interesting read.
BEST FOR THE RAMS
By now, most of you have probably read the news spread across the front page of TST. As an outside fan, loyal to neither Los Angeles or St. Louis, I feel like I may have a somewhat unique perspective on this potential move than many other fans of the Rams.
As some of you know from reading comments I've posted, I was born and raised (and still live) in the state of Oregon. I have family in St. Louis, and attending a pre-season game in 1999 with them was the reason I became a Rams fan. In case you're wondering which game, it was the game against the Chargers where Trent Green was lost for the season. Other than family living there (and I have some extended family in L.A. as well), I have no ties to the city of St. Louis. I do, however, have a lot of love for the Rams.
I've seen a lot of posts calling Stan Kroenke a money hungry prick, or a son-of-a-bitch, and I've seen a lot of posts from people who grew up watching the L.A. Rams happy and excited that their team is (maybe) coming back. I haven't seen many posts from people who are examining the potential move from a rational standpoint, leaving emotions at the door. That isn't to say that your emotions aren't justified, but I think some rational examination is in order.
First and foremost, the NFL is a business. We as fans often lose sight of that. We tend to get attached to players, and often will get angry if a favorite player leaves our team to play for another team that offered more money, a better location, better chance at winning, etc. The opposite is sometimes true as well: we get disappointed or angry when our favorite team lets a fan favorite walk because of money. But, as much as we are loathe to admit it, this game, first and foremost, is about making money.
From a business standpoint, a move to L.A. is the smartest possible move that any owner in the NFL could possibly make, maybe ever. Why? Well, Business Insider recently examined Forbes franchise value list, and noticed a trend: the most valuable teams, by and large, play in the largest TV markets. New York, Dallas, Chicago, these are the most valuable teams in the league. There are a few teams that go against the grain, New England chief among them, but, for the most part, franchise value is intrinsically tied to what TV market that team plays in. Business Insider concluded that, while a stadium may cost Kroenke upwards of $1 billion, he would see his franchise nearly double in value, simply by relocating to a top 5 TV market. Moving to Los Angeles is a good money move. It's a savvy business move.
But, you might say, won't it alienate the fans? Yes, it might. And rightfully so. As football fans, we identify with our teams. "We won the game against so and so on Sunday" is a common phrase among ALL football fans. We feel as though we are a part of the team. So what happens when that team relocates, and we were fans because they were the local team? We feel less connected. In some cases, we refuse to root for the team we became so attached to because they aren't the local team anymore. And that's okay. Even with fans who feel rejected, and dejected, at the thought of a move, the team is, financially, better off. New fans, in a new market, are going to be excited at the prospect of having a home team to root for. The old fans of the team who aren't located near the team are going to stick with the team. Some of the fans will stick with the team even after the move, because they're still the Rams. All, or most will buy new merchandise, Los Angeles Rams merchandise, which makes the team, and owner, money. So again, moving the team is a smart financial move no matter how you spin it. A good example is when the Rams moved from L.A. to St. Louis in 1995. The Rams were new in town, they were terrible, and nobody cared that they were terrible. The excitement of having an NFL franchise in town helped sell out the stadium every week, and merchandise sales were fantastic. Even if the team isn't a great product on the field, the team will financially be successful, at least for a few seasons, after a move.
So what about from a neutral fan's standpoint? Will the team be better in Los Angeles than in St. Louis? Probably, and there are a couple of reasons for that. The other professional sports leagues have proven time and time again that often, when a free agent is deciding between two similar contract offers, it's all about location. Desirable free agents are easier to attract when you have an attractive location. A new, shiny, state-of-the-art stadium is a big part of that.
Professional football players are, at their core, just like you or me. Given the option to live somewhere where the weather is almost always nice, where the beach is a short drive away, or a location where the weather isn't ideal, where the beach isn't an option, which location would you choose? I'd go for the beach every time. Better yet, given the option to work in an office building that is badly in need of repairs, or a brand new shiny office building in a great location, which one are you going to choose? I'll choose the new building every time.
Lets not kid ourselves. The Rams have a difficult time attracting free agents, and seemingly have for quite some time. I'd be willing to bet that part of that is due to the location (St. Louis is a baseball city, first and foremost), but most of it, in all likelihood, is due to WHERE the Rams play their games. Playing on a turf surface, with a little padding on top of concrete, tends to shorten careers. Knees, ankles, shoulders all wear down faster hitting that turf than they would on natural sod. The free agents that the Rams do tend to attract are either on the downsides of their career, and signing what will probably be their last big deal (Jake Long, Scott Wells), or they are guys who were massively overpaid, and/or familiar with the coach (Langford, Cook). Even home-grown talent like Rodger Saffold preferred to sign with the Raiders, the one team consistently WORSE than the Rams. The only reason he ended up back in St. Louis is a failed physical. I have to think at least part of that was because he was looking at ways to lengthen his career.
Bottom line, as an impartial, outside observer loyal to the Rams, regardless of where they decide to play, a move to Los Angeles isn't a bad thing. From a business standpoint, and from an improving the team standpoint, the Rams are better off in Los Angeles. Many of you will stop following the Rams if or when that move happens, and I understand why, but when you take emotions out of it, this potential move is a positive.
Small_turfshowtimes.com.minimal
More from Turf Show Times
2015 NFL Mock Draft: Kiper Mocks A New Tackle To Rams
2015 Rams Mock Draft: Take One
The Rams' All-Time 53-Man Roster
