes.  I'd agree with you that it wouldn't be logical to have them in the AFC East, but that doesn't mean they couldn't build up a rivalry.  I'd also agree that they would cease being the "Bills" if they went to LA.  However, as you say the Ravens aren't the long standing Rival of Pittsburgh because they USED to be the Browns, but they are currently Pittsburgh's biggest Rival.

In most instances for Pro Football your biggest rivals are the teams in your division because you play them twice per year.

Dallas heads East to play Washington, NY, & Philly.

Not true.  Carolina was awarded a team in 1993.  St. Louis was in the running for an expansion team and looked elsewhere when that failed to materialize. The first season of both the St Louis Rams and Carolina Panthers was 1995.

/rant

I wish the Dolphins would move to L.A. 

I'd be able to go to games since it's only a 4 hour drive from Vegas. 

Plus, it's not like the crappy hometown fans will miss them anyway.  Not you guys of course since, hell, you frequent a forum dedicated to the team.  But let's be real, for the most part, local Miami fans = hot-bandwagon-garbage.  I know because I went through elementary school, middle school and high school being part of the minority Miami Dolphins fan-base in Miami.  I'm not talking about the real fans who stick with their teams even when suck suck.  I mean the majority of Miamians who can't name 3 starters on their "favorite team".

/end rant

Thats 1 timezone difference, not 3!!  ::)

::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::)

It's hilarious (but not surprising) that you brought up the Ravens.  As far as the NFL is concerned, the Ravens are an expansion franchise that started in 1996.  The Browns franchise "ceased operations" from 96-98, and started up again in 99.

I would criticize you for not knowing this extremely simple, commonly-known bit of information, but I'm sure you already knew it.  You intentionally picked the Ravens as your (incredibly wrong and easily disproven) counterexample because any other example you could have picked would have refuted your point by the mere act of typing it.

The Indianapolis Colts were still the Colts.
The Phoenix Cardinals were still the Cardinals.
The St. Louis Rams were still the Rams.
The Tennessee Oilers were still the Oilers (at that time).

So then, when I asked you if you believe that 49er fans wiped the slate clean when the Rams moved to STL, apparently your answer is "yes."

Maybe I should have worded it that the Rams left LA before the Panthers ever played a game. There has never been an LA team playing against a Carolina team is the point.

I've read that to attend a Dodger game in a rival team's uniform is basically a death wish.  Why would anyone even want an NFL team in Los Angeles?

#2 market in the United States. NFL team in LA=$$$$$$$$$$$

Hmmmm would like to see the Rams back in LA