I say let them go. This is not a wise use of resources, anyway. When I think of all the things that can and do make St. Louis great, the Rams being here is barely on the list. It's the same way with other cities. New York isn't awesome because of the Jets and Giants, nor Philly because of the Eagles, not Boston because of the Patriots. The teams could leave those places tomorrow and they would still be great cities. Someone made a good point earlier in this thread that NFL teams don't make a thriving city, they are a sign of a thriving city. I feel the same way about the national reputation that everyone seems to be wringing their hands about. Reputations don't make a city great, they are signs of great cities. St. Louis needs to stop focusing on trying to look like a great place and instead try to become a great place. It's like someone who thinks just owning a Mercedes makes them rich. The things that really hurt the city are crime, poor education, poverty, a sh*tty job market. Start solving these problems and all the signs of being a great city will start to accumulate on their own.
- 3,433
The San Antonio Alamo Dome is 2 years older than the Edward Jones dome. And the Spurs abandoned it a long time ago. So will the Raiders demand a new stadium if they move there? Or is the old one OK for Texans?blzhrpmd2 wrote:Ok, for a recent player let's get San Antonio or London on the phone for a perspective.
Add Houston to that mix above as well. Granted those trends didn't happen recently, but as Stan would say, there's a track record there. Cities want NFL and want professional sports. Call it insecurity or unwise, or whatever, but cities that lose it try desperately to get it back and those with a chance don't take it lightly. If they are truly bad things that drain money and ruin cities, would that many people across history and the country (world?) make those decisions?
If we lose the Rams, there are already rumors and rumblings about how we can get another team. People act like it's either the Rams/NFL, or prudent civic choices. Why can't both coexist? Maybe we can buck the trend and turn our back on the NFL and never look back but it wouldn't be without consequence on some level. I don't see why we can't retain an asset that builds our national and international reputation AND fix what we have in place and continue to develop new areas. Then when the rest of the city is looking better and better, FOX, NBC, ESPN, and CBS can help show it off 8-10x a year to people who potentially will never see it.
I'm not fixated on the project saving St. Louis, I'm fixated on the project saving the Rams. No matter how these guys want to sell the thing, that is what it is really about.
http://espn.go.com/nfl/story/_/id/11745 ... eam-london
https://www.facebook.com/SanAntonioTxWeWantANflTeam
http://sports.yahoo.com/blogs/nfl-shutd ... 05076.html
- 8,155
I'm not sure how far we're getting from the thread topic, but to try to steer it back a bit I agree that our Murder Capital of the Nation tag will hurt a lot more with our national perception filtering through the media than the loss of an NFL team. We already went through that once and it wasn't doomsday. I hope we can keep the Rams if the price is reasonable but I'd like for our city to be known for reducing crime and increasing economic opportunities rather than entering into another questionable stadium deal.danryan1 wrote:It's like someone who thinks just owning a Mercedes makes them rich. The things that really hurt the city are crime, poor education, poverty, a sh*tty job market. Start solving these problems and all the signs of being a great city will start to accumulate on their own.
- 43
This is a FANTASTIC piece, and until I heard the MLS tidbit, it had me off the fence and on the side of being against the stadium. (Now I've got one leg back on the fence.)siu850956106 wrote:A piece from the Hartford Courant
http://www.courant.com/business/dan-haa ... story.html
^It's interesting that the Hartford author sites the Arch, Cardinals, Blues, and the Rams' dome as assets to be proud of. Each of those assets required the demolition of significant portions of the city at various times during our history in order to exist and be retained. In the case of the Arch Grounds, many more buildings and functional city blocks were sacrificed for someone's vision that I'm sure many opposed at the time. Whose to say in another 50 years people won't be referencing the Rams, an MLS franchise, this possible stadium, and the surrounding development as positive assets to be proud of.
I also question that this area could organically become a 365 day a year bustling hub when we already have LaClede's Landing in place and it struggles to remain relevant from a retail, residential, and corporate perspective. This site is more topographically challenged and yet it is going to just sprout into a functional neighorhood? Over what time frame? Are there plans in place to make that happen? Like I said on the other threat, why can't we work hard to fill our downtown office vacancies, develop the surface lots littering the CBD, and also build this stadium (and hopefully amend slightly the amount of surface parking if possible)?
I'm still failing to see how people are reasoning that we either keep and invest in the Rams or we make other decisions that are better for the city. Maybe I'll ask the question slower.....Why. Can't. We. Do. Both?
I don't know much about city politics and referendums, so please, help me. Is there a group that has been sitting around city hall since 1995 saying, "Gosh, we'd really love to lower our crime and better our schools, but darned if those Rams just are eating up our resources."
Let's look at the list of most dangerous places in the country:
1. Camden, NJ........no professional sports
2. Chester, PA.........no professional sports
3. Detroit, MI..........4 professional sports (upgrade for Red Wings venue including tax dollars)
4. Saginaw, MI........no professional sports
5. Oakland, CA.........2 professional sports (trying to upgrade venues for both)
6. Bessemer, CA.......no professional sports
7. Flint, MI..........no professional sports
8. Atlantic City, NJ........no professional sports
9. Wilmington, DE.........no professional sports
10. Memphis, TN..........1 professional sport
Wait a minute, if the majority of these places don't have professional sports to drain all of their money that would otherwise be used "wisely" then why are they still so high on the list? What could they possibly be wasting all of their money on?
Also, please explain how the Rams are impeding the job market. Somehow, by some divine intervention, we were just named in someone's opinion the best start up city.....how did that happen with the evil Rams poisoning our community? And I'm sure if the Rams would just leave town then Edward Jones and Rawlings, and Scottrade would pack up and move downtown. National corporations will say, ah, finally, the Rams are gone, now we can relocate a significant portion of our company to St. Louis.
And I'm sure that our schools will skyrocket once we get rid of football. As an added bonus, we can rid ourselves of a portion of positive African American role models for our challenged youth and families. We wouldn't want guys like Joe Barksdale giving his time and money to people or players stressing the importance of staying in school, increasing physical activity, and having self-promoting hobbies.
These are things that we should be investing in all the time, with or without professional sports.
I would agree with the idea that sports don't make a city thrive, they are a sign of a thriving city. That is well put. However, we are not New York, Boston, Chicago, or Philadelphia. For better or worse, our reputation in the eyes of someone on the other side of the country is more closely linked to things like our sports teams because we have not done enough as a region to establish a mutually exclusive identity (hence back to the Hartford author's list.....Cardinals, Blues, Dome, Arch). Take away our sports teams and we become one of the most dangerous cities without the buffer or positive energy of professional sports. Moreover, despite the grandiose, well deserved reps of the metropolises of our country, I bet they wouldn't want to lose those teams if threatened. How about we try to keep those signs of a thriving city we already own and actually become one, too.
Do I need to drive a Mercedes? Of course not. But if by chance I was lucky enough to obtain one 20 years ago because the previous owner really wanted me to have this particular model that only 31 other people in the country own, you better believe that I'd fight to keep it.
I also question that this area could organically become a 365 day a year bustling hub when we already have LaClede's Landing in place and it struggles to remain relevant from a retail, residential, and corporate perspective. This site is more topographically challenged and yet it is going to just sprout into a functional neighorhood? Over what time frame? Are there plans in place to make that happen? Like I said on the other threat, why can't we work hard to fill our downtown office vacancies, develop the surface lots littering the CBD, and also build this stadium (and hopefully amend slightly the amount of surface parking if possible)?
I'm still failing to see how people are reasoning that we either keep and invest in the Rams or we make other decisions that are better for the city. Maybe I'll ask the question slower.....Why. Can't. We. Do. Both?
I don't know much about city politics and referendums, so please, help me. Is there a group that has been sitting around city hall since 1995 saying, "Gosh, we'd really love to lower our crime and better our schools, but darned if those Rams just are eating up our resources."
Let's look at the list of most dangerous places in the country:
1. Camden, NJ........no professional sports
2. Chester, PA.........no professional sports
3. Detroit, MI..........4 professional sports (upgrade for Red Wings venue including tax dollars)
4. Saginaw, MI........no professional sports
5. Oakland, CA.........2 professional sports (trying to upgrade venues for both)
6. Bessemer, CA.......no professional sports
7. Flint, MI..........no professional sports
8. Atlantic City, NJ........no professional sports
9. Wilmington, DE.........no professional sports
10. Memphis, TN..........1 professional sport
Wait a minute, if the majority of these places don't have professional sports to drain all of their money that would otherwise be used "wisely" then why are they still so high on the list? What could they possibly be wasting all of their money on?
Also, please explain how the Rams are impeding the job market. Somehow, by some divine intervention, we were just named in someone's opinion the best start up city.....how did that happen with the evil Rams poisoning our community? And I'm sure if the Rams would just leave town then Edward Jones and Rawlings, and Scottrade would pack up and move downtown. National corporations will say, ah, finally, the Rams are gone, now we can relocate a significant portion of our company to St. Louis.
And I'm sure that our schools will skyrocket once we get rid of football. As an added bonus, we can rid ourselves of a portion of positive African American role models for our challenged youth and families. We wouldn't want guys like Joe Barksdale giving his time and money to people or players stressing the importance of staying in school, increasing physical activity, and having self-promoting hobbies.
These are things that we should be investing in all the time, with or without professional sports.
I would agree with the idea that sports don't make a city thrive, they are a sign of a thriving city. That is well put. However, we are not New York, Boston, Chicago, or Philadelphia. For better or worse, our reputation in the eyes of someone on the other side of the country is more closely linked to things like our sports teams because we have not done enough as a region to establish a mutually exclusive identity (hence back to the Hartford author's list.....Cardinals, Blues, Dome, Arch). Take away our sports teams and we become one of the most dangerous cities without the buffer or positive energy of professional sports. Moreover, despite the grandiose, well deserved reps of the metropolises of our country, I bet they wouldn't want to lose those teams if threatened. How about we try to keep those signs of a thriving city we already own and actually become one, too.
Do I need to drive a Mercedes? Of course not. But if by chance I was lucky enough to obtain one 20 years ago because the previous owner really wanted me to have this particular model that only 31 other people in the country own, you better believe that I'd fight to keep it.
Let's leave the demolition alone for a second.
This is going to cost us $500 million in public funds. Let's say $300 to know out the PSL's (which you can argue aren't public) and be conservative.
We're not a region rolling in money. I'd say $300 million is indeed eating up our resources, not to mention the resources we've been spending to pay off and maintain the old building.
This is a bad economic deal. This isn't an ideal land usage (development will be slow, but the best way to ensure it doesn't happen is to tear it all down).
If you want to make these sacrifices to save the football team, I don't begrudge you. I understand irrational sports loyalty. It's a big part of my life. We just have to be honest about what it is. It's not something that's particularly good for the city.
This is going to cost us $500 million in public funds. Let's say $300 to know out the PSL's (which you can argue aren't public) and be conservative.
We're not a region rolling in money. I'd say $300 million is indeed eating up our resources, not to mention the resources we've been spending to pay off and maintain the old building.
This is a bad economic deal. This isn't an ideal land usage (development will be slow, but the best way to ensure it doesn't happen is to tear it all down).
If you want to make these sacrifices to save the football team, I don't begrudge you. I understand irrational sports loyalty. It's a big part of my life. We just have to be honest about what it is. It's not something that's particularly good for the city.
I'd like to see more fan involvement (Same with every issue in the city). I'm from Buffalo and Toronto has been trying to steal the Bills for years. Fans get angry, get on tv, make tshirts, start social networking sites, groups, etc. They understand how important that lousy (sorry it's true) football team is to their identity. You can't always have a winning team but not having one is just a blow to the ego. I can see the headlines now "Even the Rams are leaving St. Louis" night time comedy jokes.
I see it for what it is. It is an attempt to keep the Rams. I don't think the plan is perfect at all, but I also don't see a plan existing that checks off as many boxes as this one appears to. What I also don't see is the Rams leaving and suddenly all our problems starting to get better because there is more money to invest. The politicians we all love to villify will find ways to misuse it another way in the public's opinion. Maybe I am wrong.
I guess an interesting exercise would be exploring our crime rates, school performances, and usage of tax dollars between 87 and 95 to see if indeed we "bettered" ourselves without the NFL. A lot of that time, mind you was spent trying to get 2 different franchises once one left.
I guess an interesting exercise would be exploring our crime rates, school performances, and usage of tax dollars between 87 and 95 to see if indeed we "bettered" ourselves without the NFL. A lot of that time, mind you was spent trying to get 2 different franchises once one left.
- 8,155
^ I agree if the Rams leave we won't suddenly solve our problems but you also highly overrate the benefits of keeping them both on an economic basis as well as a national perception basis.... did the world think we were great when we had the Saint Louis Cardinals and then became some two buck chuck when they left for the desert and then all of a sudden looked up and saw that we were a golden metropolis back in the game again when we lured the Rams from LA? Of course not. Same way as Cleveland did not benefit/suffer/benefit in any meaningful fashion when the did/did not/once again did have the Browns.
- 271
I think irrational is a strong word. I don't think this is a good deal for the city, but I don't really think it's a bad one either.jstriebel wrote:Let's leave the demolition alone for a second.
This is going to cost us $500 million in public funds. Let's say $300 to know out the PSL's (which you can argue aren't public) and be conservative.
We're not a region rolling in money. I'd say $300 million is indeed eating up our resources, not to mention the resources we've been spending to pay off and maintain the old building.
This is a bad economic deal. This isn't an ideal land usage (development will be slow, but the best way to ensure it doesn't happen is to tear it all down).
If you want to make these sacrifices to save the football team, I don't begrudge you. I understand irrational sports loyalty. It's a big part of my life. We just have to be honest about what it is. It's not something that's particularly good for the city.
St. Louis pretty much is what it is, guys. Whether the Rams stay or go, we're going to remain a rust belt midwestern city with a continually aging population and a declining corporate base with its best days behind it. If this deal falls through and the Rams leave and a handful of those dozen abandoned warehouses on the riverfront get renovated and filled with lofts and restaurants over the next 10-20 years, great. It's not going to make St. Louis substantially better.
By the same token, if this deal comes to fruition and the Rams are playing in a new riverfront stadium in 2020 and continue to do so for the next 40 years, also great. Again, it's not going to make St. Louis substantially better.
But at least in the latter scenario we have an NFL team,
- 1,868
Well, we did build the MetroLink.blzhrpmd2 wrote: I guess an interesting exercise would be exploring our crime rates, school performances, and usage of tax dollars between 87 and 95 to see if indeed we "bettered" ourselves without the NFL. A lot of that time, mind you was spent trying to get 2 different franchises once one left.
I have to call bullsh*t on this. Anyone who's been paying attention over past few decades has to recognize that St. Louis has gotten demonstrably better in that time. When I started at SLU in 2001 the Continental building was vacant, Coronado was vacant, Medina temple, Metropolitan, the entire locust strip, Manchester from Kingshighway to Vandeventer, the loop east of skinker, Washington Avenue, and many more places more than basically abandoned 15-20 years ago are now growing and thriving urban areas. Yes, there's been some setbacks along the way, but I don't know how anyone can argue that things aren't improving.Greatest St. Louis wrote:St. Louis pretty much is what it is, guys. Whether the Rams stay or go, we're going to remain a rust belt midwestern city with a continually aging population and a declining corporate base with its best days behind it.
As for my previous comments about the Rams. Let me clarify. I love the Rams and would hate to see them leave. I have great memories of the Kurt Warner years and stuck with them through many terrible seasons. I just don't think they contribute much, if anything, to making St. Louis a better place. Furthermore, I don't think the supposed benefit they provide to St. Louis's national reputation does anything to make St. Louis a better place. For those reasons, they shouldn't be the recipient of hundreds of millions of dollars of public money.
- 271
I didn't say things haven't improved.danryan1 wrote:I have to call bullsh*t on this. Anyone who's been paying attention over past few decades has to recognize that St. Louis has gotten demonstrably better in that time. When I started at SLU in 2001 the Continental building was vacant, Coronado was vacant, Medina temple, Metropolitan, the entire locust strip, Manchester from Kingshighway to Vandeventer, the loop east of skinker, Washington Avenue, and many more places more than basically abandoned 15-20 years ago are now growing and thriving urban areas. Yes, there's been some setbacks along the way, but I don't know how anyone can argue that things aren't improving.Greatest St. Louis wrote:St. Louis pretty much is what it is, guys. Whether the Rams stay or go, we're going to remain a rust belt midwestern city with a continually aging population and a declining corporate base with its best days behind it.
As for my previous comments about the Rams. Let me clarify. I love the Rams and would hate to see them leave. I have great memories of the Kurt Warner years and stuck with them through many terrible seasons. I just don't think they contribute much, if anything, to making St. Louis a better place. Furthermore, I don't think the supposed benefit they provide to St. Louis's national reputation does anything to make St. Louis a better place. For those reasons, they shouldn't be the recipient of hundreds of millions of dollars of public money.
My point was St. Louis is still very much a rust belt midwestern city with its days as a top-10 American city well behind it. There is always going to be room for marginal and incremental improvement here and there. Sometimes, the improvement actually comes to fruition, in ways like the examples you have mentioned. But St. Louis is largely going to remain what it is. Whether the Rams leave and 3 or 4 of those dozen abandoned warehouses get some more lofts and trendy restaurants and bars put in over the next couple decades, or the Rams stay and we put a big pretty stadium with them and a possibly an MLS team someday, it's not going to change from a big picture standpoint.
My view is, at least in the latter scenario, we'd still have an NFL team and possibly even an MLS team someday.
But I don't begrudge people who's view is the opposite, that in the former scenario, at least we still have a couple more buildings being once again reused.
- 8,155
^ The way I look at it is that we desperately need to rebuild a working city. These are 90 valuable riverfront acres adjacent to the core downtown that we are talking about and making a true mixed-use district out of it would be much more valuable to the city than plopping a stadium there surrounded by a sea of parking. If a stadium plan can be adjusted to make a true urban district happen, then it could be part of the mix; otherwise, put it elsewhere in the region.
I just wonder how St. Louis keeps getting itself in these situations.
If not having an NFL team isn't a big deal, then why did St. Louis go after the Rams in the first place? Why did the region seek an NFL expansion team? Why did Bill Laurie go after the Vancouver Grizzlies to bring them to St. Louis before he was shot down by the NBA?
Please don't tell me having a major pro team doesn't matter. With that said, Arena football is no substitute for the NFL. Minor league baseball is not a substitute for the St. Louis Cardinals. Why is St. Louis griping about not having a major league soccer franchise? A feeder soccer club is not a good substitute for major soccer team.
Minneapolis, Atlanta, Dallas, SF, Seattle, etc. have either proposed or built nice stadiums. This is evidence major sports leagues do matter to a region. Many regions and states are paying premium dollars to main major sports. Major sports connects a city and region to the rest of the nation and world through sports. Major sports teams are a source of civic pride. When winning, teams boost civic pride and a city's national and international profile.
Keep in mind, the Rams won the SuperBowl in 1999 - four short years after arriving in St. Louis proving that it was a good deal/investment. St. Louis was going bananas. They even went back to SuperBowl in 2002, but lost.
The current problems are the RAMS suck right now and a billionaire (who was a billionaire when he was part-owner) is asking for a premier Top 25% sports stadium with a little help from taxpayers.
Truth of the matter is, yes, the Rams suck right now, but St. Louis SIGNED UP to provide the team with a Top 25% premier sports stadium. YOU SIGNED UP FOR IT, St. Louis!
If Stan and the Rams leave, don't be mad. Because at the end of the day, St. Louis did not live up to its commitment.
If not having an NFL team isn't a big deal, then why did St. Louis go after the Rams in the first place? Why did the region seek an NFL expansion team? Why did Bill Laurie go after the Vancouver Grizzlies to bring them to St. Louis before he was shot down by the NBA?
Please don't tell me having a major pro team doesn't matter. With that said, Arena football is no substitute for the NFL. Minor league baseball is not a substitute for the St. Louis Cardinals. Why is St. Louis griping about not having a major league soccer franchise? A feeder soccer club is not a good substitute for major soccer team.
Minneapolis, Atlanta, Dallas, SF, Seattle, etc. have either proposed or built nice stadiums. This is evidence major sports leagues do matter to a region. Many regions and states are paying premium dollars to main major sports. Major sports connects a city and region to the rest of the nation and world through sports. Major sports teams are a source of civic pride. When winning, teams boost civic pride and a city's national and international profile.
Keep in mind, the Rams won the SuperBowl in 1999 - four short years after arriving in St. Louis proving that it was a good deal/investment. St. Louis was going bananas. They even went back to SuperBowl in 2002, but lost.
The current problems are the RAMS suck right now and a billionaire (who was a billionaire when he was part-owner) is asking for a premier Top 25% sports stadium with a little help from taxpayers.
Truth of the matter is, yes, the Rams suck right now, but St. Louis SIGNED UP to provide the team with a Top 25% premier sports stadium. YOU SIGNED UP FOR IT, St. Louis!
If Stan and the Rams leave, don't be mad. Because at the end of the day, St. Louis did not live up to its commitment.
- 271
I think I'd be more willing to lend credence to your view if someone came to me with two proposals ready to go: "Either we build an NFL/MLS stadium complex with the parking, or we turn that area into a 'true mixed-use district.'"roger wyoming II wrote:^ The way I look at it is that we desperately need to rebuild a working city. These are 90 valuable riverfront acres adjacent to the core downtown that we are talking about and making a true mixed-use district out of it would be much more valuable to the city than plopping a stadium there surrounded by a sea of parking. If a stadium plan can be adjusted to make a true urban district happen, then it could be part of the mix; otherwise, put it elsewhere in the region.
That isn't the situation we're dealing with, and it won't ever be the situation we're dealing with. At best, it's more like "Either we build an NFL/MLS stadium complex with the parking, or we give up on the NFL altogether and hope over the next couple decades that some of these buildings get some lofts or trendy bars or restaurants or something."
- 8,155
^ Investments have been made in the area, are being made in the area, and will continue to be made in the area. Let's not be distracted by the shiny object and concentrate on city building in our high-potential areas. Again, it might be possible to fit in a stadium and still get decent urban form (see Banks, etc.) but in general, look at where all these single-use NFL stadiums are being placed in more healthy cities in the past few years.... Boston, San Fran, D.C., Philadelphia, etc. That should tell us something.
Is anyone even considering the longevity of the NFL itself in this decision?
http://www.theverge.com/2014/1/31/53643 ... ion-crisis
http://www.theverge.com/2014/1/31/53643 ... ion-crisis
- 271
Could you elaborate on the investments currently being made in the area, and the ones that are on the horizon?roger wyoming II wrote:^ Investments have been made in the area, are being made in the area, and will continue to be made in the area. Let's not be distracted by the shiny object and concentrate on city building in our high-potential areas. Again, it might be possible to fit in a stadium and still get decent urban form (see Banks, etc.) but in general, look at where all these single-use NFL stadiums are being placed in more healthy cities in the past few years.... Boston, San Fran, D.C., Philadelphia, etc. That should tell us something.
Further, what should it tell us? In that same timeframe, we've seen stadiums built in Cleveland, Baltimore, Pittsburgh, Cincinnati, etc. on the edges of downtown, right next to the highway and/or body of water... just like ours.
I'll just add: it's always nice to get excited about investment in downtown, and it's also nice to hope investment continues. But if you look at practically every thread on here regarding downtown from five years ago (much less the ones from the mid 2000's, pre-recession), they're filled with all kinds of lofty expectations.
What can we reasonably expect in this "90 acre" hotbed of "potential," other than maybe a handful of the abandoned warehouses being converted into more lofts/restaurants/bars?
What can we reasonably expect in this "90 acre" hotbed of "potential," other than maybe a handful of the abandoned warehouses being converted into more lofts/restaurants/bars?
- 985
^ I have heard that football is the sport that if any major sport drops off that would be it due to that and its the least international of any major sport in the US. But then again, any sport that increases in popularity as a result would most likely be one with a similar field.
Isn't another aspect of this is this is going on right when the region is in a once in a generation (or longer) identity crisis that will likely determine the fate for at least this half of the century? I may be just a pessimist, but I do worry that the lingering issues exposed by Ferguson and the crime issues (especially homicide) puts a risk urban development in the region. Since if those aren't fixed it could stop or reverse with a double-down on suburban sprawl and white flight.
Isn't another aspect of this is this is going on right when the region is in a once in a generation (or longer) identity crisis that will likely determine the fate for at least this half of the century? I may be just a pessimist, but I do worry that the lingering issues exposed by Ferguson and the crime issues (especially homicide) puts a risk urban development in the region. Since if those aren't fixed it could stop or reverse with a double-down on suburban sprawl and white flight.
We know what we are getting with a new football stadium: the bill.Greatest St. Louis wrote: What can we reasonably expect in this "90 acre" hotbed of "potential," other than maybe a handful of the abandoned warehouses being converted into more lofts/restaurants/bars?
Thank you for pointing this out. I'm constantly considering it, and it's why I wouldn't be terribly upset if the Rams left. I don't want to like football anymore. Not having a team would allow me to get there.erina wrote:Is anyone even considering the longevity of the NFL itself in this decision?
http://www.theverge.com/2014/1/31/53643 ... ion-crisis
Football is a dangerous sport with no sights on booming significantly safer. I think there's a decent chance it's popularity falls way off in the next couple decades. It should, but it's not easy to trust in the American public's conscience.