Rams owner says no way to L.A., will La La Land ever get the NFL back?

From: The Sports Point

Chip Rosenbloom, the owner of the St. Louis Rams, says the Rams have no intention of moving the team back to Los Angeles. He took control of the franchise along with his sister after his mother and former owner, Georgia Frontiere (pictured above) passed away on January 18th. Rosenbloom who is a movie producer in Los Angeles and raises his family there, had some not so good things to say in regards to the football memories he had of the teams time in Los Angeles. He showed his disdain by saying,"When the Rams were in the Super Bowl in the 1979 season — in LA — people really seemed to care less. . . . The game was in Pasadena (at the Rose Bowl), and the home team was in the Super Bowl."

From a business point of view it would seem to make no sense that a top three media market and a place with such a dense population would not have a franchise in the countries most popular sport. The argument against that way of thought is that the NFL franchises have loyal and passionate followings, thus the ability for the league to not only survive but thrive in smaller markets like Green Bay and Jacksonville. L.A does not have a history of rallying around its professional teams, outside of the Lakers and the Dodgers when they are good. It is an interesting situation in that city that the college football teams, USC and UCLA, sellout the L.A Coliseum and Rose Bowl continuously for home games, but there is not enough fans to go around to sustain a NFL franchise?

Lets face it, there is absolutely no reason for the NFL to expand. The eight divisions of four teams each works out great. However, if the NFL did decide to expand in the future do you think the powers that be would risk moving a team there again? If not, which city would be a better option then the City of Angels? We are interested to hear your thoughts on this.

Rosenbloom has no interest in moving the Rams (St. Louis Post Dispatch)

Taytay 24All-American

639 days ago

Score 0

LA is not interested in the NFL and the NFL clearly does not need LA, despite its market size. As long as TVs there are still tuned in, I think the NFL will be satisfied.

Permalink | Reply

Cornfed78Draft Pick

639 days ago

Score 0

Normally I would say yes, but on this I don't think it will be anytime soon. The next time the league expands maybe. I honestly think the Bills will leave Buffalo for Toronto. Maybe if another team moves, it will be LA. But with all the attention USC and to a lesser extent UCLA gets; the NFL as Taytay said "does not need LA".

Permalink | Reply

ShawnnorrisPee Wee

638 days ago

Score 0

are you kidding that LA isn't interested in the NFL? i live here and everyone i know that watches sports wants an NFL team. not putting an NFL team in one of the largest markets while keeping teams in places like buffalo is bad for business and people have to remember that while football may be a sport, the NFL is a business.

Permalink | Reply

Taytay 24All-American

638 days ago

Score -1

So interested that they have allowed two teams to leave? Sign me up!

Permalink

Anonymous Fanatic #1

613 days ago

Score -1

you know, jacksonville has struggled mightily to fill its way-too-big stadium. and because they're an expansion franchise that's only been around since 1995, they don't have as much history as, say, the bills, vikings, or saints. i'm sure people in jacksonville would be upset if their team left town - and in general i hate to see teams move for any number of reasons - but of all the shaky nfl franchises that have been rumored for relocation to LA, the jags might be the best choice. for the record, i don't necessarily believe chip rosenbloom. until LA gets its nfl team (and believe me, it's a matter of WHEN, not if), i'll continue to think that the rams are one of the candidates to move to southern california. really, the rams make more sense than any other team, although in the end i think the jags are the most likely to move.

Permalink | Reply