PHILADELPHIA -- Like those saccharine Muzak tunes piped into most office building elevators, the song wafting through the mezzanine level of a downtown hotel as NFL owners convened here Tuesday morning was beyond identifiable, an orchestral cover of a nondescript soft rock regurgitation that sounded amazingly similar to all the ones which came before and after it.

What was certain, however, was that the song wasn't California Dreamin'. Too bad, since the old Mamas and Papas hit would have been fairly appropriate, since many of the owners arrived with their vision focused on the Left Coast.

And will depart on Wednesday having taken a significant step toward placing a franchise in a city that has been without football since the Raiders and the Rams both loaded up the moving vans after the 1994 season.

	Al Davis and the Raiders abandoned L.A. after 13 seasons.

By an overwhelming vote Tuesday morning owners passed a resolution that will allow the NFL to investigate two potential stadium sites -- a major renovation of the Rose Bowl and a 157-tract of land in Carson, Calif. -- and to negotiate with representatives of those two groups in hopes of securing a state-of-the-art facility. The resolution, regarded by the owners as a key initiative toward returning to the nation's second-biggest market, passed by a vote of 30-1-1.

The Oakland Raiders, who are suing the league because owner Al Davis claims he still has the rights to the Los Angeles market, voted against the proposal. The Indianapolis Colts, one of the franchises most prominently mentioned as a candidate to relocate to the lucrative market, abstained on the vote.

Commissioner Paul Tagliabue acknowledged that the earliest likely date for a team to be playing in Los Angeles is the 2006 season. A more realistic time frame, though, might be 2007 or even 2008.

"I'm very optimistic, and very excited, as well," said Philadelphia Eagles owner Jeffrey Lurie. "With what we did here today, the league certainly has demonstrated a passion and a determination to try to make the Los Angeles market work, believe me. It should send a message to the people there: 'Give us a viable facility and we're back.' But there has to be a stadium site to emerge. That's the biggest thing. With no stadium, well, it's probably no team, and that would be a shame."

The speed with which the resolution was presented, and then acted upon, was reflective of the momentum the Los Angeles situation has only recently generated. The issue wasn't even on the original agenda for the two-day session -- a docket whose marquee item was a vote on the proposals to extend the playoff format from its current 12 teams to 14 -- but was added by Tagliabue late last week.

But what was supposed to have been only a report from the six-man committee that has been exploring the possibilities for returning NFL football to Los Angeles, turned into a very meaningful resolution and quickly became a headline item.

Placing a franchise in a market where a half-generation has never even witnessed an NFL game is suddenly more than a blip on the radar screen.

"This is more than just the old (rhetoric) about wanting to put a team back in there," said Pittsburgh Steelers owner Dan Rooney. "This is a lot more than that. It's a commitment of sorts on our part. But there has to be a commitment from the other side. And, really, I think it will happen. But what team goes there, or when they go in, well, who knows?"

Tagliabue did not rule out the possibility that the NFL might consider expansion beyond its current 32 teams. Nor did he, nor several owners who spoke to ESPN.com, discount the possibility of two teams in the Los Angeles market. That was, after all, the plan when the league was negotiating several years ago to build a stadium on the Hollywood Park site, where the Raiders would have played, probably with another tenant as well.

"If you can have two teams in New York, then there is no reason you can't have two in Los Angeles, given the size of the market," said New England owner Robert Kraft. "But let's not put the cart before the horse. Let's get a stadium and get (one team) in it before we worry about a second franchise."

Of course, none of the owners was prepared Tuesday morning to speculate on the why or the who or the how of identifying a team for Los Angeles. What is clear, though, is the owners' collective resolve to do big business again in a precinct that disappeared from the NFL map for too long.

"It's no secret we want a team in Los Angeles and, most of us at least, feel it's imperative we get a franchise there," said Dallas owner Jerry Jones hours before the resolution even passed. "But talking about it is one thing and doing it, well, that's altogether different, right? I think some things seem to be happening, though, to improve the odds. Things are heating up."

A few hours later, Jones' words were indeed prophetic, when Tagliabue announced in his press briefing that the resolution had been enacted.

League officials would like to have the Los Angeles issue at full boil before its television contracts expire following the 2005 campaign. The NFL passed on its recent opportunity to re-open the television contracts after the first five years of the deals, in part because the economic climate is so poor nationally, and because it possessed no viable enhancements with which to squeeze more rights fees from already suffering networks.

But a franchise in Los Angeles, or at least a design that puts it on the fast track, certainly would qualify as a dramatic bargaining chip. Tagliabue even referred to Los Angeles as "a great market" and noted it possesses "a very deep fan base." It also has, of course, a lot of television sets.

Said one AFC owner on Tuesday morning: "We need to be able to bring something new to the table. Our game is great as it is, and the networks know that, but we have to have a fresh sales pitch. Los Angeles would definitely provide us a lot of clout."

One key concession made by the NFL, and one that has provided much recent impetus, is the decision to drop demands that a Los Angeles area stadium be publicly funded in part. The citizens of Los Angeles, who have discovered other diversions during eight seasons without an NFL franchise, remain inalterably opposed to using any public funds to either build a new facility or refurbish an old one.

"We're going to have to be pretty creative," said Washington owner Dan Snyder. "And pretty careful, too, in what we commit to get a team back into (Los Angeles)."

There will be no firm commitment to put a team into Los Angeles, though, until the NFL determines exactly where it will play. Currently there are three sites vying for what they hope will eventually be exclusive negotiating rights with the league. Beyond the Rose Bowl and the Carson site, the historic Los Angeles Coliseum remains on the fringes but has a lot of ground to make up.

	“	I'm very optimistic, and very excited, as well. With what we did here today, the league certainly has demonstrated a passion and a determination to try to make the Los Angeles market work, believe me. It should send a message to the people there: 'Give us a viable facility and we're back.'”
		—Jeffrey Lurie, Philadelphia Eagles owner

The resolution does permit for consideration of other sites, but the membership and NFL officials have grown weary of haggling with Los Angeles city officials over the state of the Coliseum and how it might be transformed into a site attractive enough for a club that might conceivably fetch a $1 billion franchise fee.

The site in Carson, being pushed by Hollywood entertainment mogul and superagent Michael Ovitz, obviously would include a brand new stadium. The plan, investigated at length by the NFL a few years ago, is now being revisited. The league still has an option to purchase the 157-acre tract, and will exercise that option with GMS reality, at what sources told ESPN.com was a cost of up to $10 million.

The Coliseum has, in just the past few weeks, gotten the backing of the Los Angeles City Council. And the Rose Bowl, whose efforts are being spearheaded by investment banker John Moag -- the man who engineered the deal which landed the Ravens (the former Cleveland Browns) in Baltimore and who is very influential in league circles -- unveiled its plans last month for a $500 million makeover.

Under the Rose Bowl plan, the league would fund much of the refurbishing, but the city would continue to own the legendary stadium. The city of Pasadena, which has granted permission for Moag to seek a non-binding agreement with NFL officials to bring a team to the Rose Bowl, is asking the league to commit eight Super Bowl games to the stadium as part of the deal.

In the new age NFL, it is stadium-related revenues that have emerged as a driving force, and the league wants to essentially ensure success for a franchise long before it decides the identity of the team or its owner. The league, in some ways, is taking a page from the approach that it took in Cleveland, where it funded the new facility and then auctioned off the franchise. In this case, too, the stadium is critical.

Several owners conceded they like the fact there are at least two potential sites involved with attempting to re-enter the Los Angeles market. Inherent in their sentiments is a basic belief the competition will produce a stellar site and a tremendous stadium.

"We tried the one-site approach before," said San Francisco 49ers director Dr. John York, referring to the Hollywood Park scenario, "and look where it got us. This time around, we have two very strong proposals, and the results should be different."

Beyond the issue of where a Los Angeles franchise would play is the question of who would play there. With its current 32 teams, and coming off its first season of realignment and a revamped scheduling format, the NFL is loathe to expand. There are three franchises -- Minnesota, Indianapolis and San Diego -- with unsettled stadium issues and all have been rumored at one time or another to be eyeing the Los Angeles market.

During a recent meeting with Tagliabue, owner Red McCombs of the Vikings, who has broadly hinted he will consider relocation if he does not win a new stadium in the Twin Cities, was told there will be a team in Los Angeles in the foreseeable future. He was also apprised, according to league sources, that team will not be the Minnesota Vikings.

Essentially, though, the resolution passed Tuesday means the three teams that might be considering a move to Los Angeles are all but precluded from doing anything before the 2006 season at the earliest. That could leave those teams, and the cities in which they are now located, in limbo.

The bottom line is that there remain some formidable hurdles to be cleared before the NFL returns to Los Angeles again. But this is, after all, a bottom line league. And while this week's owners meeting was supposed to produce no marquee messages, the events of Tuesday made it clear how badly the league wants back into the Los Angeles market.

"Oh, there was a message sent here today, for sure," said one NFC owner. "We pretty much said, 'Build it and we will come.' To me, that's pretty obvious, isn't it?"

Len Pasquarelli is a senior writer for ESPN.com.