IBC

KC over NE - for the exact opposite reason as Bren stated - Alex Smith has mastered the art of not making mistakes, and the KC team has been on a hot streak by playing an almost Patriots like game (minus the cheating)
Carolina over Seattle - Wilson is a championship caliber QB - but Carolina is a better overall team this season, plain and simple.
Arizona over GB - I have Arizona winning the SB because they are the best all around team in the NFL right now, slightly ahead of Carolina.
Denver over Pitt - and I don't think Pitt can limp through this one the way they did against Cincy. Denver's defense is too good for a whoever lines up as Pitt QB.

Patriots over Chiefs - This game is probably closer than I'd like it to be, but Edelman, Vollmer, Hightower and Jones being back makes all the difference in the world.
Broncos over Steelers - A compromised Roethlisberger who can't throw downfield isn't going to do a whole lot.
Panthers over Seahawks - Carolina is the better team this year, but it won't shock me if Seattle eeks this out.
Packers over Cardinals - Upset special.

Aaron might be getting more company
https://twitter.com/Colts/status/687315034582704128

Colts know something about driving alright.

Orioles wrote:

We need a Like button.

Padres wrote:

Orioles wrote:

We need a Like button.

I feel zero sympathy for Baltimore because they turned around and stole the Browns 10 years later. They want to act like they didn't steal a team that was just as beloved in its original home city but still go woe is me whenever someone brings up the Colts move

Cardinals wrote:

Padres wrote:

Orioles wrote:

We need a Like button.

I feel zero sympathy for Baltimore because they turned around and stole the Browns 10 years later. They want to act like they didn't steal a team that was just as beloved in its original home city but still go woe is me whenever someone brings up the Colts move

There are one or two minor differences. Chief among them is that Baltimore didn't take the Browns name along with the franchise. Second being they didn't try to lay claim to the franchise history, including players who never played a single professional snap in the state, even as a visitor.
Considering Indianapolis' small time media market and sluggish population growth it's no surprise taxpayers were screwed over to the tune of 85+% of the cost of the new stadium to keep the Colts in town. The Colts being in Indy is only as secure as the next publicly funded stadium, and as St Louis learned, even that isn't a guarantee depending on what other opportunities might be open.

Agree. The NFL just set a dangerous precedent. Owners can now hold their cities hostage to get whatever it is they want.

Swell...draft Bren (and Tony)!

Orioles wrote:Agree. The NFL just set a dangerous precedent. Owners can now hold their cities hostage to get whatever it is they want.

I don't really agree. St Louis was willing to foot a significant portion of the bill for a stadium. Kroenke's development in Inglewood is primarily privately funded, in fact aside from utilites and infrastructure, it's wholly privately funded.
While it is a bummer for St Louis, teams paying for their own stadium is something I'd rather see a lot more of. Especially since the franchise in question has a lengthy history in LA.
St Louis is such a bad market in comparison to LA, that Kroenke preferred to spend almost $2b of his own cash in LA rather than take a largely publicly funded stadium in St Louis. That's a pretty loud statement.

Tigers wrote:Swell...draft Bren (and Tony)!

Weird, I had 6 guys in my queue and would have sworn I was set to autodraft. Apologies all around for the wholly unnecessary delay.

Padres wrote:

Orioles wrote:Agree. The NFL just set a dangerous precedent. Owners can now hold their cities hostage to get whatever it is they want.

I don't really agree. St Louis was willing to foot a significant portion of the bill for a stadium. Kroenke's development in Inglewood is primarily privately funded, in fact aside from utilites and infrastructure, it's wholly privately funded.
While it is a bummer for St Louis, teams paying for their own stadium is something I'd rather see a lot more of. Especially since the franchise in question has a lengthy history in LA.
St Louis is such a bad market in comparison to LA, that Kroenke preferred to spend almost $2b of his own cash in LA rather than take a largely publicly funded stadium in St Louis. That's a pretty loud statement.

I agree that publicly funded stadiums are a bad thing, but Kroenke made the city jump through hoops in a futile attempt to keep the team (the city spent $16 million just on planning a new stadium), and then he convinced the league to let him leave despite having the city meet his demands.

Also, keep in mind the Rams left LA to start with because they got St. Louis to foot the bill for a stadium.

It shows that the league will do whatever the owners want to do. Kroenke was going to make plenty of money if he stayed in St. Louis, he just sees opportunity to make an even greater amount in LA. Owners can now threaten to move to a different city if they can't get public funding and can now uproot teams whenever they see a stronger market elsewhere.

Padres wrote:

Tigers wrote:Swell...draft Bren (and Tony)!

Weird, I had 6 guys in my queue and would have sworn I was set to autodraft. Apologies all around for the wholly unnecessary delay.

No worries...just messing with you. It was on autodraft yesterday, I recall. Must have been switched off somehow.

Tigers wrote:

Padres wrote:

Tigers wrote:Swell...draft Bren (and Tony)!

Weird, I had 6 guys in my queue and would have sworn I was set to autodraft. Apologies all around for the wholly unnecessary delay.

No worries...just messing with you. It was on autodraft yesterday, I recall. Must have been switched off somehow.

I messed with the order a bit, must have mistapped on my mobile.

Orioles wrote:

Padres wrote:

Orioles wrote:Agree. The NFL just set a dangerous precedent. Owners can now hold their cities hostage to get whatever it is they want.

I don't really agree. St Louis was willing to foot a significant portion of the bill for a stadium. Kroenke's development in Inglewood is primarily privately funded, in fact aside from utilites and infrastructure, it's wholly privately funded.
While it is a bummer for St Louis, teams paying for their own stadium is something I'd rather see a lot more of. Especially since the franchise in question has a lengthy history in LA.
St Louis is such a bad market in comparison to LA, that Kroenke preferred to spend almost $2b of his own cash in LA rather than take a largely publicly funded stadium in St Louis. That's a pretty loud statement.

I agree that publicly funded stadiums are a bad thing, but Kroenke made the city jump through hoops in a futile attempt to keep the team (the city spent $16 million just on planning a new stadium), and then he convinced the league to let him leave despite having the city meet his demands.

Also, keep in mind the Rams left LA to start with because they got St. Louis to foot the bill for a stadium.

It shows that the league will do whatever the owners want to do. Kroenke was going to make plenty of money if he stayed in St. Louis, he just sees opportunity to make an even greater amount in LA. Owners can now threaten to move to a different city if they can't get public funding and can now uproot teams whenever they see a stronger market elsewhere.

St Louis DIDN'T meet the requirements though. They screwed themselves over in the first place by not maintaining the stadium to a standard required in the lease agreement and the stadium proposal they came up with required $200m from the NFL, whereas the NFL has a policy of not committing more than $100m. I'm not saying the NFL can't afford it, but the city of St Louis knew this condition and put what they knew was going to be a non-starter proposal forward anyhow.

As for the initial move to St Louis... Frontiere was from St Louis and the city of LA (rightly) refused to build a stadium for billionaires using taxpayer money. The NFL didn't believe St Louis was a viable market at the time (and the Rams current near bottom of the market valuation bears that out) and tried to block the move, but Frontiere was determined to bring a team to her hometown.

Padres wrote:

Orioles wrote:

Padres wrote: I don't really agree. St Louis was willing to foot a significant portion of the bill for a stadium. Kroenke's development in Inglewood is primarily privately funded, in fact aside from utilites and infrastructure, it's wholly privately funded.
While it is a bummer for St Louis, teams paying for their own stadium is something I'd rather see a lot more of. Especially since the franchise in question has a lengthy history in LA.
St Louis is such a bad market in comparison to LA, that Kroenke preferred to spend almost $2b of his own cash in LA rather than take a largely publicly funded stadium in St Louis. That's a pretty loud statement.

I agree that publicly funded stadiums are a bad thing, but Kroenke made the city jump through hoops in a futile attempt to keep the team (the city spent $16 million just on planning a new stadium), and then he convinced the league to let him leave despite having the city meet his demands.

Also, keep in mind the Rams left LA to start with because they got St. Louis to foot the bill for a stadium.

It shows that the league will do whatever the owners want to do. Kroenke was going to make plenty of money if he stayed in St. Louis, he just sees opportunity to make an even greater amount in LA. Owners can now threaten to move to a different city if they can't get public funding and can now uproot teams whenever they see a stronger market elsewhere.

St Louis DIDN'T meet the requirements though. They screwed themselves over in the first place by not maintaining the stadium to a standard required in the lease agreement and the stadium proposal they came up with required $200m from the NFL, whereas the NFL has a policy of not committing more than $100m. I'm not saying the NFL can't afford it, but the city of St Louis knew this condition and put what they knew was going to be a non-starter proposal forward anyhow.

As for the initial move to St Louis... Frontiere was from St Louis and the city of LA (rightly) refused to build a stadium for billionaires using taxpayer money. The NFL didn't believe St Louis was a viable market at the time (and the Rams current near bottom of the market valuation bears that out) and tried to block the move, but Frontiere was determined to bring a team to her hometown.

Have you ever been to the Edward Jones Dome? The only way that place gets in the top 25% is by bulldozing it and building a billion dollar monstrosity.

I'm not saying the move TO St. Louis was right. It was wrong, just another case where the NFL allowed stupid owners to shit all over their fan base.

It was a terrible lease deal. The city of St. Louis bent over backwards to bring in the Rams and through in stupid clauses like that not realizing it was all just part of Kroenke's long term plan of screwing them over.

Also keep in mind St. Louis lost their last team when the city refused to pay for a stadium, the city figured they could prevent that situation again by bending over for Kroenke and the old hag that brought the team over to begin with.

Orioles wrote:

Padres wrote:

Orioles wrote: I agree that publicly funded stadiums are a bad thing, but Kroenke made the city jump through hoops in a futile attempt to keep the team (the city spent $16 million just on planning a new stadium), and then he convinced the league to let him leave despite having the city meet his demands.

Also, keep in mind the Rams left LA to start with because they got St. Louis to foot the bill for a stadium.

It shows that the league will do whatever the owners want to do. Kroenke was going to make plenty of money if he stayed in St. Louis, he just sees opportunity to make an even greater amount in LA. Owners can now threaten to move to a different city if they can't get public funding and can now uproot teams whenever they see a stronger market elsewhere.

St Louis DIDN'T meet the requirements though. They screwed themselves over in the first place by not maintaining the stadium to a standard required in the lease agreement and the stadium proposal they came up with required $200m from the NFL, whereas the NFL has a policy of not committing more than $100m. I'm not saying the NFL can't afford it, but the city of St Louis knew this condition and put what they knew was going to be a non-starter proposal forward anyhow.

As for the initial move to St Louis... Frontiere was from St Louis and the city of LA (rightly) refused to build a stadium for billionaires using taxpayer money. The NFL didn't believe St Louis was a viable market at the time (and the Rams current near bottom of the market valuation bears that out) and tried to block the move, but Frontiere was determined to bring a team to her hometown.

Have you ever been to the Edward Jones Dome? The only way that place gets in the top 25% is by bulldozing it and building a billion dollar monstrosity.

I'm not saying the move TO St. Louis was right. It was wrong, just another case where the NFL allowed stupid owners to shit all over their fan base.

It was a terrible lease deal. The city of St. Louis bent over backwards to bring in the Rams and through in stupid clauses like that not realizing it was all just part of Kroenke's long term plan of screwing them over.

Also keep in mind St. Louis lost their last team when the city refused to pay for a stadium, the city figured they could prevent that situation again by bending over for Kroenke and the old hag that brought the team over to begin with.

When you make a bad deal, you get a bad deal. St Louis failed to maintain their investment and they lost as a result. Sucks for the fans, but that's business. There are reasons St Louis lost a team the first time around. Phoenix is twice the population of St Louis and the economy of St Louis has been slipping for decades. The fan base to support an NFL team in St Louis is simply not adequate in the national marketplace.

Frankly, the taxpayers of St Louis should be relieved they aren't going to be saddled with the cost of another handout to billionaires. Maybe they can use that money to do something useful like improve schools instead.

Here's a list of markets smaller than St. Louis with teams:
Baltimore, Denver, Charlotte, Pittsburgh, Cincinnati, Kansas City, Cleveland, Indianapolis, Nashville, Jacksonville, New Orleans, Buffalo

Do not get your point...

I am glad St. Louis didn't get stuck with the bill, but the point is the NFL allowed Kroenke to extort the city. Teams do this all the time to their cities without significant intentions on leaving. The NFL is making it easy for owners to do it since they apparently have no problem ignoring all their own by-laws to push an agenda. So that list of cities I posted above? Next time your owner comes to your city saying "Buy us a mega stadium or we're leaving.", the city won't have much of a choice if they want to keep the team.

I believe two of the six relocation committee owners suggested that St. Louis ask for the extra $100M in funding, and that they were onboard with it. Bob McNair was one of them, I think.

St. Louis had 4 winning seasons in 21 seasons. It is hard to establish a fan base amid mediocrity. The Colts moved in 1984 and had one playoff appearance before 1995. If you're a relocation team that isn't successful right away, it takes a while to build a fan base. The Rams still had good fan support despite a dismal product and a shitty stadium.

Orioles wrote:Here's a list of markets smaller than St. Louis with teams:
Baltimore, Denver, Charlotte, Pittsburgh, Cincinnati, Kansas City, Cleveland, Indianapolis, Nashville, Jacksonville, New Orleans, Buffalo

Do not get your point...

What metric are you using to say Denver is a smaller market than St Louis? Denver has a population of 800k+, St Louis is 300k+. Denver is the #17 media market according to Nielsen, St Louis is #21.

Many of those cities would be at serious risk of losing their teams if they had stadium issues (Hell, several of them have already had that problem). Some of them have the advantage of being prosperous cities that are growing at a healthy or better rate (Denver and Nashville are both prosperous with strong economic growth). Others are in the same boat as St Louis and are not (Cincinnati, Cleveland and Indianapolis spring to mind) but they have venues that are new enough or have better leases.

Pirates wrote:I believe two of the six relocation committee owners suggested that St. Louis ask for the extra $100M in funding, and that they were onboard with it. Bob McNair was one of them, I think.

When you're foolish enough to hang your hat on the suggestion of 1/3 of a committee (2 out of 32 owners)... you lose your football team.