Opinion of the Rams moving back to LA?

[Mr. Morden]

And are they even planning on having a second LA team?  I'm not sure they need more than one.

The Chargers have been given a year to decide if they're going to join the Rams in LA.  If they decline, then the Raiders may go instead.  Most likely the new stadium they're going to build there will house the Rams plus whichever of the other two teams wants to join them.

[Mr. Morden]

Don't particularly care about the Rams (though having the NFC West make geographic sense is nice) but I'm interested to see what the second team will end up being. I'm also curious to know how the stadium's being funded, and whether it's going to close to the new Crenshaw line.

The NFC East doesn't make much geographic sense with my Cowboys, either.  And are they even planning on having a second LA team?  I'm not sure they need more than one.

Yeah, why on earth would they go from 1 to 2? Why can't they settle for one? Surely they'd accept that after, you know, over 20 years of zero teams?

Are they allergic to odd numbers in LA?

If you really want two teams, why not move one team and then, if that goes well, move the second to LA?

And I've always been baffled as to how Dallas is in the East, St. Louis was in the West, and Indianapolis was in the South. I guess it's more about rivalries than geography.

I think the rationale is that

a) LA's massive. A metropolitan area with half of LA's population would still be the fifth largest in the country. Just in sheer population, a second franchise can be easily sustained, and has the potential to be quite successful.

and b) Every other league does it, and the franchise values for them tend to work out. According to Forbes, the NHL has the Kings and Ducks as the 9th and 16th most valuable, Lakers and Clippers at 1st and 5th, and the Dodgers and Angels at 2nd and 8th. Assuming both franchises are competently run, they'll be worth a lot more in LA. 

I get those points and generally agree, but it's still bizarre to not move a team there for two decades and then all of a sudden add 2.

The NFL seems to tie relocating to new cities to new stadiums being built there.  The Rams owner convinced them that he could get this new LA stadium built, just when the Rams, Chargers, and Raiders were all having problems getting new stadia built in their current markets.  If you're going to build a gigantic new stadium capable of housing two teams, then why not let that second team move in and share it?  Whereas without that new stadium, the number of franchises they wanted in LA was zero.

[Mr. Morden]

And are they even planning on having a second LA team?  I'm not sure they need more than one.

The Chargers have been given a year to decide if they're going to join the Rams in LA.  If they decline, then the Raiders may go instead.  Most likely the new stadium they're going to build there will house the Rams plus whichever of the other two teams wants to join them.

What if neither team chooses to go?

Then the Rams will be the only LA team, and they'll have the stadium to themselves.