Is it just me, or does "London Rams" have an odd ring to it?
The move could be a step towards one of Roger Goodell's pet projects: Having an NFL team in London.
The Rams have trouble selling out games in St. Louis, and their owner also owns Arsenal, a soccer team in the English Premier League. Right now, it appears as though they're one of a few teams that could make sense to make the move.
The only problem I see with the potential move is that it would have to take place sometime after the 2014 agreement, and things could change a whole lot for the Rams between now and then.
The Rams have a new coach and coaching staff under Jeff Fisher, and they're planning on improving in a hurry. Whether they keep their 2nd overall draft pick, or trade down to a team desperate for Robert Griffin III, they'll be able to give themselves a huge boost in the draft.
By the time the NFL is ready to move the Rams to London full time, if that's even their master plan in the first place, the team could suddenly be much improved, and it's not conceivable that they could be selling out games at that point.
Personally, I'm not a huge fan of the idea of having a team in London full-time. It's not a lock yet, but it certainly seems like Goodell is trying to make it happen at some point. To me, it would be a huge burden on the players. Also, while one game a year in London is extremely popular, it's possible that 8 games could remove the "novelty" appeal of it, and the London games would no longer be the biggest event of the year.
There ARE fans of American football fans in London. But are there enough fans to pull off 8 (or more) sell-out games, pulling in 75,000+ fans each time?
If the Rams have trouble selling out in the United States, where football is king, will they really be able to sell out in England, where the term "football" means something entirely different?
Right now, it's only a game per year. Hopefully, Goodell realizes that it's best if they keep it that way.