True, but the Rams really started in Cleveland or Chicago, thus the Rams may have moved more than any other franchise.
NFL 2015
- Thread starter Nathon Detroit
- Start date
- Status
True, but the Rams really started in Cleveland or Chicago, thus the Rams may have moved more than any other franchise.
You're right, LA also had two teams leave.
However, when the Raiders moved there, it was kinda like they just moved a little south in the same state, and then after 12 years went back up to Oakland.
The Cardinals and Rams have played in 3 different cities. No other franchise has played in more than 2 cities.
The Rams started in Cleveland, moved to Los Angeles, and then moved to St. Louis.
The Cardinals started in Chicago, moved to St. Louis, and then moved to Arizona.
We'll get another team someday.
That city's a smoggy pit. St. Louis is good decent Midwestern town with folks who've suffered through some real rotten years rooting for a team that used to be the toast of the league.
What a total, sickening screw job.:down:
IMO, Roger Goodell and the rest of the owners wanted a franchise really bad in LA because it's the second biggest market in the USA.
They are going to build a huge complex that will not only be the home stadium for the Rams, but will host Super Bowls, Pro Bowls, College Bowls, and other major events without having to worry about weather.
NFL teams share revenue, and all the owners want the revenue from the 2nd biggest market.
The new stadium and complex in LA will make Jerry World look like small potatoes.
Unfortunately, St. Louis got screwed. The NFL should have given LA an expansion team instead of what they did to St. Louis.
Oh yeah. I understand the why. Still doesn't make it any less of a massive middle finger to St. Louis fans.
Also, how exactly is this going to impact divisions? Seems to me there's gonna have to be some significant realignment.
Actually, it works out better than before.
Now, the NFC West has all its teams in the west.
San Fran
Seattle
Arizona
Los Angeles
Oh, no kidding? For whatever reason I didn't think they played in the West. This shouldn't surprise me, we live in a world where the Colts play in the AFC South.
brewmama
New member
Since when have the fans ever mattered? How about Baltimore/Indianapolis? Cleveland/Baltimore?
They kinda put rivalries ahead of geography when they realigned the divisions last.
Geographically, Miami shouldn't be with the Patriots, Jets, and Bills, they should be with Jacksonville, Tennessee, and Houston.
However, Miami has rivalries with New England, NY Jets, and Bills.
I guess we knew deep down that this would happen here in St. Louis. I wished back in 95 that we had started our own new franchise instead of getting the Rams. I wanted the St. Louis Stallions or something
Actually, I think the NFL did a really good job the last time they did realignment. They kept a lot of the rivalries and at the same time did pretty good geographically.
College football, on the other hand, is a joke.
Rutgers is in the Big 10, with Nebraska and Maryland. West Virginia is in the Big 12. Texas A&M is in the SEC, etc.
brewmama
New member
All true, I was just referring to moving the Colts from Baltimore to Indianapolis and the Browns to Baltimore.
My Pats almost went there before Bob Kraft swooped in to save the day. :shocked:
Again, we get the satisfaction of the Super Bowl Trophy from 2000. The Cardinals have never won a Super Bowl, but they won a Championship in 1947 when they were in Chicago.
You'll always have the Greatest Show on Turf. One heck of a team there.
That 1999 season was one of the greatest stories in NFL history.
Kurt Warner came out of nowhere, and all of the sudden you had "The Greatest Show on Turf", and they won the Super Bowl.
Also, don't forget the 1957-58 St. Louis Hawks. They won the NBA Championship.
- Status