USFL Forever: Small Potatoes: Who Killed The USFL

Source:The New Democrat

I could just write that Donald Trump by himself killed the old United States Football League that only lasted for three seasons from 1983-85 and I'm actually old enough to remember games from all three seasons. I could write that and it would be mostly true about Donald Trump. Because he was involved in the league owning the New Jersey Generals, but he was the Dan Snyder of the USFL. A great businessman outside of pro football with no business being involved in pro football.

But the whole story is that the USFL folded for multiple reasons and even though The Donald had a hand in several of those reasons why the league folded. It wasn't all his fault but with The Donald I could put down the facts that the league grew way too fast going to eighteen teams by 1985. And also expanding in NFL markets that already great established pro football franchises and weren't looking for another pro football franchise like. Washington, Pittsburgh, Philadelphia, Boston, Detroit, Chicago, Dallas, Houston, Tampa, and Denver. And I could put the fact that Donald Trump decided the USFL should be playing in the fall and go up against the NFL. When they had the spring and summer all to themselves.

So yeah I could put most of the failures of the old USFL on Donald Trump. Because he had a hand in a lot of their management failures. But he wasn't the Commissioner of the USFL, but the majority owner of one of their franchises. And the USFL didn't have strong enough people amongst their other owners or a commissioner to stand up. And say "you know what we shouldn't be doing this. Going up against the NFL in their own markets and playing when they do. When we have all of these other major markets that do not have a major league pro football franchise yet". If they had strong smart people like that, they probably never go out of business. And have the spring and summer to themselves and still be in business in today. 

The Phil Donahue Show: The Tonight Show With Johnny Carson (1970)

Source:Phil Donahue Show- The King of Late Night Johnny Carson, on Phil Donahue in 1970 

Source:The New Democrat 

"Please show your support for all the time and effort I've put into recording, collecting, as well as storing, transferring, editing, and uploading all of these interviews which are sometimes very rare and hard to find. Please send your Paypal donation to myinnereyeinterview2@gmail.com    Your support is very much appreciated!!"

From My Inner Eye Interview

Johnny Carson is not the best interviewer of all-time, but he was a very good interviewer. A bright guy who did his homework. Johnny is not the best standup comedian of all-time, but he's certainly on the short list of greatest standup comedians who have ever performed. 

But what Johnny is, is the best comedy talk/variety show host of all-time because of his ability to do so many things and play so many roles. That generally started off with a very good standup performance of his own, followed by an interview that he would do.

I think what made the The Tonight Show With Johnny Carson work (and there is really only Tonight Show, at least as far as I'm concern) but what made that show work was that it didn't try to be anything other than what it was. 

Johnny would interview everybody and only interview those people as himself. Not interview a politician as if he was Walter Cronkite. Not interview a great athlete as if he was Curt Gowdy. Or interview a great entertainer as if he was Barbara Walters. He was comedian first and foremost and played the other roles on the show as himself doing the best job he can.

The Johnny Carson Show was real and it was about Carson and what made Carson work. The standup part for him and perhaps the comedy skits were natural for him. But the interviews and preparation were work because that wasn't his background, but he was intelligent and knew enough about the other issues he dealt with like interviewing public officials and politicians and interested in those things as well that he could interview people well and have intelligent conversations with them. 

Hail To The Redskins For Life: Daniel Snyder- 'Plans Have Already Been Made For a New Redskins Stadium'

Source: Curbed DC- RFK Memorial Stadium-

Source: The New Democrat

This is something that should've been done twenty years ago. But back then Redskins owner Jack Kent Cooke was dealing with Mayor Sharon Pratt Kelly and her administration in Washington. And even though Mr. Cooke had offered to build the stadium himself and pay for the whole thing, which is something he and the Redskins can afford to do because of the value of the franchise, he couldn't get an agreement with the Kelly Administration in Washington to build the stadium there. There was also a factor with RFK Stadium because Washington was still looking for a new MLB franchise.

Times are much different now and not only is the City of Washington run much better and no longer dealing with runaway crime, or runaway deficits, or runaway debt, or runaway poverty. The education system is getting better and the city is no longer losing people, but actually adding people and has become one of the safest big cities to live in America. As well as having one of the best economies. And has Mayor's and a government as well as City Council that knows how to govern and to make deals.

The point is because of all of these factors not only does Washington want the Redskins back in the city. But the Redskins also want to back in the city they represent and Washington is still the best location for them in the Washington metro area. Because it is a great big beautiful city where a stadium there would be easy to for everyone to get to and where fans will no longer have to worry about getting stuck in Maryland traffic because they could either drive downtown, or take the train.

For just the simple reason that Washington now has MLB again and has it's downtown at Nationals Parks with the Nationals, RFK Stadium not in it's current form, but either though renovation and expanding it with two or three additional decks and perhaps a retractable roof dome for a Super Bowl and other indoor events. Or simply tearing the stadium down and replacing it with a hundred-thousand seat stadium, that spot becomes a perfect location for the Redskins in Washington where the Redskins now and always have belong.
Source:WJLA-TV News

The Tomorrow Show With Tom Snyder: Ayn Rand (1979)

Source: NBC-

Source:The New Democrat

Tom Snyder trying to learn about Ayn Rand's objectivism and in this interview they are getting into religion. And Ayn telling Tom that "religion is wrong and not for people who base their beliefs on religion". And that is probably putting it nicely. Snyder was a lifelong Catholic, so probably hearing Ayn Rand who was what I would call a fundamentalist Atheist talking about why she doesn't like religion is probably hard for him to hear. But that is why Snyder did these interviews to learn about how others think even when he disagrees with them.
Source:NBC

John Stossel: You Can't Say That

Source:The New Democrat

Private organizations have the right to regulate themselves as long as they are within the law and their contractual obligations. They don't have to be fair or even consistent and I don't have a problem with them being able to do this as long as they are a private organization. Even though I tend to disagree with a lot of the decisions as they make when it comes to kicking people off the air as it relates to what they say may be offensive.

I'm not interested in outlawing fascists thoughts and people being able to express their fascist views whether they come from the Right or Left. As long as they aren't able to pass those views and policies through law. Because that of course would be against the First Amendment even if it does offend some people. Because again we have Freedom of Speech and the First Amendment and I having my right to argue against fascism and the political correctness movement from the Far-Left. Or the moral majority movement or whatever from the Far-Right.

FOX News: John Stossel- Stupid in America

Source:FOX News- TIME Magazine, talking about education reform in America.

Source:The New Democrat 

"5-6-12 John Stossel - Stupid In America"

From FOX News

I take stupidity seriously and when you have a lot of Americans who are stupid, meaning they don't know important basic things that they should know. Like what state the Kentucky Derby is in, (first word being the giveaway clue there) I get concern simply as an American who wants to see my country do as well as it can. And as much as the Great Recession was caused by Wall Street, the fact that our workers especially the ones that lost their jobs during it do not have the skills they need to get another job, or our college and high school graduates do not have the skills that they need to get a good job, you know we have a serious problem.

And as serious as a problem that stupidity in America is, it is also impossible for me as someone with a quick off the cuff sense of humor to just let slide by without making fun of it. I mean seriously we have Americans who know what the latest smartphone is, or what's the latest rehab clinic or jail that Lindsay Lohan is at. But couldn't tell you to save their life who is on Mount Rushmore, what is the Bill of Rights, who was our first President, what was the Civil War fought over. How many states does America have  and you can go down the line.

We have become as a society where whatever is considered hot, awesome and popular at the time and that generally comes from either Silicon Valley or Hollywood, or it is not important "and like so not worth my time to like totally notice". To paraphrase some valley speak. "What is hot is what is now, and history is in the past" and when it comes to learning it is about what is hot and what is now so you can fit in and be as popular as possible. Where you are judged by how many followers you have on Facebook or whatever the hot social network is at the time and what is the latest technology. Instead of being judged based on how much you know and what are your actual skills.

I know this might sound nerdy or whatever, but people who believe that aren't my target audience and those people are the problem to begin with. If you want to be hot, awesome or cool, (and cool might sound old at this point) you might have to be stupid as well. And sound like Britney Spears, Paris Hilton, Sarah Palin, or even Johnny Football soon to be Johnny headed for Hollywood after he gives up on football Manziel. But if you want to be intelligent and successful outside of Hollywood or sports in America, then you have to be intelligent. And that only happens from learning about things that are actually important that gives you the skills to be successful in America.

The Atlantic: Peter Beinart: ClintonPhobia: Why No Democrat Wants to Run Against Hillary Clinton

Source:The New Democrat

'ClintonPhobia' ? How about Clinton fatigue? Does anyone who seriously understands the Democratic Party who is honest and knowledgable about the Democratic Party believe that Hillary will get a cakewalk to the Democratic nomination for president in 2016 based on her 2008 presidential campaign, or the way her tenure as Secretary of State ended and just because her name is Hillary Clinton? Oh by the way who is not a rabid right-wing partisan who's known for writing for some Tea Party affiliated publication or group. Of course not! Because that is not how Democrats operate. We don't nominate someone simply because the establishment loves that person, or that nomination would set some new milestone.

And people who like to make claims of the fact that Hillary is an overwhelming frontrunner with no possible real challenger like to use history to make their case. Peter Beinart did that in his Atlantic piece, so fine lets do that. Who in 2006 saw Barack Obama as not only someone who would win the Democratic nomination for president overwhelmingly by the way. It was clear he was going to win the nomination by April if not March as far as where the remaining primaries were. Let alone winning the White House in November and winning states like Indiana, North Carolina and Virginia. And oh by the way being the first African-American ever elected President of the United States.

My point about that is that it is 2014 and the late summer of 2014 in August (even though Maryland didn't see summer this year) and we are still more than two years away from the 2016 president election about about sixteen months away from the first presidential primaries. A year from now we'll have a much better idea about who will and can try to challenger Hillary for the Democratic nomination for president and we still don't even know if she wants to run again. 2008 was a huge disappointment for her. She didn't run a very good campaign and took a lot of shots she wasn't prepared for from both Republicans and Democrats and wasn't prepared for the campaign that happened.

Democrats don't hand out presidential nominations as gifts. You have to earn them and if Hillary's message in 2016 is "vote for me because I'm me!" Which is essentially what it was in 2008, the same fate will happen to her because one of several Democrats will see that from a hundred yards away and use that as their opening to challenge her. "If Hillary won't tell you why she wants to be president and what she would do as president, I will". And be able to lay out the campaign, support and organization to do it. Which is what Barack Obama pulled off in 2007-08.  

FOX News: John Stossel- Illegal Everything

Source:FOX News-

Source:The New Democrat

Gee I got a crazy idea. How about we outlaw the big government nanny state instead? Yeah from now on any legislature that votes for or passes big government nanny laws, they get charged with infringing on free adults freedom to live their own lives. Probably would need more technical language that sounds like Greek or something. But I'm not a lawyer, so I don't speak Greek, so I apologize. (Wait what am I apologizing for) And when legislatures try to pass some brain dead idea like this, they can spend time in the jails that they want free adults who they feel are too stupid to manage their own affairs to do time in.

Outlawing lemonade stands, or making it illegal to drive or sit in a car without a seatbelt, or illegal to ride a bike without a helmet, "who do these laws protect?" Nanny statists would naturally say "the people". But the natural response to that would be, "protecting the people from who?" They would be less inclined to answer that question and if you ask a nanny statist with any kind of honesty, they may say "protecting people from dangerous behavior". Who's dangerous behavior" The nanny statist again if they are honest may say "from the individuals dangerous behavior".

Again I'm not a lawyer, so I don't speak Greek or Chinese. But I do speak English real good. (Ha ha) And the people that nanny statists want to protect free adults from are themselves. People who believe in nanny laws want to protect people from themselves. Hey I got a radical idea here. Instead of nanny laws we allow for free adults to make their own decisions. Require that all of the information to be out there so free adults can make the best decisions possible and then hold them responsible for the decisions that they make. More free people on the street, less people in prison.

Source:FOX News

Michael Steele: Rand Paul Is the Most Dangerous Man in Politics Because he Breaks Downs the Left-Right Paradigm

Source:The New Democrat

Michael Steele is dead right about Rand Paul's influence on the Republican Party. Because Senator Paul is a Conservative Libertarian in party that has a long history and tradition of conservative libertarianism perhaps going back as far as the 1930s. It is just with Richard Nixon in the late 1970s that the GOP sort of moved away from that and sort of became the law and order party at all costs. And "secure the area at any means necessary and worry about the consequences and Constitution later on".

What Rand Paul is saying is that all of our constitutional rights are equally important. Including not becoming victims of the state when it comes to excessive force. That the state has the responsibility to protect us from predators and not from ourselves. But that even predators have constitutional rights and that the state has a limit to exactly what it can to protect the people. And when it exceeds those limits like using military power against its own people even to secure the area, it is going too far.

The Atlantic: Connor Friedersdorf: Libertarians Can Be a Significant Force For Good in U.S. Politics

Source: The Atlantic

Source:The New Democrat

I covered this about six months ago or so on why today's Progressive lets say do not like Libertarians. Why because they are the most serious threat to what today's Progressives want to accomplish in America. Which is the creation of a Scandinavian superstate. Which is a massive welfare state that would handle most of the economic decisions for most if not all Americans. They want to end the means-tested safety net and move to a welfare state that would be responsible for taking care of everyone. Our retirement, health care, health insurance, education and even more services.

That is why today's Progressives who are really Social Democrats or Eurocrats are always arguing in favor of new revenue meaning new taxes and higher taxes and not just on the wealthy, but across the board. Because they know all of these new social services are going to have to be paid for. They know that much about economics. And who does the most effective case arguing against the safety net and welfare state? Libertarians and people are now listening to them. And some Libertarians like Senator Rand Paul have even moderated their position and arguing in favor of letting the states run these programs. Instead of saying we should eliminate them and that argument gains traction as well especially with young people.

This is why the Jonathan Chaite's of the world and other modern Progressives argue that Libertarians aren't real, or they have no real movement, or no real influence. If any of that were true these writers wouldn't be arguing so forcefully that Libertarians doesn't exist and have no real power. Because they are worried about them and their growing influence and that Americans don't want a welfare state running their economic lives and a nanny state running their personal lives. That they want to make these decisions for themselves. As today's Progressives are arguing for both the welfare and nanny states.
Source:Reason Magazine

The Daily Caller: Molly Gill: Before Creating Any New Crimes, Congress Should Reform Penalties it Made Decades Ago

Source: The Rutherford Institute-

Source:The New Democrat

Over criminalization are the perfect two words put together to describe why America has so many people in either jail or prison. We have so many victimless crimes like anti-gambling laws, anti-prostitution laws, the War on Drugs should be first on the list. But how about some states in the union who have anti-homosexual laws and if New York City ever had its way people could be arrested for what they eat and drink as well. What is so progressive about that? I fail to see any progress there.

You eliminate victimless crime laws and you would dramatically reduce our prison population. You reform laws where there are real victims involved where a penalty needs to be imposed for the good of society like shoplifting to use as an example and people who sell or possess small amounts of illegal narcotics and you also dramatically reduce your prison population. No crime would not go up because now most of these activities and again talking about victimless crimes would now be legal.

Representative Bob Goodlatte who is Chairman of the House Judiciary Committee put together a House task force dealing with the over criminalization in America and to look at why we have so many people in  prison early in this Congress. Which is a good first step even though Representative Goodlatte also is in favor of a constitutional amendment to outlaw pornography which would just add to the problem over criminalization. But there is bipartisan support to reduce our prison population and reform some of our laws. So this is not some far-lefty or anarchist conspiracy on why we have so many people in prison.
Source:Rutherford Institute

The Atlantic: Michael Zuckerman: Utah Lawyers Making Legal Services Affordable

Source:The New Democrat

If America is going to go by the value of Equal Justice Under Law, then Equal Access Under Law needs to be part of that as well. Otherwise Equal Justice Under Law means nothing and it is really instead Affordable Justice Under Law. Meaning you get the justice that you can afford. So if you are wealthy and are charged with rape and there's substantial evidence that you are guilty, you might get away with it because you can afford a great lawyer and legal team that can get evidence thrown out that perhaps was collected improperly.

But if you are a bus driver or a construction worker perhaps a teacher under the same charges and perhaps you are not poor, but with modest means who doesn't have a hundred-thousand-dollars or more to spend on a great legal defense with the same evidence against you, you are probably getting convicted because you are stuck with the public defender who is underpaid and overworked who's working five cases at the same time including yours. And would like to get your case out of the way as soon as possible. Not because they don't care about you, but because they have very limited resources with an unlimited amount of work.

I'm not looking to create a completely equal justice system. That doesn't exist anywhere in the world unless you live in a country where the government controls and finances through taxes the legal services for everyone. And as long as we have an economic system where people are allowed to and able to make as much money as they can we are going to have some Americans who simply get better legal services because they can afford them, but we can create a legal system where everyone has access to justice regardless of their income level. Where everyone will get the legal services they need to be able to make their case. Especially if they are innocent, or have been harmed.

One way to do it would be to encourage and even require all private lawyers to do at least a certain amount of pro bono work for low-income defendants and clients who have a complaint to make against someone or an organization and want to see justice for it. We could do that by passing a law requiring lawyers to do this and through the tax system allow for them to write off the costs of their pro bono work.

Another way would be to set up a legal services finance or insurance system that we would all pay into and them collect that money when we need it for legal services. Similar to health insurance or property insurance.

Another way would be to fully-fund public defender offices and the Legal Services Corporation. So they have the resources and staff to perform the legal services that private law firms can afford and are capable of providing.

All of these reforms would require a good deal of money, but is something that we can afford to do. And if not and this is not the case, but if it were true that we can't afford to do this, then Equal Justice Under Law is worth no more than a plastic cup and we should change that to Affordable Justice Under Law instead.

The American Thinker: Selyn Duke: Libertarian Folly": Why Everybody is a Social-Issues Voter

Source:The New Democrat

At some point the Republican Party at least the leadership and establishment are going to have to figure out if they believe in individual freedom which is the freedom for individuals to live individually, (make sense don't it) the freedom of self-determination and be able to make your own decisions in life, or do they just like talking about individual freedom to try to convince Independents that is what they believe. As they are working to get government more involved in our personal affairs and have less freedom.

Because Americans more and more everyday are deciding that they truly want individual freedom both economic and personal and not have government interfering into our lives and instead limit government to doing what we need it to do for us. Which gets to things like protecting the innocent from predators who would hurt the innocent. Financing infrastructure and making sure that everyone has a shot at getting themselves a good education and a few other things. But what limited government is truly about.

And if Republicans decide to sound like politicians and say what they want people to hear, but govern the way they want to and those things are different than they will continue to lose voters in this country. Especially young Americans and minorities as big government becomes even less unpopular in this country from either an economic or personal perspective. And the Republican Party will be left to only their rural Anglo-Saxon Protestant male base as everyone else are either Democrats or Independents living where most of the country lives in urban and suburban America.

That is my larger point. To Selyn Duke's article in the American Thinker today as far as what he wrote. He made the classic mistake that people on the fringe either Right or Left do. Which is taking political beliefs to the extreme to make them look like something that they aren't. He compared people who believe in legalizing same-sex-marriage as people "who must believe in pedophilia as well". As if there is any real or solid movement in America that believes pedophilia is a good thing to begin with and should be legalize. Or that "if you believe in personal choice you believe the KKK has a right to commit terrorists acts." Its the KKK's choice to do those things right?

Personal choice is not the right to hurt innocent people as much as Neoconservatives and the Christian Right claims that it is. Personal choice is exactly that, personal the ability to make their own decisions regarding their own lives. Not the right to infringe on others freedom. Whether it is theft, robbery, assault, murder, rape go down the line. Personal choice is a big part of individual freedom and Republicans are going to have to figure out if they really believe in individual freedom or not. And if they decide they don't, they put their party in serious jeopardy with a lot of the country.

TruthOut: A.W. Gaffney: The Problem With The Private Option

Source:The New Democrat

You can get on right-wing governors for not expanding Medicaid in their state all you want. But the fact is if Medicaid wasn't an unfunded mandate to begin with which is a Federal program that is forced upon the states through law, but not paid for. Then we aren't seeing this right now and the Medicaid section of the Affordable Care Act probably doesn't get thrown out. Because Medicaid would be fully paid for meaning the Feds could say "you need to expand this program. You have the funds to pay for your current Medicaid costs and here are additional funds to pay for the expansion".

But since Medicaid is an unfunded mandate because the Feds don't cover the costs of Medicaid that they are required to by law states are having a hard time meeting their current Medicaid costs. Let alone having the money there to pay for an expansion. So the Supreme Court says that "the Medicaid expansion is constitutional, but since it is an unfunded mandate and the Feds don't have a very good record at meeting their financial promises, that the states don't have to expand their Medicaid program. And if they decide to do so the Feds have to cover their share of the costs.

The private option in Medicaid is a good idea. Medicaid really should be a state program to begin with and let all fifty states set up their own low-income health insurance system. Instead of the Feds trying to run one system for fifty states in a country of three-hundred and fifteen-million people. The private option is good because it would allow low-income Americans to have more say in their own lives and give them more responsibility and make them less dependent on the state for their survival. It would also cut Medicaid costs because less people and less poor people would be on Medicaid.

I realize anti-federalist Progressives who have this idea that big brother big government the central state should be planning the lives of everyone at least people who do not make enough money to manage their own affairs. And tend to see people especially Americans as stupid who can't make these decisions for themselves. But they are wrong because once Americans have the education and knowledge they are more qualified to make their own decisions then some government office who does not even know who they are. 

The Weed Blog: Johnny Green: Debunking The White House's Response to The New York Times

Source:The New Democrat

I've written several posts this year already about why the drug warriors have lost the War on Drugs especially when it comes to marijuana. So here's another one and this one comes thanks to the White House because they are using the same old tired lame arguments that drug warriors have used forever.

Lets concede that marijuana is not good for juveniles. Lets concede that people who are driving should not be high before they get behind the wheel. Lets concede that there is and would be an underground meaning black market for marijuana even if it is legalized. I can answer all of these points with two words. So what! No I'm not taking those issues lightly or laughing at them. But the same issues come with both tobacco and alcohol which are both legal narcotics in this country. As far as the black market, that argument can be made about every product that is legal in this country. Because we have people who do not like paying taxes so they pay and sell products under the door.

If you want to lock people up for something that is dangerous we would end up with a country of convicts. We have countless number of products from junk food to soft drinks to caffeine to firearms to alcohol and tobacco. That are all potentially dangerous if they are either over consumed, or used incorrectly. Yet they are all legal because we've made decisions as a country that locking people up for simply doing something to themselves that comes with bad risks is something that we can't afford and not a country that we want to be.

There has yet to be a study that has been published that shows marijuana consumption whether it is used responsibly or over consumed is more dangerous than any of those other legal products that come with serious risks is they are used correctly or incorrectly. Yet marijuana is illegal at the Federal level and those other products are regulated and taxed. And why? Could it be because those other industries have very effective lobbying machines and marijuana is just getting started and will be legal in either your state, or a state near you in the near future? I would love an answer to that question.

Mises Daily: Randall G. Holcombe: The War on Drugs is Not Like The War on Poverty

Source:The New Democrat

Randall Holcombe makes somewhat of an obvious, but important point that the War on Poverty is not a real war because it doesn't involve two sides fighting each other to determine some outcome. And I say obvious not to put Richard Holcombe down or anything, but the opposite actually because not a lot of Americans actually understand that. War is a very common term in America especially in Washington where wars are either started or where America gets involved in them. And is sorta of a Washington hip way of trying to tackle problems. By saying "we are going to war against this or that!"

I'm still not buying that the War on Drugs is a real war. Sure America's involvement in the War on Drugs involves using some military force against foreign drug dealers and organizations. But generally speaking is is fought against Americans who use illegal narcotics for their own personal reasons. And against Americans who sell illegal narcotics against Americans who want those drugs. What the War on Drugs really is, is an effort against people for what they do to themselves and against people who sell drugs that are illegal that others want.

The War on Drugs is a war on personal freedom and choice. Drugs addicts have no business being victims of the war as far as what government does to them. But given an escape out of the war by getting them the help that they need at their expense to get off of those drugs and be able to move on with their lives in a productive way. And instead target those who would further the addictions of those drug addicts and put them out of business. 

USFL Forever: USFL 1984: Western Conference Final: Los Angeles Express @ Phoenix Wranglers: Full Game

Source:The New Democrat 

The problems with the United States Football League had nothing to do with lack of talent either with player personal or coaching. The Los Angeles Express QB was Steve Young who of course is in the Pro Football Hall of Fame. The Phoenix Wranglers head coach was George Allen who is in the Pro Football Hall of Fame. The Express head coach was John Hadl who is at least a borderline Hall of Fame caliber QB with the San Diego Chargers and Los Angeles Rams.

The problems with the USFL had to with the league trying to grow too fast being at eighteen clubs by 1985 just their third season. Too many clubs in major NFL markets like Los Angeles with the Express that already had the Raiders in Los Angeles and the Rams in Anaheim. And of course moving from a spring/summer league which was perfect for them with no NFL games to go up against. To playing in the fall where they are right up against the NFL