ROSEMONT, Ill. -- One year after bypassing Baltimore for an expansion franchise, many NFL team owners seem unconvinced that the city should get one by relocation.
Most of the owners and team officials interviewed over the course of their annual fall meetings this week declined to comment on the prospect of the Los Angeles Rams' moving.
A few said privately that they were rooting for Baltimore over St. Louis in the competition for the Rams, a match race the team says should be decided by the end of the year. But more commonly, team owners said they didn't want the team to move or noted the perceived advantages St. Louis holds over Baltimore.
"They are both great cities, but given the 19 miles to Laurel, if indeed he is going to build there, that would present a problem," said Cleveland Browns owner Art Modell.
Washington Redskins owner Jack Kent Cooke has said he wants to build a stadium in Laurel, midway between Baltimore and Washington.
"We all know they are looking around, and we'd like them to stay in Anaheim," said Denver Broncos president Pat Bowlen.
New York Giants owner Wellington Mara said he's not in favor of a Rams move. "I don't like that at all. I think Los Angeles is very important for the league," Mara said.
Dallas Cowboys owner Jerry Jones said: "I think St. Louis has an opportunity to be an NFL city and deserves it. The Baltimore situation I don't have any thoughts on."
Kansas City Chiefs owner Lamar Hunt said he is not enthusiastic about team moves, but wouldn't mind a team on the other end of Missouri.
"We would love for there to be another team in the state so that there could be a cross-state rivalry. I think it would be very much to the benefit of the game," Hunt said.
Chicago Bears owner Ed McCaskey said he could understand the Rams' wanting to relocate and didn't think it would hurt the league to have only one team in Los Angeles.
"There are two teams out there, and they've been splitting the market," McCaskey said.
Although he said he "loves Baltimore," McCaskey declined to say which city he would support if it came to a vote.
"The tragedy for Baltimore is that St. Louis has a stadium available for immediate occupancy. . . . And, of course, there is the Laurel situation," McCaskey said.
"If I were a fan in Baltimore, I might try and get interested" in the Redskins, he said.
Tampa Bay Buccaneers vice president Rich McKay, however, said: "I think there are a lot of hurdles before you see any team moved."
He said the Rams would have to make a case for a need to move and convince the other owners.
As for a move to Baltimore, he said: "I see that as being tough. No. 1, there is no stadium in place. No. 2, Mr. Cooke is working there."
He said the Buccaneers, another team mentioned as a possible relocation candidate, are not for sale. The team has been held in a trust since the death earlier this year of longtime owner Hugh Culverhouse.
NFL commissioner Paul Tagliabue declined to discuss a possible move of the Rams, but did say any relocation would be subject to the approval of the other team owners.
Independent legal experts say the legality of the NFL's rules on the matter is an open question.
Orioles owner Peter Angelos, who is trying to lure a team to Baltimore, has said he would be willing to mount a legal challenge if the league tried to block a move.
* In another matter of potential significance to Baltimore and Angelos, the owners yesterday discussed changes to rules prohibiting NFL owners from owning other major-league sports teams.
Miami Dolphins owner H. Wayne Huizenga, who also owns baseball's Florida Marlins and hockey's Florida Panthers, said a decision could be made at the March meetings.