'GDogg said:
'TheFanatic said:
'GDogg said:
'TheFanatic said:
'GDogg said:
'TheFanatic said:
'Ghost Rider said:
I don't want to get into an LA vs. St. Louis thing, but LA is the 2nd most populated city in the country, while St. Louis isn't even close to the top 10, plus LA has tons of celebrities that like going to games just to be seen and get their faces on television, so it is really fair to compare the two cities when it comes to sports fans? I'll say no. Sure, the Lakers pack the Staples Center, but let them suck for a few years, and I am sure Jack Nicholson and plenty of other "fans" would suddenly stop going to games; you can almost set your watch to it. I mean, football is the biggest sport in the country, and yet LA doesn't even have one freaking team! What does that tell you?
The people that come to the games here week in and week out, no matter if the product sucks, aren't celebrities. They aren't doing it to be seen. They do it because they love the game and support their teams. Sure the Arizona Cardinals bolted on us because we wouldn't pay for them to have a new stadium and then waited what, 15 years for one in their new city. Nicely done. LA has a lot more people, plain and simple.
St. Louis has a lot higher percentage of hardcore fans. Quality vs. quantity. But in this day and age, quantity and ratings is all that matters. Good by Rams. You'll be missed.
Based on? The Rams were 31st in average attendance last year and 27th in percentage attendance. In 2010, they were 30th in percentage attendance and 30th in average attendance. In 2009, they were 29th in both categories. In 2008, they were 30th in average attendance and 29th in percentage attendance.
It looks to me like St. Louis fans are amongst the worst at supporting their NFL team compared to the other NFL cities.
Not sure how this is possible. The Rams games have been blacked out only a couple times in the last 5 years that I can remember and the blackout rules require a shutout. The stadium holds more than 60K. That's small these days compared to something like the Dallas stadium, but it's max capacity is right around 70K.
The Rams bought the tickets themselves to avoid blackouts.
That happened all the time. They reported it on the news, but it was always under 10,000 seats. Usually something like 4K or something like that. They weren't buying 30K a game or anything. The game I went to against the packers was pretty packed. Then again, the packers travel well, and St. Louis is a cheap place to see your team on the road and almost guaranteed a win...
In any case, St. Louis has ranked among the bottom three to four teams in attendance and percentage attendance for the last four seasons. I'm not seeing anything that supports the contention that St. Louis has a higher percentage of hardcore, quality fans than Los Angeles. If anything, it looks like they don't support their team at all compared to other NFL cities.
LA has lost two teams so the argument that St. Louis doesn't support teams is comical. They filled the stadium when the Arizona Cardinals were here, but a greedy owner took his ball and went home because he didn't get a stadium built with tax payer money despite being a billionaire.And let's talk about higher concentration of hardcore fans. How many people live in the City of LA (not the suburbs, just the city)? 3.7 million.
Same question for St. Louis? 319K
Link
I stand by my original assertion. LA is a lot of things. Movie capital of the world. Home of thousands of stars. Playground of the rich. On the coast, not far from Vegas. Not far from wine country. Not far from the mountains. Lots and lots of things.
St. Louis is a sports town and one of the best in the country.
There is no denying that.
Really? Then, why have they been teetering on dead last in attendance the past four years? And, no, they didn't fill the stadium when the Cardinals were there. In the last season, the Cardinals averaged a pathetic 28,000 fans per game. They had a crowd of 11,795 fans for a game in 1987. And, it wasn't just that season. They consistently were among the worst in attendance from 1960 through 1987 (according to some blog, but I can't verify this).What does L.A. losing two teams have to do with the fact that St. Louis doesn't support the Rams? I honestly fail to see the relevance. They aren't related in the least.
I'll indulge you, though. I'm sure you're aware that it is much more difficult to support two NFL teams than one. L.A. was supporting the Raiders and the Rams. Still, the Rams averaged 55,880 fans throughout their history in Southern California. The NFL average was 50,379. L.A. didn't lose the Rams because of the fans. They lost the Rams because Georgia Frontiere was murderous ##### and the City of St. Louis bent over for her.
Los Angeles didn't just support two football teams, though. They also support two MLB teams. The Dodgers are among the league leaders in attendance every year, drawing more than 3 million fans pretty much every season. And, that's despite the fact that they haven't won, or even been in, a World Series since 1988. The Angels are now drawing more than 3 million fans per year and drew more than 2 million fans per year prior to their World Series title in 2002.
The Lakers always filled the Forum and now Staples Center. The Clippers haven't, but they were among the league leaders this year. And, despite being an utterly pathetic franchise, they've drawn over the league average in every season. Heck, they draw so well that the NBA is considering moving a third franchise to the area.
L.A. also supports two hockey teams and two MLS teams.
In addition, L.A. supports (and did support while the Rams were here) two major college football programs in UCLA and Southern Cal.
St. Louis fans are great baseball and hockey fans and support the teams in those sports very well. They are simply not very good football fans in comparison to the rest of the NFL cities. There is no denying that.