ESPN: New stadium initiative for San Diego State passes on election day

  • To unlock all of features of Rams On Demand please take a brief moment to register. Registering is not only quick and easy, it also allows you access to additional features such as live chat, private messaging, and a host of other apps exclusive to Rams On Demand.
bubbaramfan said:
SD voters give Spanos a slap in the face. Their voter approval of a stadium for the college after turning down stadium proposals for Spanos and the Charges multiple times proves San Diegans are not "anti-football", just "anti-Spanos".
Click to expand...

The voters aren't paying for it, the college is so it's not the same thing.
 
LesBaker said:
How many are Rams fans............didn't we have this discussion about the Packers having home field advantage already?
Click to expand...

Every team has some fans of rival teams at their games. But yes, the majority of the fans coming to Rams games are there to see the Rams. And the percentage will just keep increasing. And when they have a stadium in a neighborhood that fans feel comfortable in going to, and with seats that have good views, the percentage will explode.
 
Akrasian said:
Every team has some fans of rival teams at their games. But yes, the majority of the fans coming to Rams games are there to see the Rams. And the percentage will just keep increasing. And when they have a stadium in a neighborhood that fans feel comfortable in going to, and with seats that have good views, the percentage will explode.
Click to expand...

Well as I have said I disagree..........and the Packers game was 60/40 in favor of GB according to eyeballs from posters here. It looked about 50/50 from the TV shots and sound.

The new stadium is going to be a draw for visiting fans too.
 
  • Like
Reactions: nighttrain
LesBaker said:
Well as I have said I disagree..........and the Packers game was 60/40 in favor of GB according to eyeballs from posters here. It looked about 50/50 from the TV shots and sound.

The new stadium is going to be a draw for visiting fans too.
Click to expand...
Idk I seen posters that were at the game that say it was 60-40 Rams and some 50-50.
 
  • Like
Reactions: nighttrain
Corbin said:
Idk I seen posters that were at the game that say it was 60-40 Rams and some 50-50.
Click to expand...

And of course the Packers are known for filling opposing stadiums anyway. If there were still 30,000-40,000 Rams fans in that game, it's highly likely that in the other games the percentage of Rams fans was higher.
 
  • Like
Reactions: nighttrain and Corbin
Akrasian said:
And of course the Packers are known for filling opposing stadiums anyway. If there were still 30,000-40,000 Rams fans in that game, it's highly likely that in the other games the percentage of Rams fans was higher.
Click to expand...
Yeah obviously they were higher! Lol it’s funny how a known fan base that travels well comes and it’s the dumb, bum narrative that no one shows up etc etc. Hell Bears, Pack showed up in the Lou in droves I remember and I heard the same shit “ it’s embarrassing there is so much noise when the offense is on the field!”.

When I went to first regular season game back in LA their were a surprising amount of Seashit fans but they didn’t matter much in retrospect. Our %’s over the months and years will increase especially with a potential championship.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Akrasian
LesBaker said:
The voters aren't paying for it, the college is so it's not the same thing.
Click to expand...

Not sure where you’re getting your info. It doesn’t make any sense that they would put it on the ballot if tax dollars are not being used. Got anything that explains this? My guess is that the school is not paying for it, thus the ballot measure.
 
  • Like
Reactions: nighttrain
RamFan503 said:
Not sure where you’re getting your info. It doesn’t make any sense that they would put it on the ballot if tax dollars are not being used. Got anything that explains this? My guess is that the school is not paying for it, thus the ballot measure.
Click to expand...

That's what it said in the article and even the part mentioning the school paying is in bold
 
LesBaker said:
Well as I have said I disagree..........and the Packers game was 60/40 in favor of GB according to eyeballs from posters here.
Click to expand...

Which eyeballs were those, again? The worst estimates I saw were 50/50, with lots of people noting the Rams' crowd as louder.
 
  • Like
Reactions: nighttrain
Akrasian said:
And of course the Packers are known for filling opposing stadiums anyway. If there were still 30,000-40,000 Rams fans in that game, it's highly likely that in the other games the percentage of Rams fans was higher.
Click to expand...
I was at the game yesterday and apparently, the reason the Packers travel so well is they have a network of fans in opposing cities that provides contacts for families that allow out of town packers fans to stay at their house for free! What? I know! This is what a Packers fan told another fellow Rams fan who I was on the Metro with and he shard that info with me. They do that so it's just air fare the travel fans have to worry about. Like a student exchange program for cheeseheads!

THANK YOU RAMS FANS FOR SHOWING UP AGAINST SEACHICKENS! Loud and proud and it felt like a home game. There were still a lot of Seachickens fans, but maybe 20% instead of 50% IMHO.
 
  • Like
Reactions: nighttrain
RamFan503 said:
Not sure where you’re getting your info. It doesn’t make any sense that they would put it on the ballot if tax dollars are not being used. Got anything that explains this? My guess is that the school is not paying for it, thus the ballot measure.
Click to expand...
The reason it was in the ballot is the school has to buy the land from the city
 
  • Like
Reactions: RamFan503
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top Bottom
Back