Rams Fans United - Los Angeles Rams Fan Discussion Forum

i know the conspiracy fringe loves to connect the dots AFTER events unfold while out of the other side of their mouths claim it was clearly predictable, but i'm not sure i recall any of them suggest that the league and their racketeering buddies, the sponsors, would love to see a rams / patriots super bowl, and that they would instruct the refs to make sure it happened.

pats/saints was a favorite, rams/chiefs was another favorite, but rams / patriots?

a couple of local sports talk radio knuckleheads (sf bay area) weighed in the subject this morning, with one saying that the league wanted the rams in because of the big market they play in, of course he offered nothing in terms of why the rams went to only 1 super bowl in the 30 years they played in l.a. once big nfl tv contracts kicked in (1964).

nor did he offer anything in terms of why the giants, who call the largest sports market home, finished the year at 5-11, or why the bears, in the 3rd biggest sports market, have been to the big show just once in the last 30+ years.

another one of the knuckleheads weighed in on the bad "no-calls" this past weekend, with the saints topping the list of course, said the solution is very simple, and the nfl knows it but refuses to do anything about, just give each team 2 more challenges per game and allow them to challenge penalties.

of course he didn't explain how that would have solved the saints sitch in the event the saints had used up their challenges prior to that "no-call", or how teams would use the challenges for such penalties as offensive holding, what a surprise.

personally i'm getting tired of seeing so many giants/jets super bowls, so these guys might be on to something.

aeneas1 wrote:i know the conspiracy fringe loves to connect the dots AFTER events unfold while out of the other side of their mouths claim it was clearly predictable, but i'm not sure i recall any of them suggest that the league and their racketeering buddies, the sponsors, would love to see a rams / patriots super bowl, and that they would instruct the refs to make sure it happened.

pats/saints was a favorite, rams/chiefs was another favorite, but rams / patriots?

a couple of local sports talk radio knuckleheads (sf bay area) weighed in the subject this morning, with one saying that the league wanted the rams in because of the big market they play in, of course he offered nothing in terms of why the rams went to only 1 super bowl in the 30 years they played in l.a. once big nfl tv contracts kicked in (1964).

nor did he offer anything in terms of why the giants, who call the largest sports market home, finished the year at 5-11, or why the bears, in the 3rd biggest sports market, have been to the big show just once in the last 30+ years.

another one of the knuckleheads weighed in on the bad "no-calls" this past weekend, with the saints topping the list of course, said the solution is very simple, and the nfl knows it but refuses to do anything about, just give each team 2 more challenges per game and allow them to challenge penalties.

of course he didn't explain how that would have solved the saints sitch in the event the saints had used up their challenges prior to that "no-call", or how teams would use the challenges for such penalties as offensive holding, what a surprise.

personally i'm getting tired of seeing so many giants/jets super bowls, so these guys might be on to something.

Just for clarification, were they arguing that the league wants big market teams in the Super Bowl before the year starts or that out of the teams that were left?

As far as the PI replay challenges, the CFL allows that already so there must be a workable template out there.

It's an interesting discussion about officials. The technology is there to simply get rid of them and I often think about such things when I watch MLB. So, is human error/judgment really what fans want?

With the NFL there are supposedly penalties on every play that don't get called so it's not an easy answer.

The main difference in your examples is that New York and Chicago are long established markets. L.A. is a new, old market, where most fans are older. It's a potentially huge fan base that the NFL would like to grab, just like Europe, China and Mexico. Having a winning team is certainly going to grab attention much faster than a losing franchise. It's not a difficult concept to understand, but cherry picking can make it seem so.

The Rams also happen to have a good team since hiring McVay getting rid of Fisher's bad apples and make sound free agent and trade acquisitions. Being an upper echelon team is necessary if a team is going to get help. The Giants weren't very good. The Bears were good and made the playoffs.

Since two expansion franchises saw early success in the past and one has kind of stunk since, it's not a huge leap IMO. But, the NFL has time to help the Rams if the choose, or feel the need. So far I haven't seen much need. Since McVay's arrival they have turned into a good team, making the playoffs in their first year. Other than a mediocre Giants team that needed a wing and prayer to even make the playoffs, and then go on to win it, and teams don't even get in. It would be obvious and unlikely if a truly bad team were to win a Superbowl.

Elmgrovegnome wrote:The main difference in your examples is that New York and Chicago are long established markets. L.A. is a new, old market, where most fans are older.

l.a. is the country's second biggest sports market. period.

Elmgrovegnome wrote:It's a potentially huge fan base that the NFL would like to grab, just like Europe, China and Mexico. Having a winning team is certainly going to grab attention much faster than a losing franchise. It's not a difficult concept to understand, but cherry picking can make it seem so.

it's such an important market to the nfl that they let it sit vacant for a generation, that's some real wheelin' and dealin'.... how about this, a rich guy buys a team and says "i can make a shitload more money in l.a., i'm moving", not juicy enough? re cherry picking, the lifeblood of the conspiracy fringe.

Elmgrovegnome wrote:The Rams also happen to have a good team since hiring McVay getting rid of Fisher's bad apples and make sound free agent and trade acquisitions. Being an upper echelon team is necessary if a team is going to get help. The Giants weren't very good. The Bears were good and made the playoffs.

honestly, i don't even know what that means.

Elmgrovegnome wrote:Since two expansion franchises saw early success in the past and one has kind of stunk since, it's not a huge leap IMO.

see the previous reply.

Elmgrovegnome wrote:But, the NFL has time to help the Rams if the choose, or feel the need. So far I haven't seen much need. Since McVay's arrival they have turned into a good team, making the playoffs in their first year.

so the nfl puppet masters will help a big market team, an expansion team, a recently relocated team [insert any other kind of team here] only if it needs help, but not if it doesn't? do i have that right?

the rams got rid of dead weight and became winners, reached the super bowl, but it's more reasonable to think the league doesn't typically leave this up to teams, instead the league conspires (in a manner the conspiracy fringe surprisingly can't detail) to make it happen, unless of course you happen to be the browns, the lions, the jets, the cowboys, the texans, the redskins, the....

is the league good at their string pulling job? doesn't seem so.

Elmgrovegnome wrote:Other than a mediocre Giants team that needed a wing and prayer to even make the playoffs, and then go on to win it, and teams don't even get in. It would be obvious and unlikely if a truly bad team were to win a Superbowl.

again, what?

Duh!!
Rams are getting a new stadium. That’s why the NFL chose them.
Don’t you pay attention?

aeneas1 wrote:l.a. is the country's second biggest sports market. period.

it's such an important market to the nfl that they let it sit vacant for a generation, that's some real wheelin' and dealin'.... how about this, a rich guy buys a team and says "i can make a shitload more money in l.a., i'm moving", not juicy enough? re cherry picking, the lifeblood of the conspiracy fringe.

honestly, i don't even know what that means.

see the previous reply.

so the nfl puppet masters will help a big market team, an expansion team, a recently relocated team [insert any other kind of team here] only if it needs help, but not if it doesn't? do i have that right?

the rams got rid of dead weight and became winners, reached the super bowl, but it's more reasonable to think the league doesn't typically leave this up to teams, instead the league conspires (in a manner the conspiracy fringe surprisingly can't detail) to make it happen, unless of course you happen to be the browns, the lions, the jets, the cowboys, the texans, the redskins, the....

is the league good at their string pulling job? doesn't seem so.


again, what?

Apparently you are just not as intelligent as you think you are. None of these concepts are that difficult to understand.

Elmgrovegnome wrote:None of these concepts are that difficult to understand.

nor is santa claus.

Wait, what? When did the Giants sneak in to the playoffs and win Super Bowl?