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

http://www.stltoday.com/sports/columns/ ... 20df8.html


I was tinkering around with attendance figures the other day, and came up with a couple of notes:

1. In 2014, the Rams' 11th consecutive non-winning season, St. Louis had a larger average attendance for home games than the 1984 LA Rams team that won 10 games and went to the playoffs with future Hall of Famer Eric Dickerson setting a single-season NFL rushing record with 2,105 yards.

The 2014 Rams averaged 57,018 per home game.

The 1984 Rams averaged 54,455 per home game.

2. Between 1983 and 1989, seven seasons, the LA Rams made the playoffs six times and had the NFL's sixth-best winning percentage at .604. They were also No. 5 in points scored over the seven-year span. I think we'd all agree that this was a successful and entertaining stretch for the football fans of Los Angeles.

OK, now let's compare the average home attendance of the Rams' six playoff teams in LA to the 57,018 average at The Edward Jones Dome in 2014:

1983, LA: 52,780 ... less than the '14 Rams.

1984, LA: 54,455 ... less than the '14 Rams.

1985, LA: 56,242 ... less than the '14 Rams.

1986, LA: 59,285 ... 2,451 more per game than '14 Rams

1988, LA: 54,469 ... less than the '14 Rams

1989, LA: 58,846 ... 1,828 more per game than '14 Rams.

3. OK, this is even better. And funnier: Let's compare the Rams' home attendance in Los Angeles during the run of six playoff teams in seven seasons to the home attendance of the worst team in NFL history over five consecutive seasons.

Not that you need to be reminded, but between 2007 and 2011, the St. Louis Rams played 80 regular-season games and lost 65 times. That hideous 15-65 record is in fact the worst five-year mark in NFL history. There has never been an NFL team as hopeless and pathetic as the 2007-2011 Rams — not over a five-season stretch, anyway.

On the left-coast side, those six LA Rams teams that made the playoffs went 61-35. Between 1983 and 1989, the Rams competed in 10 NFL postseason games, winning four.

During that seven-season stretch only San Francisco (14) and Denver (11) competed in more postseason games than the LA Rams. And though the Rams went 4-6 in those games, only five NFL teams won more postseason games over that time.

Between '83 and '86 Dickerson averaged 1,742 yards rushing per season. Between 1986 and '89, QB Jim Everett ranked sixth among NFL quarterbacks in passer rating, and only nine league quarterbacks threw more TD passes.

That LA offense also had the wonderful Henry Ellard, who was not only a top 10 NFL wide receiver, but a dynamic punt returner as well. Those Rams teams had two Hall of Famers, OT Jackie Slater and Dickerson. They had a future Hall of Famer in pass rusher Kevin Greene (and yes he will make it to Canton.) Between 1983 and '89, the Rams had the league's No. 6-ranked defense.

Those LA Rams didn't win a Super Bowl or make it to one, but they did play in two NFC Championship games. They just had the misfortune of having to go against that 49ers dynasty, and also the '85 Bears who may have had the best defense in NFL history for a single season.

But during that time of franchise history, the Rams gave their SoCal fans six playoff teams in seven years, a .604 winning percentage, one of the greatest-ever running backs, and excellence on both sides of the ball.

And between 2007 and 2011, the Rams gave St. Louis fans 65 losses in 80 games. A team that was outscored by 922 points in those 80 contests.

OK, so let's close this out:

Over seven seasons those terrific LA Rams averaged 56,012 per game at home.

And the St. Louis Rams, who were the worst team in NFL history over five seasons? Well, they averaged 57,765 per home game.

That's right.

The team with the poorest five-season stretch in NFL history that plays in a mid-sized market drew more fans at home than the nation's No. 2 market at a time when the LA Rams were winning 60.4 percent of their games and going to the NFL playoffs six times in seven seasons.

This is true.

But just remember the lazy national-media narrative, and repeat it many times. And you too can get paid to be an NFL pundit:

St. Louis is a baseball town.

St. Louis doesn't support the Rams.

There you go. Keep practicing that.

You'll be on TV as an "insider" in no time.

Thanks for reading ...

— Bernie

Very well done Rex. A lot of info I didn't know and much I had forgot.

Yes it was long but if you have followed the NFL through that era it had some pretty good memory jerkers to go along with some interesting facts.

Nicely done. Though I still hope they move to LA just so we can get that putrid 10am start off our schedule.

RichNhansom":qhfdw1ez said:

Very well done Rex. A lot of info I didn't know and much I had forgot.

Yes it was long but if you have followed the NFL through that era it had some pretty good memory jerkers to go along with some interesting facts.

Nicely done. Though I still hope they move to LA just so we can get that putrid 10am start off our schedule.

Click to expand...

Thanks though all I did is post a part of Miklascz column. I hate that 10 am start too but I love those 1 pm PT starts. Would be great if the Rams home start against the Seahawks started at 3 pm CT or later and if the Seahawks home start was 1 pm PT or later. Selfishly speaking of course! :thirishdrinkers:

Who cares? If you don't build them a stadium they're gone, it doesn't matter.

Money talks.

Stadiums built for Rams:

St. Louis .....1
LA................None, ever.

Correct me if I'm wrong Rex, but wasn't attendance smaller because they were playing out of a baseball stadium in Anaheim during the years you cite?

I seem to recall huge crowds for the Rams (100,000+) when they played out of the L.A. Coliseum.

hawknation2015":1n6d2jii said:

Correct me if I'm wrong Rex, but wasn't attendance smaller because they were playing out of a baseball stadium in Anaheim during the years you cite?

Click to expand...

No sir that is incorrect. For the years cited the capacity of Anaheim Stadium for football was 69,008.

The Rams average attendance for the last 3 years ('77-'79) at the Coliseum was 53,000.

Good stuff, Rex. I don't know if it diminishes your point, but comparing numbers across eras like that opens up so many debatable points. Here are a few that I think are relevant:

• "...about 20 years ago, the move to count tickets sold, as opposed to turnstile clicks, became what is reported in the boxscores." So comparing attendance in the '80s with attendance in 2014 is apples to oranges according to this 2011 Forbes article titled "How Sports Attendance Figures Speak Lies."

• How did the attendance compare to the rest of the league in their respective eras?

• Those 2014 STL attendance numbers ranked 31 out of 32 teams.

• The L.A. attendance rank average for the 6 years you listed was 14 out of 28.

• L.A. had 2 football teams at that time. The Rams were competing for fans with the Raiders, who won the Super Bowl in 1983, then went 11-5 and 12-4 the next 2 seasons, had Marcus Allen, and added big draw Bo Jackson in 1987.

• STL had a football team for most of that time. Their closest competition was the Chicago Bears.

The football Cardinal's attendance averages during that timeframe:

1983 - 39,174 (last game of the season had 45% of the first game) 13,606 fewer than L.A.
1984 - 46,519 (last game of the season had 140% of the first game) 9,723 fewer than L.A.
1985 - 40,669 (last game of the season had 60% of the first game) 15,573 fewer than L.A.
1986 - 35,548 (last game of the season had 59% of the first game) 23,737 fewer than L.A.

And the Cards' last year in STL compared to the LA Rams:
1987 - 27,821 (last game of the season had 63% of the first game.)
1987 - LA Rams: 47,356 (last game of the season had 96% of the first game. The Rams were 6-7 going into that last home game.)

In that strike-affected season, LA averaged 19,535 more fans per game.
__________

I think your numbers point to today's STL football fans being more loyal than they were in the '80s. But they also show the '80s LA fans being consistently and significantly more loyal than '80s STL fans.

Anyway, I feel for you St. Louis folks. Seattle sports fans know all about the helpless feeling of being pushed around by a money-grubbing pro sports empire. Take your arguments to whomever can get you a new stadium. That's your only hope.

HawkAroundTheClock":3nnc56vk said:

• Those 2014 STL attendance numbers ranked 31 out of 32 teams.

• The L.A. attendance rank average for the 6 years you listed was 14 out of 28.

• L.A. had 2 football teams at that time. The Rams were competing for fans with the Raiders, who won the Super Bowl in 1983, then went 11-5 and 12-4 the next 2 seasons, had Marcus Allen, and added big draw Bo Jackson in 1987.

Click to expand...

Good work. :th2thumbs:

HawkAroundTheClock":jqyqyc7c said:

Good stuff, Rex. I don't know if it diminishes your point, but comparing numbers across eras like that opens up so many debatable points. Here are a few that I think are relevant:

• "...about 20 years ago, the move to count tickets sold, as opposed to turnstile clicks, became what is reported in the boxscores." So comparing attendance in the '80s with attendance in 2014 is apples to oranges according to this 2011 Forbes article titled "How Sports Attendance Figures Speak Lies."

• How did the attendance compare to the rest of the league in their respective eras?

• Those 2014 STL attendance numbers ranked 31 out of 32 teams.

• The L.A. attendance rank average for the 6 years you listed was 14 out of 28.

• L.A. had 2 football teams at that time. The Rams were competing for fans with the Raiders, who won the Super Bowl in 1983, then went 11-5 and 12-4 the next 2 seasons, had Marcus Allen, and added big draw Bo Jackson in 1987.

• STL had a football team for most of that time. Their closest competition was the Chicago Bears.

The football Cardinal's attendance averages during that timeframe:

1983 - 39,174 (last game of the season had 45% of the first game) 13,606 fewer than L.A.
1984 - 46,519 (last game of the season had 140% of the first game) 9,723 fewer than L.A.
1985 - 40,669 (last game of the season had 60% of the first game) 15,573 fewer than L.A.
1986 - 35,548 (last game of the season had 59% of the first game) 23,737 fewer than L.A.

And the Cards' last year in STL compared to the LA Rams:
1987 - 27,821 (last game of the season had 63% of the first game.)
1987 - LA Rams: 47,356 (last game of the season had 96% of the first game. The Rams were 6-7 going into that last home game.)

In that strike-affected season, LA averaged 19,535 more fans per game.
__________

I think your numbers point to today's STL football fans being more loyal than they were in the '80s. But they also show the '80s LA fans being consistently and significantly more loyal than '80s STL fans.

Anyway, I feel for you St. Louis folks. Seattle sports fans know all about the helpless feeling of being pushed around by a money-grubbing pro sports empire. Take your arguments to whomever can get you a new stadium. That's your only hope.

Click to expand...

Rex is always on the lookout to twist a good fact when it suits him.

Been following this closely for months. I think it comes down to a few key factors.

1) The owners votes: Makes no sense to move a 4th team to CA when 2 out of the three are struggling.

2) STL public financing: This looks like it will be a go once it the judge rules in their favor. I would be surprised if it didn't.

3) OAK/SD mess resolved with Carson: Stadium talks within these cities are all but dead, lots of dysfunction. Carson is the icing on the cake to all three teams.

I don't believe Stan has the votes over Spanos and Carson.

Certainly not over, but I feel good as a STL fan.

The divisions will be realligned if Carson is a go. A scenario that has come up is the Rams move to the AFCW and the Raiders or Chargers move to the NFCW. That would eliminate an early game for you guys, too.

I do believe STL controls their own destiny.

Still up in the air.

I wonder how those numbers compare to the last team that left St. Louis. I would also like to see the attendance figures for the "greatest show on turf" teams compared to today's worst team of the last century Rams. I think when you compare those numbers, you'll see why this team wants to leave too.

History also shows that St. Louis offers a hundredth as many things to do for fun as Los Angeles and features a drastically higher percentage of people living there that are from the area and therefore more likely to be fans of that particular region's team.

Just sayin'. Plus, that doesn't factor in the huge rise in popularity the NFL has enjoyed in the past 15 years compared to when the Rams were in L.A.

I bet they can make more money off 50,000 fans in LA than they can off of 60.000 in STL.

Besides, STL does not offer Kroenke the chance to do all the real estate around a new stadium like LA does.

HawkAroundTheClock":1tgjk2se said:

Good stuff, Rex. I don't know if it diminishes your point, but comparing numbers across eras like that opens up so many debatable points. Here are a few that I think are relevant:

• "...about 20 years ago, the move to count tickets sold, as opposed to turnstile clicks, became what is reported in the boxscores." So comparing attendance in the '80s with attendance in 2014 is apples to oranges according to this 2011 Forbes article titled "How Sports Attendance Figures Speak Lies."

• How did the attendance compare to the rest of the league in their respective eras?

• Those 2014 STL attendance numbers ranked 31 out of 32 teams.

• The L.A. attendance rank average for the 6 years you listed was 14 out of 28.

• L.A. had 2 football teams at that time. The Rams were competing for fans with the Raiders, who won the Super Bowl in 1983, then went 11-5 and 12-4 the next 2 seasons, had Marcus Allen, and added big draw Bo Jackson in 1987.

• STL had a football team for most of that time. Their closest competition was the Chicago Bears.

The football Cardinal's attendance averages during that timeframe:

1983 - 39,174 (last game of the season had 45% of the first game) 13,606 fewer than L.A.
1984 - 46,519 (last game of the season had 140% of the first game) 9,723 fewer than L.A.
1985 - 40,669 (last game of the season had 60% of the first game) 15,573 fewer than L.A.
1986 - 35,548 (last game of the season had 59% of the first game) 23,737 fewer than L.A.

And the Cards' last year in STL compared to the LA Rams:
1987 - 27,821 (last game of the season had 63% of the first game.)
1987 - LA Rams: 47,356 (last game of the season had 96% of the first game. The Rams were 6-7 going into that last home game.)

In that strike-affected season, LA averaged 19,535 more fans per game.
__________

I think your numbers point to today's STL football fans being more loyal than they were in the '80s. But they also show the '80s LA fans being consistently and significantly more loyal than '80s STL fans.

Anyway, I feel for you St. Louis folks. Seattle sports fans know all about the helpless feeling of being pushed around by a money-grubbing pro sports empire. Take your arguments to whomever can get you a new stadium. That's your only hope.

Click to expand...

OK I'll address your points in the order given:

I do agree that numbers across eras open up avenues of discussion.

Regarding turnstile clicks as a St. Louis Big Red fan I remember it well. The Big Red routinely sold out games nearly to the bitter end. Trust me I mean bitter. Busch II was an open air stadium and when november and december roll around with the guaranteed crappy weather fans treated to yet another losing season chose to stay home. Yet all the tickets were sold.

No doubt the Big Red attendance toward the end and during the 6 years the column mentioned suffered from abysmal play, crappy weather and for the last season a team owner blaming the fans for his lack of success rather than rampant nepotism in his front office. He moved for a new stadium that he didn't get for another 20 years while broiling fans in Sun Devil stadium watching .....surprise.....losing football. Only when he turned over operation to his son Michael did that franchise enter the modern era.

Yes LA had two football teams during that time. Yet even then with half the population of LA being many times that of St. Louis....and for a Rams team that had been there for over 40 years....in a fair weather climate....and a winning team at that.....St. Louis still outdraws LA. The difference for the St. Louis Rams being the dome.

Kansas City is closer than Chicago but neither effects attendance in St. Louis. The midwest is quite large.

Your points about last game attendance for the Big Red I already addressed. When the owner announces he's moving the team AFTER selling tickets while blaming fans which supported his loser franchise, that attendance is remarkable.

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.

Yes I am pissed that yet another publicly financed stadium is being demanded by a billionaire who wants to build another stadium elsewhere on his dime. I also question the open air stadium plan for St. Louis. I also question public financing for a region hit hard by this depression. At least the Cardinals remain a bright spot.

Oh and thanks. I appreciate the dialogue.

rideaducati":1qnfu60d said:

I wonder how those numbers compare to the last team that left St. Louis. I would also like to see the attendance figures for the "greatest show on turf" teams compared to today's worst team of the last century Rams. I think when you compare those numbers, you'll see why this team wants to leave too.

Click to expand...

Definitely a drop in attendance since the GSOT teams were sold out, but the sell outs continued for many years. The dome seats 66,000 for football.

There is a financial incentive for moving the team to L.A. That's a massive media market. The Clippers sold for $2 billion last year. Imagine how much an NFL team would increase in value if they moved to L.A.

hawknation2015":1flna0j4 said:

There is a financial incentive for moving the team to L.A. That's a massive media market. The Clippers sold for $2 billion last year. Imagine how much an NFL team would increase in value if they moved to L.A.

Click to expand...

That is true but Kroenke was the local investor Georgia needed to move the Rams to St. Louis. Kroenke now wants to reap the windfall by merely moving the team back to LA making a mockery of the rules set by the owners. That will not be lost on all the owners.

Rams gotta move back to LA just to make things whole.

Raiders need a new stadium and to stay in Oakland.

Cardinals shall stay in Arizona because they've done way more since 1988 than they've done the million years prior.

Seahawks need to stay in NFC for reasons similar to Arizona.

Chargers need to stay in San Diego and figure out a stadium solution.

Jaguars could stay or go in Jacksonville. I would be against them filling a void in St. Louis.....they would need to stay in AFC South somehow. Probably best to stay.

Rex":2stt1lgr said:

Yes the Rams had two football teams during that time. Yet even then with half the population of LA being many times that of St. Louis....and for a Rams team that had been there for over 40 years....in a fair weather climate....and a winning team at that.....St. Louis still outdraws LA. The difference for the St. Louis Rams being the dome.

Click to expand...

The 2014 Rams in STL outdrew the 1980s Rams of LA. When 3 decades separate data points, that's irrelevant. And the other things, like a larger population and awesome weather are reasons for the NFL to want to move the Rams there.

LA's average for the 6 years given was 56,013. That was middle of the pack for the NFL 30 years ago.
STL's 2014 season average was 57,018. Dead last for NFL teams playing in an NFL stadium (the Vikings played at TCF Bank Stadium, capacity 52,525.)

What about the current NFL? Today's middle-of-the-pack number is about 68,500. Even if the League bets on average attendance in LA, that's more than 10,000 people per game and more than 80,000 tickets sold per season.

Of course, as you've pointed out, EJD cannot even hold league average. As it is, the other cellar-dwelling teams sell more tickets than the STL Rams. For 2014:

STL (6-10): 57,018
Racists (4-12): 77,964
Titans (2-14): 69,143
Jaguars (3-13): 65,541
Buccaneers (2-14): 59,659
Raiders (3-13): 57,416

Compared to the rest of the NFL, STL does not support its football team. Personally, I'm not going to scoff at 56k people going to see a historically awful team. That's a lot of fans showing support. I applaud the die-hards. But the League doesn't care how bad the team is. To put a twist on Al Davis' catch phrase: just dollars, baby.

I appreciate the dialogue too. I'm certainly not out to bash you or any of the team's supporters. And I know full well that Bill Bidwill was the antichrist. No argument there. And I agree that given the population, LA has no excuse not to put up good to great attendance figures. That's what the NFL is counting on. There's more capital, exposure, real estate, advertisers, etc., in one-quarter of LA then there will ever be in STL. That's why the League is banking on the LA area being able to support a football team in addition to the existing 2 baseball, 2 basketball, 2 hockey teams, as well as MLS, WNBA, Arena League Football, in addition to college athletics like USC and UCLA. It's unavoidable; LA is a monster.

I was familiar with Miklasz back in the early 90s when I was my high school paper's sports editor. I'm glad he's still doing his thing. But in this case, he's grasping at straws. Comparing cherry-picked numbers like this makes for fun writing and interesting conversation, but it's not reality. We can't pretend Kroenke wants to take the current Rams to 1980's LA.

BTW, who was the disheveled, cantankerous newspaper guy there? I think he and Bernie did a show for a bit called "Donnybrook"? Mc... something? I could be confused. It's been a while.

Rex":2stt1lgr said:

Kansas City is closer than Chicago but neither effects attendance in St. Louis. The midwest is quite large.

Click to expand...

Right, right, right. My bad. In my 12 years in STL I visited Chicago probably 6 times. KC, zero. Even though I ended up living in KC for nearly 2 years later on, I still forget it exists most of the time.

Rex":2stt1lgr said:

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.

Click to expand...

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.

Rex":2stt1lgr said:

Yes I am pissed that yet another publicly financed stadium is being demanded by a billionaire who wants to build another stadium elsewhere on his dime. I also question the open air stadium plan for St. Louis. I also question public financing for a region hit hard by this depression. At least the Cardinals remain a bright spot.

Click to expand...

Totally agree on all these points. Go Cards (baseball).