PDA

View Full Version : Remember the Cleveland Rams?


ACrank
02-23-2009, 06:41 PM
On Baseball Fever I was reading a thread about the St Louis Browns possible move to LA, and the Rams move to LA was brought up. It was mentioned that the Browns formation had to do with the Rams moving, and then discounted.

I found this (http://www.profootballresearchers.org/Coffin_Corner/07-04-227.pdf)

that supported that idea:

Meanwhile, Arthur McBride not only had hired Paul Brown to coach his entry, the Cleveland Browns, in the new All-America Conference, he also had obtained a long-term lease on the Stadium. The rival Rams, world champions, would have to play at League Park. Reeves wanted no part of that kind of competition. On Jan. 11, 1946, Reeves asked for permission to move to Los Angeles. He threatened to disband his franchise when opposition developed. The other National Football League owners gave in. The Cleveland Rams moved west and became the Los Angeles Rams.

(The Rams are kind of an interest of mine since I stumbled into a replica Cleveland Rams jacket at a local discount clothing store. About once a month during the winter season i get stopped and asked about the jacket. Usually its by someone who wants to know who the Cleveland Rams are, but occasionally its someone who remembers the team having started in Cleveland.)

efin98
02-23-2009, 08:54 PM
The league was stubborn but they knew that they had to go directly against the AAFC in LA even at the expense of Cleveland...and it proved right, the AAFC team in LA flopped while the Rams flourished.

Going farther into the reality of hte situation is that the Browns had an owner with deep pockets and a strong local conection, the Rams had a guy from New York who had the money but didn't have the ties to the city. The Browns offered comeptition for attendance, the Rams were struggling to stay afloat year after year. Ccompetition from the Browns especially with the local legend at the helm would put them under, they had to move.


What is really telling of the move is that it would be proven right since the Browns would go on to be one of the best teams in history over next 15 years. Nobody was better than them in the 40s and early 50s and they remained good until the late 60s. Reeves, the Rams owner, saved an NFL team and grew the game by opening up the west coast.

What I think is oddly good in the longer run is that San Fransisco probably wouldn't exist after the merger if not for the Rams already being in LA and providing a natural rival. That means that Buffalo would have merged into the NFL in their place possibly changing the AFL killing it before it even got off the ground...