U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Sports > Pro Football
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 01-05-2015, 12:28 PM
 
Location: Atlanta
5,631 posts, read 4,229,357 times
Reputation: 4583

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by CouponJack View Post
The Rams should Go back to Los Angeles, the Cardinals should go back to St. Louis, and Arizona should get the Jags to move there...that way everyone will be happy
I like this idea... the Cardinals in AZ has just never felt right to me even after all these years.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 01-05-2015, 12:34 PM
 
Location: St. Louis
2,482 posts, read 2,231,180 times
Reputation: 2353
4 winning seasons in the last 20 years that they've been in St. Louis. There's plenty of people who will be upset, but I have a feeling vastly more people would be upset if it were the Cardinals or the Blues.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-05-2015, 12:37 PM
 
32,532 posts, read 30,697,051 times
Reputation: 32350
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ankhharu View Post
So ridiculous. LA has shown before, they will not support an NFL team. Yet, you have yet another owner thinking they can move a team there and make money. I feel bad for St Louis fans. Been there a few times and they support their sports teams. As an LA Kings fan with family in LA, former resident, yada yada yada, that city is lacking in the fanaticism when it comes to sports.

Actually.....The fans in So Cal supported the Rams until Georgia Frontier inherited the team and made a series of idiotic moves that alienated the fans and the players. Fans HATED her and weren't going to financially support a team she owned. I sat in Anaheim Stadium and listened to chants of **** You Georgia! She knew she was detested and followed the money to St. Louis, her hometown. Where she would be welcomed home as the diva she was.

I was also in a position to sit and listen to the players gripe about her, her management of the team, and the way she treated the players. Many of the former L.A. Rams players (including Roman Gabriel) have been quietly campaigning to bring the team home.... to L.A.

Last edited by DewDropInn; 01-05-2015 at 12:48 PM..
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-05-2015, 12:44 PM
 
Location: Phoenix, AZ
4,854 posts, read 6,372,030 times
Reputation: 5802
If the Rams went "home" wouldn't that actually be Cleveland?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-05-2015, 12:54 PM
 
32,532 posts, read 30,697,051 times
Reputation: 32350
Quote:
Originally Posted by mco65 View Post
I like this idea... the Cardinals in AZ has just never felt right to me even after all these years.
Not going to happen. Michael Bidwill knocked on doors in Glendale to get the stadium built. He's a Zonie.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-05-2015, 01:23 PM
 
Location: AriZona
5,230 posts, read 3,133,277 times
Reputation: 5395
If I may be so bold...

What has always puzzled me is why a team is allowed to take a city's team name away to another city. Baltimore loved their Colts name and had to give it up to Indianapolis - then ended up with the awful (IMO) Ravens name! Why wasn't Baltimore just allowed to keep the Colts name in the first place?

Same with the Houston Oilers, who gave up their name to Tennessee, who immediately changed it over to the Titans! Then Houston ended up getting the Texans name! Where did the Oilers name disappear to, and why?

The same could be said of the LA Rams name over to St Louis, St Louis Cardinals name over to Arizona, and now St Louis Rams name back to LA? I seriously don't understand why the NFL doesn't just set up a clause of some kind which indicates that certain team names (if not all) with significant popularity need to remain in its original city.

Am I missing something here?

I know that ultimately money is the bottom line in these transactions, and that ultimately the teams themselves will be moved... but my point is to put a stop to the removal and moving around of team names. If another city wants to set up a team, then they seriously need to come up with their own original name.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-05-2015, 01:53 PM
 
Location: A great city, by a Great Lake!
15,908 posts, read 10,088,811 times
Reputation: 7456
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bondurant View Post
If the Rams went "home" wouldn't that actually be Cleveland?

LOL! Good point!
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-05-2015, 02:00 PM
 
Location: A great city, by a Great Lake!
15,908 posts, read 10,088,811 times
Reputation: 7456
Quote:
Originally Posted by Colt Cassidy View Post
If I may be so bold...

What has always puzzled me is why a team is allowed to take a city's team name away to another city. Baltimore loved their Colts name and had to give it up to Indianapolis - then ended up with the awful (IMO) Ravens name! Why wasn't Baltimore just allowed to keep the Colts name in the first place?

Same with the Houston Oilers, who gave up their name to Tennessee, who immediately changed it over to the Titans! Then Houston ended up getting the Texans name! Where did the Oilers name disappear to, and why?

The same could be said of the LA Rams name over to St Louis, St Louis Cardinals name over to Arizona, and now St Louis Rams name back to LA? I seriously don't understand why the NFL doesn't just set up a clause of some kind which indicates that certain team names (if not all) with significant popularity need to remain in its original city.

Am I missing something here?

I know that ultimately money is the bottom line in these transactions, and that ultimately the teams themselves will be moved... but my point is to put a stop to the removal and moving around of team names. If another city wants to set up a team, then they seriously need to come up with their own original name.

Perhaps those other cities didn't put up a fight like we did in Cleveland to retain the Browns name, history, and colors. Initially Art Modell was indeed going to take the Browns name to Baltimore, but once he saw the backlash from Browns fans and fans across the NFL in general, is when he changed his stance, and agreed to leave the legacy behind. In the case of the Oilers early on when they left Houston for Tennesseethey retained the name Oilers for a short time, and it was only when the stadium was complete in Nashville when they changed the name to the Titans. At that point I think the folks in Houston didn't want the name back, as maybe they thought that it had been tainted with the move.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-05-2015, 02:25 PM
 
32,532 posts, read 30,697,051 times
Reputation: 32350
Quote:
Originally Posted by Colt Cassidy View Post
If I may be so bold...

What has always puzzled me is why a team is allowed to take a city's team name away to another city.
Anaheim, which is run like a small town but that's another thread, made a half-baked effort to keep the Rams name in case the city was awarded a franchise at a later date. IIRC correctly they were shut down by Paul Tagliabue, then commissioner of the NFL, who pretty much handed Frontier every thing she wanted.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-05-2015, 02:26 PM
 
Location: West Los Angeles
1,057 posts, read 1,535,980 times
Reputation: 820
Not that it matters a whole lot, but if we took a poll of every current St. Louis Ram player (ie wealthy young athletes), and asked them, would you rather live in St. Louis (during fall and winter months, mind you) or by the beach in LA (where the stadium you play in would be located about 15 minutes from)....what do you think they'd say? Now, let's also take that same poll with every impending free agent? I'm guessing 90% would pick LA.

I'm not really sure what goes through the mind of the modern day professional football player when deciding where to live, but I got to believe that living in wealthier, warm coastal areas are high on that list. I'm also not sure how close they prefer to live from the stadiums they play in, but this Inglewood location would afford players and coaches some great nearby options (Manhattan Beach, Hermosa Beach, Redondo Beach, Marina Del Rey, Venice, etc), which are currently preferred by many Clippers/Lakers/Kings players from what I hear.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:

Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Sports > Pro Football
Similar Threads
Follow City-Data.com founder on our Forum or

All times are GMT -6.

2005-2019, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35 - Top