History shows St. Louis supports the Rams more than LA.

[Rex]

What many people do not realize is the Big Red for 28 seasons in St. Louis only made the playoffs 4 times and NEVER hosted a playoff game. Never won a playoff game either. Compare that to LA and St. Louis' support of the NFL cannot be questioned.

I don't understand how having a horrible team and worse attendance than LA in the same time period equates to unquestionable NFL support in STL. Unless you're still trying to compare different eras. Otherwise, as far as supporting awful football franchises, STL can get in line behind Cleveland, Detroit, Buffalo, Jacksonville, and the NY Jets, because its attendance already is.

Just to show that St. Louis has well supported truly crappy NFL teams across eras.

 

[Maulbert]

Rex, no matter how hard you try, no one is going to think of St. Louis as a football Mecca. St. Louis is 19th in NFL market size and 27th in city size. The Rams take a back seat to Chiefs in Missouri. The only thing that makes it even notable is the arch.

 

[Rex]

Rex, no matter how hard you try, no one is going to think of St. Louis as a football Mecca. St. Louis is 19th in NFL market size and 27th in city size. The Rams take a back seat to Chiefs in Missouri. The only thing that makes it even notable is the arch.

I don't think of St. Louis as a football Mecca. Very few places could claim that and Seattle isn't one of them either. (Green Bay, Dallas, Pittsburgh, NE have to spit out the bile for that one, etc.) However St. Louis has always supported the NFL. Don't forget the world's largest brewery. City size you cite is a rookie mistake but a very common one which was self-inflicted by city government in the last part of the 19th century. Otherwise St. Louis would rank 9th in population today between San Diego and Dallas. :th2thumbs:

 

[sutz]

I was in LA prior to the move to St Louie. Trust me, if ownership had supported the fans, they would have supported the franchise. But Madame Ram got greedy. Fan support was fine up until the last couple of years, when it became obvious that we were watching Major League being played out in football terms. (I know, the movie was a bit later, but still :229031_shrug: ) The fans didn't really stop caring until the team did. I know, the Lambs were my NFC team fave until they dumped us. Make no mistake, the team left, the fans didn't "drive them away." I know I was pretty pissed when Georgia Babe hoisted that Lombardy. And that was long before they became div rivals.

You can't really trust attendance numbers between eras. Back in the day there was no internet and rather limited TV options and Roselle hadn't really got his fan sucking ways up to speed yet.

 

[Maulbert]

City size you cite is a rookie mistake but a very common one which was self-inflicted by city government in the last part of the 19th century. Otherwise St. Louis would rank 8th in population today between San Antonio and San Diego.

Much like every other fact, you are exaggerating. As a metropolitan area, you are number 22, behind Orlando, good for 18 out of 31 NFL metro areas (if you count New York only once for the Jets and Giants). Really, St. Louis's insecurity is just sad.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_metropolitan_areas_of_the_United_States

 

[Rex]

City size you cite is a rookie mistake but a very common one which was self-inflicted by city government in the last part of the 19th century. Otherwise St. Louis would rank 8th in population today between San Antonio and San Diego.

Much like every other fact, you are exaggerating. As a metropolitan area, you are number 22, behind Orlando, good for 18 out of 31 NFL metro areas (if you count New York only once for the Jets and Giants). Really, St. Louis's insecurity is just sad.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_metropolitan_areas_of_the_United_States

Except I'm not talking metro area (but if I was St. Louis metro is 19th not 22nd, what you cited is outdated) and I'm not exaggerating. It is you who is not paying attention. St. Louis City in the 1870s petitioned the state to become a county. Therefore the "city" of St. Louis statistics end at the county line which was the city limits in the 1870s. Therefore urban sprawl which occurs in most every city never officially occurred by the "city" statistics. St. Louis County (a separate county) completely surrounds the city of St. Louis (which is also a county).

St. Louis City pop. 317,000
St. Louis County pop. 1,000,000

Therefore the 1.317 million ranks 9th between San Diego and Dallas. (I'll correct the mistake in previous post from 8th to 9th.)

 

[Rex]

I was in LA prior to the move to St Louie. Trust me, if ownership had supported the fans, they would have supported the franchise. But Madame Ram got greedy. Fan support was fine up until the last couple of years, when it became obvious that we were watching Major League being played out in football terms. (I know, the movie was a bit later, but still :229031_shrug: ) The fans didn't really stop caring until the team did. I know, the Lambs were my NFC team fave until they dumped us. Make no mistake, the team left, the fans didn't "drive them away." I know I was pretty pissed when Georgia Babe hoisted that Lombardy. And that was long before they became div rivals.

You can't really trust attendance numbers between eras. Back in the day there was no internet and rather limited TV options and Roselle hadn't really got his fan sucking ways up to speed yet.

I understand what you are saying and it is very familiar to what I remember when the Big Red left. The difference I believe being the 7 years hiatus from the NFL in St. Louis that had another stadium well in the works before the Rams arrived. Yet LA wouldn't support them enough to build a stadium then or now while St. Louis is in the process of building them yet another stadium.

 

[Maulbert]

City size you cite is a rookie mistake but a very common one which was self-inflicted by city government in the last part of the 19th century. Otherwise St. Louis would rank 8th in population today between San Antonio and San Diego.

Much like every other fact, you are exaggerating. As a metropolitan area, you are number 22, behind Orlando, good for 18 out of 31 NFL metro areas (if you count New York only once for the Jets and Giants). Really, St. Louis's insecurity is just sad.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_metropolitan_areas_of_the_United_States

Except I'm not talking metro area (but if I was St. Louis metro is 19th not 22nd, what you cited is outdated) and I'm not exaggerating. It is you who is not paying attention. St. Louis City in the 1870s petitioned the state to become a county. Therefore the "city" of St. Louis statistics end at the county line which was the city limits in the 1870s. Therefore urban sprawl which occurs in most every city never officially occurred by the "city" statistics. St. Louis County (a separate county) completely surrounds the city of St. Louis (which is also a county).

St. Louis City pop. 317,000
St. Louis County pop. 1,000,000

Therefore the 1.317 million ranks 9th between San Diego and Dallas. (I'll correct the mistake in previous post from 8th to 9th.)

You're twisting facts again. Any city could add a county population to get a larger result, and St. Louis would still be smaller. BTW, I cited where St. Louis is ranked 22. You just pulled 19 out of your ass. You'd probably try to figure out a way to twist the fact that St. Louis has lost the largest percentage of it's population of any city in the US since the 1950s with at least 100,000 residents (62.7%). It's sitting at approximately 317,419 this year after having 856,796 in 1950. It has lost at least 8% of its population in every census since, usually a lot more. Here's my citation:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/St._L...hV2jESZcAEbgvPBZLKLzA&q=st louis demographics

 

[Rex]

City size you cite is a rookie mistake but a very common one which was self-inflicted by city government in the last part of the 19th century. Otherwise St. Louis would rank 8th in population today between San Antonio and San Diego.

Much like every other fact, you are exaggerating. As a metropolitan area, you are number 22, behind Orlando, good for 18 out of 31 NFL metro areas (if you count New York only once for the Jets and Giants). Really, St. Louis's insecurity is just sad.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_metropolitan_areas_of_the_United_States

Except I'm not talking metro area (but if I was St. Louis metro is 19th not 22nd, what you cited is outdated) and I'm not exaggerating. It is you who is not paying attention. St. Louis City in the 1870s petitioned the state to become a county. Therefore the "city" of St. Louis statistics end at the county line which was the city limits in the 1870s. Therefore urban sprawl which occurs in most every city never officially occurred by the "city" statistics. St. Louis County (a separate county) completely surrounds the city of St. Louis (which is also a county).

St. Louis City pop. 317,000
St. Louis County pop. 1,000,000

Therefore the 1.317 million ranks 9th between San Diego and Dallas. (I'll correct the mistake in previous post from 8th to 9th.)

You're twisting facts again. Any city could add a county population to get a larger result, and St. Louis would still be smaller. BTW, I cited where St. Louis is ranked 22. You just pulled 19 out of your ass. You'd probably try to figure out a way to twist the fact that St. Louis has lost the largest percentage of it's population of any city in the US since the 1950s with at least 100,000 residents (62.7%). It's sitting at approximately 317,419 this year after having 856,796 in 1950. It has lost at least 8% of its population in every census since, usually a lot more. Here's my citation:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/St._L...hV2jESZcAEbgvPBZLKLzA&q=st louis demographics

Again you are using out of date info. READ YOUR OWN LINK you cited first. This is the latest info on metro areas and it is the official designation of MSA (Metropolitan Statistical Area) in which St. Louis MSA is 19th.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_M ... ical_Areas

Again you are simply ignorant of the facts. Yet what you say about the decline of population in the CITY OF ST. LOUIS is TRUE. I've witnessed it in my lifetime. St. Louis City used to be the 4th largest city in the nation. Any tour of the city would easily convey this by the infrastructure and buildings alone. Most of the population flight you cited simply occurred across the City of St. Louis / St. Louis County line.

 

[chris98251]

I was in LA prior to the move to St Louie. Trust me, if ownership had supported the fans, they would have supported the franchise. But Madame Ram got greedy. Fan support was fine up until the last couple of years, when it became obvious that we were watching Major League being played out in football terms. (I know, the movie was a bit later, but still :229031_shrug: ) The fans didn't really stop caring until the team did. I know, the Lambs were my NFC team fave until they dumped us. Make no mistake, the team left, the fans didn't "drive them away." I know I was pretty pissed when Georgia Babe hoisted that Lombardy. And that was long before they became div rivals.

You can't really trust attendance numbers between eras. Back in the day there was no internet and rather limited TV options and Roselle hadn't really got his fan sucking ways up to speed yet.

I understand what you are saying and it is very familiar to what I remember when the Big Red left. The difference I believe being the 7 years hiatus from the NFL in St. Louis that had another stadium well in the works before the Rams arrived. Yet LA wouldn't support them enough to build a stadium then or now while St. Louis is in the process of building them yet another stadium.

Two different situations, us Seahawks fans know to well what a owner with their sites on making a spash in the green bank for greed can do, as Sutz stated, the fans did not stop loving the Rams, they simply hated Madame Bitch and her slamming the fan base, that and alieaniting them and trying to hold the L.A. politicians hostage. We have had a bit of experience in that situation.

Currently the economic environment sucks in California, why it's private financing that is tryng to get things done, you could not get a sand box built there with public money.

As far as the Crds go, Bidwells were neck and neck with Paul Brown for on the Cheap owners throughout their ownership history, why the support was not top teir but still amazing considering what he was trying to pay his players. Until recently as in ten years and surprise surprise a new stadium deal and such in Arizona the Cards are actually a relevant team now.

 

[Rex]

I was in LA prior to the move to St Louie. Trust me, if ownership had supported the fans, they would have supported the franchise. But Madame Ram got greedy. Fan support was fine up until the last couple of years, when it became obvious that we were watching Major League being played out in football terms. (I know, the movie was a bit later, but still :229031_shrug: ) The fans didn't really stop caring until the team did. I know, the Lambs were my NFC team fave until they dumped us. Make no mistake, the team left, the fans didn't "drive them away." I know I was pretty pissed when Georgia Babe hoisted that Lombardy. And that was long before they became div rivals.

You can't really trust attendance numbers between eras. Back in the day there was no internet and rather limited TV options and Roselle hadn't really got his fan sucking ways up to speed yet.

I understand what you are saying and it is very familiar to what I remember when the Big Red left. The difference I believe being the 7 years hiatus from the NFL in St. Louis that had another stadium well in the works before the Rams arrived. Yet LA wouldn't support them enough to build a stadium then or now while St. Louis is in the process of building them yet another stadium.

Two different situations, us Seahawks fans know to well what a owner with their sites on making a spash in the green bank for greed can do, as Sutz stated, the fans did not stop loving the Rams, they simply hated Madame Bitch and her slamming the fan base, that and alieaniting them and trying to hold the L.A. politicians hostage. We have had a bit of experience in that situation.

Currently the economic environment sucks in California, why it's private financing that is tryng to get things done, you could not get a sand box built there with public money.

As far as the Crds go, Bidwells were neck and neck with Paul Brown for on the Cheap owners throughout their ownership history, why the support was not top teir but still amazing considering what he was trying to pay his players. Until recently as in ten years and surprise surprise a new stadium deal and such in Arizona the Cards are actually a relevant team now.

Had nothing to do with a new stadium in AZ as the NFL revenue sharing shows. Michael Bidwill is the difference as was Stormy decades before.

 

[Maulbert]

Live look in at an argument with Rex.

 

[rideaducati]

Live look in at an argument with Rex.

Give him a break, school is out for the summer. He'll be back in school soon.

 

[sutz]

I was in LA prior to the move to St Louie. Trust me, if ownership had supported the fans, they would have supported the franchise. But Madame Ram got greedy. Fan support was fine up until the last couple of years, when it became obvious that we were watching Major League being played out in football terms. (I know, the movie was a bit later, but still :229031_shrug: ) The fans didn't really stop caring until the team did. I know, the Lambs were my NFC team fave until they dumped us. Make no mistake, the team left, the fans didn't "drive them away." I know I was pretty pissed when Georgia Babe hoisted that Lombardy. And that was long before they became div rivals.

You can't really trust attendance numbers between eras. Back in the day there was no internet and rather limited TV options and Roselle hadn't really got his fan sucking ways up to speed yet.

I understand what you are saying and it is very familiar to what I remember when the Big Red left. The difference I believe being the 7 years hiatus from the NFL in St. Louis that had another stadium well in the works before the Rams arrived. Yet LA wouldn't support them enough to build a stadium then or now while St. Louis is in the process of building them yet another stadium.

Two different situations, us Seahawks fans know to well what a owner with their sites on making a spash in the green bank for greed can do, as Sutz stated, the fans did not stop loving the Rams, they simply hated Madame Bitch and her slamming the fan base, that and alieaniting them and trying to hold the L.A. politicians hostage. We have had a bit of experience in that situation.

Currently the economic environment sucks in California, why it's private financing that is tryng to get things done, you could not get a sand box built there with public money.

As far as the Crds go, Bidwells were neck and neck with Paul Brown for on the Cheap owners throughout their ownership history, why the support was not top teir but still amazing considering what he was trying to pay his players. Until recently as in ten years and surprise surprise a new stadium deal and such in Arizona the Cards are actually a relevant team now.

One big problem in LA. The population is big enough to support a franchise with a 65-70,000 seat stadium, and probably could sell it out with a quality team. However, the ratio of population to fan base is pretty high, and getting the non-fans to support public financing of a stadium in virtually impossible. And hint hint: the LA area is not as "liberal" as some might think. With that, a majority vote for public financing of a stadium is pretty hopeless.

 

[SuperMan28]

Pretty senseless to debate attendance, anyway. The big money comes from the TV contracts. NFL is such a great product right from the living room.

This whole stadium fiasco is all about perks. OAK and SD have nothing to offer. STL has a lot, actually. Hundreds of millions of public financing plus the G4 loan. Then land given to Stan around the stadium to develope however he likes. Pretty easy decision, really, and all three teams are happy with Carson factored in.

Stan has committed to nobody. It's all about creating options that compete with one another to maximize the potential of a great deal. Stan has done a masterful job, really.

Nothing is final, however. In the end STL will end up being a better deal for Stan. Put a strong product on the field and watch the fans pour in. STL Blues, Cards, and even the Rams (99-06'ish) have recorded excellent support.

So allow me to repeat, attendance is not the issue. It's shared revenue, anyhow.

 

[Ramfan128]

I don't understand why people get upset about stadiums being publically funded.

That's how it goes. Why would you pay for something when you can get someone else to pay for it? It's like gas when it was so expensive - if you owned a gas station YOU would make it that expensive too, so why bitch about it??

As for the Rams not being very good - irrelevant. As I've posted in other forums, there have only been 9 teams to win a superbowl since we won ours:

Ravens, Pats, Bucs, Steelers, Colts, Saints, Packers, Seahawks, Giants

So there are 22 other fan bases that have more of a right to be down about their team than we do. I live in Ohio, I'm a Rams fan no matter where they play, but this is the way it works: support your team, they stay. Don't and they go.

Its that simple, and the power rests with the football fans that live in St. Louis.