This real money site caters to all players, with reviews on mobile games you can play, including slots, blackjack, and roulette.

So the Rams Are Moving Back to Los Angeles

As you’ve probably heard by now, the Rams are moving back to L.A. for 2016. The Chargers may be joining them; if not, the Raiders would have the option to join them in 2017.

Everyone wants to know if the Rams will get new uniforms, if they’ll go back to their old L.A.-era uniforms, blah-blah-blah. I got, like, a bizillion emails and tweets about this last night. A few thoughts:

• It’s interesting to me that everyone associates a relocation with a redesign. It’s worth noting that the Rams have moved twice before — from Cleveland to L.A. in 1946, and from L.A. to St. Louis in 1995 — and didn’t change their uniforms in conjunction with either move. (For that matter, the Raiders and Chargers have moved three times between them, and those moves didn’t bring any redesigns either.) Obviously, the uni-verse is very different now than it was in 1946, or even in 1995, so I’m not suggesting that past is necessarily prologue here. But it’s almost like people are looking at the relocation as an excuse for a uniform change. I’m not sure what to think about that.

• As we all know, it takes about two years to get a uniform redesign in the pipeline these days due to all the logistical hurdles posed by the uniform-industrial complex. So I don’t think the Rams can pull the trigger on a new uniform set today and have it ready for the 2016 season. However”¦

• There was already talk that ownership had a new look — or at least a new throwback — in the works (perhaps in anticipation of a move back to L.A., perhaps not). It wasn’t clear if that new look was slated for 2016 or for sometime later down the road. But if it’s ready to go, the relocation could turn out to be a case of perfect timing. However-er…

•  The new stadium will open in 2019 (they’ll be playing in a temporary home, probably the Coliseum, until then). Combine that with the logistical issues and maybe that makes more sense for when they’ll introduce new uniforms.

• In the past year or two I’ve seen a surprising groundswell of support for a return to the old blue/white design. (I say “surprising” only because I thought more fans would have favored the royal/yellow design because (a) more fans lived through that era and (b) it’s more colorful.) Comments from team management indicate that the blue/white design will be revived soon, at least as a throwback. Will it be for 2016? More than just a throwback? We’ll see. Reader Gene Sanny points out that the mock-up of the new stadium shows blue/white end zones — foreshadowing? Eh, maybe, but they also used that same color scheme in St. Looie.

• Whatever else they end up doing, can they please get rid of that fucking neck roll? Such an embarrassment.

• Want to take your own crack at deciding how the Rams should look? I’m running a “Redesign the Rams!” contest over at ESPN. Full details here.

As for the Chargers (or the Raiders, if it comes to that), we can discuss their situation if and when they join the Rams in L.A. For now, though, let’s stick to the Rams.

• • • • •

Click to enlarge

On a serious note: One of the nicest, smartest, and most entertaining members of the Uni Watch community is longtime reader/pal Terence Kearns (shown above flashing his Mets road insignia tattoo during a visit to Uni Watch HQ a few years ago). I’m sorry to report that Terence and his partner, Cynthia Soto, fell victim to a house fire two days ago. The good news is that they’re fine and that their cats are recovering; the bad news is that they lost everything else in the fire.

Terence is a stand-up guy, a devoted uni-watcher, and a good friend. A relief fund has been set up for him and Cynthia — I see that some readers have already contributed to it, as I have. I ask that all of you please consider donating what you can. Think of it this way: It’s a way better use of your money than a Powerball ticket. Thanks.

• • • • •

PermaRec update: Today we have another intriguing letter from the files of the Hoge Brush Company. Get the full scoop over on Permanent Record.

•  •  •  •  •

The Ticker
By Paul

Baseball News: The Cardinals are installing a new high-def video board at Busch Stadium. ”¦ The Birmingham Barons have six different options for their 2016 Star Wars jersey and are letting their fans vote. The Barons are also going with Brooklyn Dodgers-styled jerseys for Jackie Robinson Day (both of those from Dustin Semore). ”¦ Love this shot, probably from the late 1960s, of MLB players dressed up in basketball uniforms — including stirrups! — as part of Art Baumgarten’s MLB All-Stars (big thanks to Bruce Menard). ”¦ In response to Monte Irvin’s passing yesterday, the Giants changed their Twitter avatar to a “20” memorial icon. ”¦ The Braves have released their 2016 promotional schedule. Among other notable items, they’ll be celebrating Jackie Robinson Day on April 20, because they’re scheduled to be on the road on April 15. Wish MLB wouldn’t do it that way. If you’re home on Jackie Day, great; if not, wait until next year. ”¦ Who’s that kid in the Mets jersey? None other than a very young Karl Anthony Towns of the Timberwolves. The photo is from 2009 (from Topher Davis).

NFL News: As you may have heard, the NFL Network will be showing some “lost” footage from Super Bowl I on Friday night. Further info here. ”¦ One way to style a McNOB is to go all-caps and leave a space between the “MC” and the rest of the surname. But Browns RB Hugh McKinnis had, like, a really big space. That shot’s from 1975. Love the striped socks, natch (great find by Bill Kellick).

College and High School Football News: A new study indicates that high school football could be safer if the teams practiced without helmets. ”¦ A Seattle-based company has designed a new football helmet that can “absorb hits like a car bumper.” ”¦ Did you know UNC used to wear a Rams-like helmet, complete with ram horns? It’s true! Explanation here (good one from James Gilbert).

Hockey News: Here’s an article arguing that college hockey teams should wear colors at home (from Jerry Nitzh). ”¦ DIY genius Wafflebored’s latest project is — get this — a series of wooden goalie masks! ”¦ This is the 20th-anniversary season of the Bruins’ “Pooh Bear” jersey, and there’s a growing movement for fans to wear that jersey for the team’s game against Anaheim on Jan. 26. It’s not clear how fans who don’t spend their money on overpriced polyester shirts will be able to participate.

NBA News: Bucks and Bulls went color vs. color last night in Milwaukee. ”¦ In that same game, Jimmy Butler of the Bulls wore Marquette-themed sneakers (thanks, Mike). ”¦ Knicks C Robin Lopez lost his shoe during last night’s game. “When a ball boy went to hand him a shoe during a dead ball, Celtics C Amir Johnson slapped it away — just a bit of gamesmanship,” says Mike.

College and High School Hoops News: “It appears that the Midland (Iowa) Eagles boys’ team raided the 1980s uniform closet last Friday night,” says Aaron Telecky. “Unfortunately, I couldn’t get a good shot of the kid who was wearing authentic ’80s-era tube socks with the gold-black-gold stripe pattern.” ”¦ Buried within this story about Louisiana-Lafayette coach Bob Marlin is the following: “He’s willing to do anything to spark his shooters. He even said they would make the perimeter players wear their gameday red jerseys in practice, to carry the mojo over.” ”¦ New logo for the 2017 Atlantic 10 championship. ”¦ The Holcomb (Kansas) High School Longhorns wear their school name and team name on their jerseys (from Tanner Liby). ”¦ Michigan went solid-white last night. Nothing wrong with that, but they also had white NOBs against the white background — what the fuck? (From Phil and Sam Franklin.) ”¦ In a related item, Miami wore BFBS jerseys with black NOB lettering for last night’s game against Virginia (from Rob Monroe).

Grab Bag: Lots of very entertaining old print ads featuring athletes here (thanks, Brinke). ”¦ Lots of very smart, very interesting things have been written about David Bowie this week. This is not one of them (from James Gilbert). ”¦ New 20th-anniversary logo for Pokemon, because, you know, why the fuck not? ”¦ New design for NASCAR’s Ford Fusion car (from David Firestone). ”¦ New college lacrosse helmets for Salisbury (from Gary Simpson). ”¦ Doctors say you should wear a helmet while sledding. Fortunately, I can ignore that advice because it looks like it may never snow here in NYC ever again. ”¦ Graphic designers in Canada are hopping mad because the Canadian government used a free typeface for a graphics package celebrating the country’s sesquicentennial, instead of paying for a commercially available font or commissioning a new one. The Toronto Star came up with a really good headline for its coverage of that story (from @GKG_77).

95 comments to So the Rams Are Moving Back to Los Angeles

  • Phantom Dreamer | January 13, 2016 at 7:29 am |

    The Timberwolves had a Throwback Night, but did not wear throwback uniforms, instead, fans received fanny packs. Very fitting for such a hapless organization.

  • Jordan | January 13, 2016 at 7:47 am |

    Hope at the very least that the Rams end zone art gets a little more pizazz. That generic “St. Louis” was embarrassing. And the font wasn’t even consistent with their branding.

    • Alex | January 13, 2016 at 9:52 am |

      Anything to make it seem the team didn’t belong there from good ol Kroenke…

      • Ryan M | January 13, 2016 at 3:54 pm |

        #FuckStanKroenke

  • Brian | January 13, 2016 at 8:16 am |

    The NFL Network Super Bowl I special is not tomorrow night but Friday night.

    • Paul Lukas | January 13, 2016 at 8:22 am |

      Right you are. Fixed.

  • Wafflebored | January 13, 2016 at 8:17 am |

    I love the redesign contests – so much fun. Is this a record for the two contests closest together considering the Leafs contest ran recently?

    • Paul Lukas | January 13, 2016 at 8:22 am |

      Not sure. But possibly.

  • Jamie | January 13, 2016 at 8:24 am |

    Pretty sure the whole “NOB matches the jersey” thing is a “team over individual” gimmick. Not sure why they don’t take them off completely, but I think that may be the reasoning behind it.

    • walter | January 13, 2016 at 9:43 am |

      Watching at home in HD, I had a pretty easy time of reading the player names. It seems like it would be hard to read if you were watching the game in person.

  • diggerjohn | January 13, 2016 at 8:26 am |

    “Graphic designers in Canada are hopping made because the Canadian government used a free typeface for a graphics package celebrating the country’s sesquicentennial, instead of paying for a commercially available font or commissioning a new one.” – “hopping made”- Paul.

    • Paul Lukas | January 13, 2016 at 8:48 am |

      Thanks. Fixed.

  • Jerry | January 13, 2016 at 8:47 am |

    Can the Rams wear their royal blue/yellow alternates for the majority of the 2016 season to celebrate their return to LA with the traditional LA look? Technically they can’t right? The NFL has strict rules regarding the use of alternates. Will the NFL give them a special waiver? For what it’s worth I hope the Rams settle with the royal blue/yellow as their standard look with the old blue/white as their alternate. And yes PLEASE lose the neck roll it looks ridiculous.

    • walter | January 13, 2016 at 9:31 am |

      My guess is the new Nike template would result in yellow trim that ends in a horizontal miter at the point of the “v”; also not optimal. To do a classic “v” neck they would need a unique template, because I don’t think anybody rocks that look nowadays. But I find it funny uniform alterations need a five-year turnaround, though moving a team to a whole new city can be done at the drop of a hat.

  • Andrew Harrington | January 13, 2016 at 8:54 am |

    The only element of the blue and yellow Rams uniform that doesn’t work is the white stripe on the pants. The uniform needs more white elsewhere (other than the bottom of the socks) for that to work. The blue and white uniform just looks too much like the Colts.

    I would also alter the horns on the shoulders to make them simple loops. It looks strange to have horns on your shoulders in the first place, and even stranger when you consider that each “Ram” has four horns. It’s too horny.

  • James G | January 13, 2016 at 9:11 am |

    In my view, the Rams move should mean a change in uniforms but the change should be a revert to one of the classics. The helmet cannot change. It’s iconic. I like the blue and white set but that being said it is pretty plain. The ram horns seem to pop better on the helmet in white though. One thing to note is that blue and yellow is the color that all University of California system teams wear so there is that tie-in. I’ve often wondered how the Rams would look going to a lighter shade of blue with the yellow. Not powder like San Diego, nor Royal but something in between the two.

    • ThePonchat | January 13, 2016 at 11:31 am |

      I second this. The ram horns are classic. I also favor blue/white (especially navy) instead of royal/yellow.

      That royal/yellow has to be one of the most popular color combinations in sport — pro, college, and HS.

      • Andrew Harrington | January 13, 2016 at 12:08 pm |

        Blue and white is much more popular than blue and yellow.

  • JakeK66 | January 13, 2016 at 9:14 am |

    They should wear the one they wore a Super Bowl with in LA… Out wait, that was in St Louis!

    Have fun with the Rams LA, you’ve got a long road ahead of you for a winning season.

    Sincerely,

    The St Louis Rams apologist for the past 10 years (at least I don’t have to anymore)

    • walter | January 13, 2016 at 9:33 am |

      Subtract Kurt Warner and the Rams entire tenure in St. Louis was a mulligan.

      • Alex | January 13, 2016 at 10:01 am |

        Marshall Faulk, Isaac Bruce, Orlando Pace. There were quite a few pieces there.

        • Ryan M | January 13, 2016 at 3:59 pm |

          … Torry Holt, Kevin Carter, D’marco Farr, Grant Wistrom…. not to mention Dick Vermiel & Mike Martz…

          #FuckStanKroenke

  • J.D. | January 13, 2016 at 9:20 am |

    I think the Rams should return to royal and yellow as part of their return for one simple reason: it looks FANTASTIC in the sun. Drab navy and gold looks as good as anything else under the flat artificial light of a dome, but playing outside, nothing beats the 80s and 90s Rams look: http://i.imgur.com/4zN2Qb5.jpg

    Since it takes multiple years for a redesign to get approved, the Rams could follow the Oilers/Titans model: maintain the old look while in a temporary stadium, then debut new uniforms when moving into their permanent home (which looks like it will happen in 2019).

    • walter | January 13, 2016 at 9:37 am |

      Ooh, sore point, there. In Walterworld, the Titans simply wear old Oiler uniforms.

    • Chance Michaels | January 13, 2016 at 9:44 am |

      Fantastic picture.

      I agree – the royal and athletic gold were made for a bright sunny Sunday afternoon. They’re going to look great.

  • Alex | January 13, 2016 at 9:27 am |

    They already use the royal/yellow as an alternate now. Go back to that one for home, and use those yellow uni’s they used for the color rush game as the away. The current uniforms are too busy and look cartoonish.

    • JTH | January 13, 2016 at 9:42 am |

      The current jerseys and helmets are fine. It’s the pants that are worn with them that are the problem.

      And holy shit! I’d MUCH rather seem them wear this than this as a road uni.

      But maybe that color rash jersey would work if they had some white or blue pants to go with it.

      • Chance Michaels | January 13, 2016 at 9:48 am |

        The Color Rash would look great with white pants. Although my own personal uniform rules require that the helmet shell match the pants (if light) or the jersey (if dark), my preferred color scheme for the Rams’ new home uniforms is bright and cheery.

        I’m so glad we’re really starting to come out of the dark, drab 1990s with all the navy and the beige.

      • Alex | January 13, 2016 at 10:02 am |

        The color rash would have been better with a lighter shade of blue. It looked black when I examined it in person at the Lions v Rams game

    • John H. | January 13, 2016 at 10:02 am |

      My preference is the George Allen era blue and white. That set was clean, classy and beautiful. The 1973-99 uni was more than acceptable. Even the 2000-15 set wasn’t that bad except for, as mentioned above, the choice of pants ruined it on many occasions. I also agree that the color rash jersey might look okay with the right pants and socks. The Rams have worn gold jerseys in the past.

  • JTH | January 13, 2016 at 9:29 am |

    Any chance there’s a loophole here where the Rams could just revert to their classic look because of the move?

    Y’know, the Los Angeles Rams are technically not the same as the St. Louis Rams so the mandatory lead time on a new uniform design is waived?

  • arrScott | January 13, 2016 at 9:41 am |

    But it’s almost like people are looking at the relocation as an excuse for a uniform change. I’m not sure what to think about that.

    Couple of things come to mind. 1) Americans love novelty, and see any event as an excuse to see/do/experience something new. We also absolutely hate when anybody changes anything; we are a fickle and capricious lot.

    2) People want to believe – wish? hope? – that a team’s location means something. It may in the legal sense be the same corporate entity, but gosh darn it the Minnesota Twins are not the same team as the Washington Senators. If a team can move between cities and change nothing, then the team never really had, and doesn’t actually have, any connection to the place where its fans live. (Also where people, including many who aren’t fans, doled out massive taxpayer subsidies to support the team. Loyalty, we foolishly believe even when corporations are involved, is supposed to be a two-way street.)

    Think of it this way: If the Rams can move from LA to St. Louis without changing their name or uniform or really anything, then the city in which the team plays is interchangeable and of no interest to the team itself. If the team had so little connection to LA, then it will have no connection to St. Louis, and will up and move again the moment someone flashes the right number of dollars in front of the owner. A changeless move tells fans that the team doesn’t really care about or want to connect with them or with their place: If the team thought people would still watch its games and buy its merchandise while the team played in an empty sound stage in Vancouver, the team would play its home games in that empty sound stage. Which is actually true; we’re talking about some of the most ruthlessly mercenary corporations in America. Your NFL team doesn’t give the first care about you or your city, and it darn well doesn’t hold even the tiniest smidgen of gratitude or any other human emotion for the fans and taxpayers who finance the team’s profits. But we don’t like to be reminded of this reality, so when a team relocates, we want to see some sign that the team actually does care about its location in some existential sense. So, a new name or a new look is in order.

    3) As a minor factor, some teams do have names with distinctive local connections. A minority, sure, but as with most things the exceptions get attention. I know people like to retcon explanations, but the plain fact is that it makes no sense whatsoever for a team in LA to be called the Lakers. It would have been ridiculous for the team in Washington, DC, to be called the Expos. There are no Senators in Dallas. And some more generic names are so deeply connected in the public mind with a particular place that it seems almost obscene for the name to transfer. Nothing would have been wrong in principle with the NFL having a Baltimore Browns – except it would have been wrong in every way. I’m not really a football fan, but still I’m old enough that if you say “Rams” I think “LA.” In the particular instance, I don’t expect the Rams to make any big changes, and I don’t want them to. But as a general rule, I sort of do expect that a relocation will lead to changes in a team’s identity, or at least to those bits of its identity that seem connected to the particular place it’s leaving.

    • Alex | January 13, 2016 at 10:05 am |

      To be fair with Point 3: Detroit Pistons, Milwaukee Bucks, San Antonio Spurs, Miami Dolphins, Washington Capitals…there are quite a few that draw from a local item.

      • Tim E. | January 13, 2016 at 10:11 am |

        …Utah (nee New Orleans) Jazz…

      • arrScott | January 13, 2016 at 10:55 am |

        It’s a large minority, sure, but it’s still the minority. Even in the examples listed, there’s nothing particularly local about the names “Bucks” or “Spurs,” and I happen to have moved from one city with a hockey team sensibly called the Capitals to another city with a hockey team just as sensibly called the Capitols. America is planted thick with capital cities, each with a capitol building. We’ve got fifty-one of those suckers, so one could easily create two entire pro sports leagues with every single team called the Capitals/ols. Same goes for the majority of team names: There’s nothing uniquely New York about large mythical creatures or islands or turbine aircraft or the white mesh on a basketball hoop. There’s nothing uniquely Chicago about ursine creatures or their offspring, nor about undyed hosiery, nor about cattle. Long familiarity makes many team names feel connected to a particular city, but we shouldn’t confuse repetition with meaning.

        Truly local names like the Phillies or Packers or Pistons or Twins are the best, but they are the happy exception to the majority of relatively generic names that could work just as well in many cities and regions.

        • JTH | January 13, 2016 at 11:53 am |

          Ah, but “Pistons” is not a truly local nickname. They brought the name with them when the team moved from Fort Wayne to Detroit.

        • otterslide | January 15, 2016 at 5:58 am |

          I agree with you almost whole-heartedly, but feel I need to add that calling a Chicago-based team after cattle makes sense due to the city’s former importance in the meat industry. Same sort of goes for fairly northern teams being named after wood animals.

    • Tim | January 13, 2016 at 10:43 am |

      The Cleveland Rams were named that by the original owner who liked the Fordham Rams, who were a powerhouse at the time. They’ve since moved to LA, St. Louis and now back to LA.

  • Chance Michaels | January 13, 2016 at 9:41 am |

    It’s indeed interesting that we all presume a move equals a uniform change, but I think the team has been preparing us for that. The Rams have been hinting at a change since 2014. They’ve also planned for years to return to LA; at least since they won the stadium arbitration in 2013. Seems perfectly plausible that they’re ready to go with a uniform change for 2016.

    It’s also worth noting again that the fans in Los Angeles have adopted the royal and athletic color scheme as the official colors for their “Bring Back the Rams” movement. In a big way. So there would be a certain poetry in the Rams arriving in Los Angeles wearing the old blue-and-gold.

    • Brian K | January 13, 2016 at 2:20 pm |

      Yes, they’ve been hinting at a uniform overhaul since before they stopped communicating with fans. The fix has been in for years. They’ll be ready with new uniforms this fall.

  • Brian E | January 13, 2016 at 9:50 am |

    Terence is a personal friend of mine as well. We actually met through our readership of Uni Watch, and our friendship grew due to our mutual love of the Mets. Him and Cynthia are two of the kindest people I’ve ever known. If you can find it in you to lend a hand, please do! It’s definitely a worthy cause!

  • KC | January 13, 2016 at 10:06 am |

    Count me in as a vote for blue/white Rams, even though that was before my NFL watching time.

    • Adam N. | January 13, 2016 at 3:54 pm |

      The Colts own the clean/simple blue and white color scheme now.

  • Mike Engle on iPhone | January 13, 2016 at 10:10 am |

    My instincts say that if the Rams wanted to go back to what they looked like when they were last in LA, the NFL could and would make it happen quicker than normal. It’s literally in the repertoire. Just open the closet and voila.
    I remember when Ted Leonsis got the Wizards, he was able to get red white and blue pretty quickly because everybody knew that it would look like the Bullets at the core. There could be even less need to do design work for the Rams, if it’s just a straight up reversion.

  • Dan Pfeifer | January 13, 2016 at 10:14 am |

    Agreed with everyone else that the royal and yellow look particularly good in the L.A. sun. I agree, too, that it’s more colorful and is a far better look than the blue and white, which isn’t awful but kind of reeks of the black-and-white TV era to me. The white uniforms the Rams wore in the 80’s and 90’s did a nice job of highlighting the sleeves while still incorporating “enough” white. If they went back to the blue and white, I think it would be cool for maybe a year or two, then it would look drab. Royal and yellow strikes me as more lasting.

    As for the people “wanting” the change, it’s the Rams, who have always had a couple very unique, distinctive elements — notably the horns on the helmet and the shoulders — but have otherwise often felt rather trendy through the years. High contrast (dark blue and white) in the black-and-white TV era? Check. More color in the colorful 70’s? Check. Navy and old gold for the 2000s? Check.

    So it just feels like it fits, now, that they transition to something else. And with so few changes in the NFL, and so many week-to-week in college, I think folks go gaga over the idea of an NFL change. I mean, consider how popular redesign contests are. Everyone wants to see something new to judge it. And with the Rams, the combination of traditional elements and what would be new makes it that much more interesting.

  • Tamaro | January 13, 2016 at 10:22 am |

    IMO and with the exception of the roll, the Rams are wearing their best unis right now, as long as they were white pants with white jerseys

  • Jet | January 13, 2016 at 10:32 am |

    As a kid I always rooted for a NY sports team AND a team from another city. In football, it was the LA Rams. So I’m all in for a return to the blue/white look I remember as a lad…

    -Jet

  • Wayne | January 13, 2016 at 10:37 am |

    I’m trying to think of the last time a franchise moved and kept the team name. Granted the Rams have moved on the past and kept the name, but that was essential eons ago, especially considering today’s marketing and economic gains that can be gain with new merchandising. The one that comes to mind is when the Hornets moved from Charlotte to Nee Orleans, but that didn’t seem to last relatively long. A team name that started in a different city doesn’t feel ‘yours’ when it comes to your city. I look at when the Browns moved to Baltimore. Sure the conditions were different, but they took a long, storied franchise and renamed it anyway. I see this playing out like when the oilers moved from Houston to memphis, where they keep the name for a few years, then BAM! New stadium, new uniforms, new colors, new identity.

    • Mark Rabinowitz | January 13, 2016 at 11:52 am |

      When Art Modell moved his team to Baltimore, he couldn’t use the Browns’ name or colors because the city of Cleveland successfully sued to keep those. The city of Houston, IMHO, should have done the same for the Oilers’ name, logos and colors. As for the Hornets, Charlotte only got the name/logos/colors back because after buying the then-New Orleans Hornets, Tom Benson was kind enough to give those back to Charlotte. I don’t see the Rams changing their name or logos because technically, they were in LA longer than they were in St. Louis and Cleveland _combined_.

    • Dave Mac | January 13, 2016 at 12:25 pm |

      Wayne, they almost always keep the name. The Rams have a 50-year history in southern California, so I’m excited for them to be back.

      • Another Jeff | January 13, 2016 at 1:43 pm |

        Bud Adams poured salt in the wound by refusing to let the Oilers name or colors stay in Houston. Sole reason the Texans are not named the Oilers.

    • Winter | January 13, 2016 at 4:10 pm |

      Lots of examples.

      Most recent, may be Raiders went Oakland to LA to Oakland, all as Raiders.

      Older examples –

      Kansas City Kings became Sacramento Kings

      Philadelphia Warriors to SF to Golden State

      San Diego to LA Clippers

      St. Louis to Atlanta Hawks

      Milwaukee to Atlanta Braves

      Atlanta to Calgary Flames

      And of course, Brooklyn to LA Dodgers, NY to SF Giants

      I’m sure there’s others.

      • arrScott | January 13, 2016 at 4:37 pm |

        Philadelphia to Kansas City to Oakland Athletics.

    • SRP91 | January 13, 2016 at 7:58 pm |

      New Orleans Hornets. Glad they eventually picked a new name and then gave Hornets back to Charlotte.

  • RobYaz | January 13, 2016 at 11:21 am |

    I long for the day when the cream/vintage-white fad ends. The Barons’ Brooklyn tribute is cream, but in the photo of an actual Brooklyn Dodger, the jersey is white.

    I prefer the concept of teams keeping their name/uniforms when they move. For continuity’s sake (when you move with the same core group of players, you’re still the same team), and in the case of the Utah Jazz, the “displaced” name makes for something unique and interesting.

    The wooden goalie mask is creepy and kind of sci-fi. I like it.

  • Mike Engle on iPhone | January 13, 2016 at 11:31 am |

    Last time a team kept the name? Memphis from Vancouver Grizzlies!

    • JTH | January 13, 2016 at 11:49 am |

      Even more recently: New Jersey –> Brooklyn Nets.

    • Le Cracquere | January 13, 2016 at 11:49 am |

      Good memory! There’s no local basis for the name, and Memphis probably should have changed it … on the other hand, nearly anywhere in North America is within spitting distance of a few black or brown bears, which is (arguably) just enough to keep the nickname from sounding as obviously risible as the “Utah Jazz.”

      • James G | January 13, 2016 at 2:16 pm |

        Remember in the old World Football League, Memphis had the Southmen also known as the Grizzlies and had a Grizzly bear logo. I think that was part of the reason they kept the Grizzlies name. Utah kept the Jazz though when moved from New Orleans so maybe not too!

  • brinke | January 13, 2016 at 12:19 pm |

    If the Chargers join them in LA, it makes it an easy design for the stadium- blue/gold everywhere.

    • The Jeff | January 13, 2016 at 12:43 pm |

      Yes and no. Assuming the Chargers don’t change anything, you either have 3 shades of blue with yellow-gold, or 2 shades of blue and both metallic and yellow-gold. Both of those could be kind of a mess. Now if you can get both teams to pretend it’s 1978 again, then it’s just royal and yellow-gold, and it works.

    • Chance Michaels | January 13, 2016 at 12:50 pm |

      Actually, the Inglewood stadium is designed with LEDs for all the interior signage, so if there’s a second team they can sell all their own ad space.

  • The Jeff | January 13, 2016 at 12:21 pm |

    If the Rams do decide to go with a throwback look, whether it’s blue & white (boo) or blue and yellow (meh), they need to fix the helmet color. The navy helmet with royal everything else always looked wrong.

  • Patrick | January 13, 2016 at 12:43 pm |

    Love the Rams in royal/yellow and let’s hope they go back to that look in LA. As much as I like the blue version of those jerseys, I always thought the white looked even better

    http://thumbs.dreamstime.com/x/vince-ferragamo-los-angeles-rams-former-qb-image-taken-color-slide-39072844.jpg

  • RSB | January 13, 2016 at 1:13 pm |

    Football helmets with car bumper-like technology: It should be noted that today’s car bumpers are basically “one and done” devices.

    Personally, I’m kind of surprised that helmets haven’t become more disposable – better “crumple zones”, for lack of a better word, that need replacement.

    How often would the average NFL’er change the interior padding of his helmet? The NFL insists on the same helmet shell for a season (counter intuitive if you ask me), but do they change the padding inside at all?

    I’d like to see the LA Rams in the “Dickerson” uniforms but I suspect Nike can’t make the colour yellow (they couldn’t make green, FFS )and they’ll never get the colour scheme off the ground.

    “Vegas Gold”, or whatever they call that hue they currently use, sucks. Period.

    The blue-white is a good look, but blue-white is already done by the Colts and every time a team has gone to a single colour & white it looks derivative – Tampa Lightning and the Leafs, Phoenix Coyotes and Detroit… it can’t help but conjure whomever uses that setup already.

    SB

  • Paul Lukas | January 13, 2016 at 1:19 pm |

    Mouthguard specialists: Please remind me — what was the model of mouthguard that Eric Dickerson wore?
    http://www.trbimg.com/img-53c48855/turbine/la-sp-eric-dickerson-20140715

  • riblet | January 13, 2016 at 1:37 pm |
  • Paul Lukas | January 13, 2016 at 1:56 pm |

    The “Redesign the Rams!” contest announcement has been posted:
    http://es.pn/1J3gj9i

  • James G | January 13, 2016 at 2:19 pm |

    If San Diego moves to LA or even Oakland moves to LA now that the Rams are there, do they call themselves LA as well? I mean it works ok for the Jets and Giants to use New York but I wonder if it will be LA Chargers and LA Rams for instance or maybe California Chargers and LA Rams. Think for the Chargers, if they moved California might help keep some old fans. As for the Raiders, who cares.

    • mike 2 | January 13, 2016 at 2:46 pm |

      The Los Angeles Rams of Anaheim

      • Lee | January 13, 2016 at 3:45 pm |

        Playing in Inglewood!

        Lee

    • TJ Nash | January 13, 2016 at 8:45 pm |

      Speaking as a Chargers fan, if they move to LA it doesn’t matter what geographic name they choose — they’re still dead to me.

  • Dave Mac | January 13, 2016 at 2:33 pm |

    Paul, it’s not like a relocation = redesign. If the Chargers and Raiders moved to LA, I wouldn’t expect them to change anything. But the Rams already have 50 years of history in Los Angeles. Their previous uniforms have come to be regarded as classics. The Rams are already wearing those unis as throwbacks, and a few years ago publicly mentioned bringing them back full time. The “Bring Back the Los Angeles Rams” movement used those colors as their colors. There are so many reasons for this, but the historical tie-in is a huge one. It’s not the same as another team moving to a random city and then changing uniforms just to change things up.

    • Paul Lukas | January 13, 2016 at 2:49 pm |

      If the Chargers and Raiders moved to LA, I wouldn’t expect them to change anything.

      Then I guess you weren’t one of the many, many people who’ve been emailing/tweeting at me about those teams getting new unis to coincide with their potential relocation.

      But believe me, those many, many people who think that way do indeed exist.

      • Dave Mac | January 13, 2016 at 2:52 pm |

        Paul, I am very sorry to hear that. Those same people probably also said “I can’t wait to buy new jerseys and ‘gear.'”

  • mike 2 | January 13, 2016 at 2:50 pm |

    I think its interesting that they’re moving to the Coliseum, their previous home for 35ish years.

    A team moving back to a previous home is (I think) unprecedented, especially when you’ve had three (!) other homes in the meantime.

    • Paul Lukas | January 13, 2016 at 3:04 pm |

      Raiders moved from the Oakland Coliseum and then back.

      • mike 2 | January 13, 2016 at 3:08 pm |

        Of course.

        If either the Raiders or the Chargers join the Rams in the Coliseum it will also be a move back to an old home for them

    • arrScott | January 13, 2016 at 4:35 pm |

      Variation on the theme: The Washington Senators left Griffith Stadium. Then the expansion Washington Senators played in Griffith Stadium until DC Stadium was ready. DC Stadium was renamed RFK Stadium, and then the expansion Senators left. Decades later, the Montreal Expos came to Washington and played in RFK Stadium as the Nationals. Different franchises, but an unusual continuity of venues among them.

  • frank | January 13, 2016 at 3:16 pm |

    Most Rams fans tend to favor blue/yellow, but which blue and which yellow? It changed a lot back in the days when uniform restrictions were less formal and manufacturers often changed year by year. During the mid-80s the blue tended to be quite bright and the yellow was almost a safety yellow. During the 70s, the yellow was more of a Packers yellow, almost a cheddar color. The throwbacks are definitely of the latter variety, very bright on the spectrum.

    One thing I would definitely love to see return are the old road unis. They might have been my favorite road uniforms in the NFL, with just an ingenious shoulder stripe that should translate well to the mini-sleeve era.

    • Dave Mac | January 13, 2016 at 3:39 pm |

      I’d love to see the classic blue and yellow return (the 70s style).

  • Winter | January 13, 2016 at 4:14 pm |

    Someone last night suggested that Dodge be the stadium name sponsor, given the Rams and the Chargers.

    But then I thought, Dodge Stadium, Dodgers Stadium, no chance of confusion there…

  • Justice C | January 13, 2016 at 4:49 pm |

    Been a life long ravens fan in So Cal but will be buying Rams stuff if the go back to the nice unis, If not I’ll be on the llokout for the vintage ebay LA RAMS stuff

  • nickp | January 13, 2016 at 4:50 pm |

    Have a feeling Nike will make some pretty awesome uniforms for the Rams

    • Paul Lukas | January 13, 2016 at 5:48 pm |

      Yeah, because they’re so good at making, uh, awesome designs for other NFL teams…..

  • TIm | January 13, 2016 at 5:26 pm |

    Speaking of the Rams, does anyone know why in the olden days when they had the yellow horns (when Dickerson, for one, was there) why the decal didn’t go all the way down to the edge on the front? It always bugged me. Today, it does, and I believe when they’ve worn the old style as a throwback recently, it does. First I thought they couldn’t, or chose not to apply it past the nose bumper, but in the photo you posted it clearly shows it just below the upper portion of the bumper. Assuming they had to detach the bumper to apply it, why not go all the way down like they do now? And yes, I’m over-thinking.

  • Justice C | January 13, 2016 at 6:15 pm |

    Been a life long ravens fan in So Cal but will be buying Rams stuff if the go back to the nice unis, If not I’ll be on the lookout for the vintage ebay LA RAMS stuff

  • RSB | January 13, 2016 at 6:27 pm |

    Sounds like Chargers to LA is also a done deal.

  • Ronnie Poore | January 13, 2016 at 11:10 pm |

    that photo of UNC wearing a Rams horn helmet cries out to be colorized