[HUbison]

We continue to have this discussion because there are a lot of people out there who think LA can't support a pro football team.

Moonie, I can speak only for myself; but it's never been said that LA can't support an NFL team. They can......but that doesn't mean they are entitled to.

Your population in 2000, 348,189. Los Angeles alone, 3,694,820. Add in Orange (3,002,048) and Riverside Counties (2,026,803) and you can see we are a little bit larger than St. Louis.

Which makes those attendance stats so much more astounding. St. Louis pulls in 19% of its population base, and SoCal pulled in less than 1%.

I can go on forever here, but I think you get my point.

Yes, I think everyone here in flyover country gets your point. You (and Randy Newman) love LA. Wonderful.....enjoy it. To each their own. As for me, I'll take Missouri over California anyday.

One thing we do have in common though, you guys lost the Cardinals correct?

Actually, I believe it Chicago was the other locale to lose the Cardinals, so no, we don't have that in common.

Was that because your city can't support a pro football team or is it something else?

Yet we don't live under the false assumption that St. Louis is entitled to their return.

Guys, spin the numbers anyway you like to feel better. But in the end they don't change. The St. Louis Rams have brought in 11,000 more per game than the LA Rams did in their final years over that same time period even though the Rams product in St. Louis was far inferior to the product the Rams gave to the LA fans in that same span.


Let's cut to the chase. I agree with your basic premise. Bottomline on this: LA should have an NFL team. An area that large should be able to support a team, and most likely would. I would vote (not that the league is listening, but) for a team in LA. It makes sense. However, LA is not entitled to the Rams; and do not have some superior claim to this team. St. Louis has treated this team very well; in fact better than the previous years in another location.