NFL will 'sweeten the pot' to keep the Rams in St. Louis

OK, so if the Rams stay and the Chargers and the Raiders move to LA, one of those two would have to move to the NFC West and one of the current NFC West teams would have to move to the AFC West.

I read here (somewhere), that the Rams would be asked to move to the AFC, but if you look at the 4 NFC West teams, the Rams, Cards and 9ers have a long and rich NFC tradition (granted, the Cards were in the East for a lot of that); the Seahawks were actually an AFC team for the majority of their NFL history.

When I look at the current AFC West, IMO, the Raiders have a stronger AFC identity than the Chargers. I think it is because of Al Davis being the maverick owner and the AFC being the upstart league. I have a much easier time seeing the Chargers as an NFC team than the Raiders.

My Favorite Realignment:

NFC West: Rams, 9ers, Cards, Chargers
AFC West: Broncos, Chiefs, Raiders, Seahawks

Less favored:

NFC West: Rams, 9ers, Cards, Raiders
AFC West: Broncos, Chiefs, Chargers, Seahawks

Don’t like:

NFC West: Seahawks, 9ers, Cards, Chargers
AFC West: Broncos, Chiefs, Raiders, Rams

Really Don’t Like:

NFC West: Seahawks, 9ers, Cards, Raiders
AFC West: Broncos, Chiefs, Chargers, Rams

I do NOT want the Rams in the AFC. That would just be weird.

The Seahawks have an AFC history. They should go.

Dak wrote:

Interesting development.

I think the NFL sees that St. Louis is most willing to build a new stadium among the three teams without a long-term lease. I also think that Spanos has been a busy boy within NFL owner circles. SK is the maverick, forcing movement with his independent actions. Looks like Spanos has countered with his personal relationships with other owners.

That’s a good observation.

So I wonder how Stan responds. Does he take the win in St. Louis, look like a good guy and get on with things…or does he give the middle finger to Spanos and the NFL and do what he wants anyway and see what happens. Could go either way.

Nobody has to change conferences. They just can’t schedule both teams to play a home game on the same date.

Agamemnon wrote:

<span class=”d4pbbc-font-color” style=”color: blue”>Nobody has to change conferences. They just can’t schedule both teams to play a home game on the same date.</span>

I will repeat what I said elsewhere. If there are two teams in LA, TV is going to want one in each conference.

Zooey wrote:

TV can want all they want doesn’t mean they get it.

I don’t agree with you there.

There’s one NFL and lots of TV networks. Why would the NFL agree to any contract that gave a TV network control over the makeup of the divisions? That kind of money has not existed.

According to wikipedia-

With the Houston Texans joining the NFL, the league’s teams were realigned into eight divisions: four teams in each division and four divisions in each conference. In creating the new divisions, the league tried to maintain the historical rivalries from the old alignment, while at the same time attempting to organize the teams geographically.

No mention of TV.

In the past the owners would have to agree. Bidwill refused repeated attempts to move his team (AZ) from the NFC east because he relied upon the revenue generated from playing Dallas every year. He only agreed after getting preseason game guarantee to play Dallas and getting his new stadium multiple Super Bowls.

bnw wrote:

He only agreed after getting preseason game guarantee to play Dallas and getting his new stadium multiple Super Bowls.

Didn’t know that. Interesting.

Not the most reliable site. One thing though, the raiders and chargers are not going to build on a chemical waste dump. This has the reeking of ploy and leverage. All these articles are nonsense and no one really knows what’s going to happen. I just can’t see Stan building a great stadium and letting someone else play in it.

Zooey wrote:

I was thinking the same thing. It weakens his argument considerably. He came out and said, “Both the Rams and Raiders left LA, so it’s mine, and the Rams can’t have it, but the Raiders can.”

It will be interesting to see if either Oakland or San Diego can come up with something now. They haven’t got much time. One thing is certain, Kroenke just pushed the boulder off the top of the hill, and things are moving.

well i’m thinking this could end up biting him in the ass. if kroenke pushes full steam ahead, can spanos get other owners to agree that a move for the rams is not a good plan but moving in with the raiders is? his only argument now stinks of bs. meanwhile continuing to negotiate with their respective cities will only delay matters while kroenke goes about building in inglewood.

1) CBS will not be able to sort out NFL double header TV scheuldes with 2 teams in the same conference and market. SD or Raiders will need to move to the NFC to support this.

2) Environmental impact study still needs to take place in Carson will take 2 years to get done, the stadium also needs public funding

3) Kronke already has the environmental impact study done for his property and no public funding required.

Zooey wrote:

1) CBS will not be able to sort out NFL double header TV scheuldes with 2 teams in the same conference and market. SD or Raiders will need to move to the NFC to support this. </P>
2) Environmental impact study still needs to take place in Carson will take 2 years to get done, the stadium also needs public funding</P>
3) Kronke already has the environmental impact study done for his property and no public funding required.

Haven’t seen #2 anywhere. Where did you get that? I saw that the cleanup at the site isn’t complete, and I saw that their answers to the question of financing were vague and dismissive.
I think Kroenke’s referendum on the ballot is a way to circumvent some environmental impact studies. He hasn’t completed all of them. And if the vote fails (which isn’t likely, I don’t think), he would still have hoops to jump through, and his push will suddenly tilt uphill. The vote there will matter. He isn’t in the clear yet.

1) You are correct, Kroenke looking for a vote to rezone Inglewood to avoid environmental impact study requirements…… as well know, his M.O. for the Denver Nuggets and Arsenal is that he also owns the land and buildings his teams play in. He wants to invest his land money in LA, not STL for his Rams… A public funded stadium in STL does not meet his M.O.

2) Per the local radio station here in SF: Carson (most commercial sites in the California) require Environmental Impact study, this will be a requirement for Carson……….check this out from the LA Times:

There is a neighborhood in Carson of roughly 1,500 homes called the Carousel. It has been the subject of controversy and litigation for years. In some homes, oil actually seeped up onto the patio. Barbara Post, president of the Carousel Homeowners Assn., has been quoted in the Daily Breeze as saying, “People are contracting cancer and other debilitating diseases at an alarming rate.”

Which brings us to the obvious stadium name:The Carson Exxon Valdez

URL = http://www.latimes.com/sports/la-sp-nfl-stadium-dwyre-20150221-column.html

bnw wrote:

<DIV class=d4p-bbt-quote-title>joemad wrote:</DIV>
<P>1) CBS will not be able to sort out NFL double header TV scheuldes with 2 teams in the same conference and market. SD or Raiders will need to move to the NFC to support this. </P>

<P>What is there to sort out? One game early other game late. Even if games were scheduled at the same time one of the games could be broadcast locally over another station. No moving of teams needed.</P>

Supporting 2 teams in the same market and conference will not work.

1) the local Network must carry the local NFL market team. (except when black outs apply)
2) each Network gets a doubleheader every other week. 8 doubleheaders per network….(e.g. CBS gets the double header week I, then FOX gets the double header on week II, etc….
2a) this is the problem, when CBS does not have the double header on week II, it will not be able to carry both games 100% of the time, especially when the games will be played in different time zones…..only when the local market team will host a game from the opposing conference… e.g., when the Raiders or Chargers, host an NFC team the game will most likely be shown on FOX.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Football_League_on_television

joemad wrote:

<div class=”d4p-bbt-quote-title”>bnw wrote:</div>

<DIV class=d4p-bbt-quote-title>joemad wrote:</DIV>
<P>1) CBS will not be able to sort out NFL double header TV scheuldes with 2 teams in the same conference and market. SD or Raiders will need to move to the NFC to support this. </P>

<P>What is there to sort out? One game early other game late. Even if games were scheduled at the same time one of the games could be broadcast locally over another station. No moving of teams needed.</P>

Supporting 2 teams in the same market and conference will not work.

1) the local Network must carry the local NFL market team. (except when black outs apply)
2) each Network gets a doubleheader every other week. 8 doubleheaders per network….(e.g. CBS gets the double header week I, then FOX gets the double header on week II, etc….
2a) this is the problem, when CBS does not have the double header on week II, it will not be able to carry both games 100% of the time, especially when the games will be played in different time zones…..only when the local market team will host a game from the opposing conference… e.g., when the Raiders or Chargers, host an NFC team the game will most likely be shown on FOX.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Football_League_on_television

Still appears scheduling can handle it. To me it seems like you expect the doubleheader to be both LA teams games? 14 other teams in the AFC alone that can be scheduled.