The NFL went almost a full 20 years before a team relocated (Houston Oilers to Tennessee in 1997, followed by the Rams to Los Angeles last year). The longest such steak like that in the NFL/AFL was the Chicago Cardinals to St. Louis in 1960, followed by the Oakland Raiders to Los Angeles in 1982.

History has shown that Los Angeles did not have the fan support or interest to house two franchises at the same time, yet the NFL was intent on recapturing that market on a grand scale. Getting two franchises back in the fold is very much doubling down on the LA market. If just one team becomes successful there, the NFL could end up moving the weaker franchise again down the road to a San Diego, an Oakland, a St. Louis, or another western city, and still get what they desired from the Los Angeles market (at the very costly expense of agitating and eliminating a market in Oakland, San Diego or St. Louis).

The NFL did the right thing in the Cleveland/Baltimore relocation where it essentially treated Baltimore as an expansion franchise. The history, records, colors, etc. remained in Cleveland. It still bothers me that the Titans got to keep the Oilers history, as I think the city of Houston should have kept that.