Let me ask you something. Something I've heard LA guys talk about, is Stan wants LA for prestige. Which I agree, the Franchise would be worth more in LA. But, how do you attain a nationwide fanbase if you keep alienating fan bases by moving the franchise back and forth? I know it happened before, but if the St. Louis stadium is sitting there, funded, waiting for Stan, don't you agree that it would be essentially shitting on St. Louis to move?
New: Latest on Kroenke, Rams and NFL in STL
- Thread starter STL-Rams
- Start date
-
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.
- Status
Let me ask you something. Something I've heard LA guys talk about, is Stan wants LA for prestige. Which I agree, the Franchise would be worth more in LA. But, how do you attain a nationwide fanbase if you keep alienating fan bases by moving the franchise back and forth? I know it happened before, but if the St. Louis stadium is sitting there, funded, waiting for Stan, don't you agree that it would be essentially shitting on St. Louis to move?
bluecoconuts
Legend
Short and blunt answer, you stick em in a global city, keep em there get a good team on the field and grow the brand. Reality is, it's easier and faster to do in LA. Is it shitting on St Louis? A little, yes, but does he care? Not if he's got what he wants in LA.
Are the Packers in global city?
Are the Cheaters in a global city?
Chargers?
Browns?
Saints?
What do the above teams have, that allow them to be recognizable to the casual fan? History and winning, in some cases the above franchises have both on their side. The Rams have history in LA, yes. But, the Super Bowl history is in STL. Obviously, I don't agree that sticking them in LA grows the brand. Winning and history grows the brand more than anything. You have the same problem with attendance in LA as you do in STL if you don't win. Only the die-hards show up, while winning is what draws in the bandwagon (casual) fans.
Edit for clarification: When I say history, I mean tradition. And while there will be echoes of tradition between the moves. It's hard to build on that while the team is moving.
I think it could definitely be perceived as that. The stadium being (1/2 funded) will make some people rise a brow. If it's built without Stan's money then I'd have to agree 100%.
Others might feel the Rams were trying to stay but those in charge dropped the ball after GF died. Others might feel the team should have never left LA in the first place and still feel bad for LA fan.
Really on a national scale, Rams fans everywhere already support and I don't see that changing anywhere outside of StL. All that said though, jilting you guys is no better than what happened to us and I believe the compassion in humans will feel badly for the great fans in St Louis,,,, if the team really does cut out..
In all fairness Chris - I just don't think that is a fair question to ask someone who wants the Rams back in LA. I could easily see how a St Louis fan would see it that way and I'm not even suggesting you are wrong to feel that way. I know a fair number of Rams fans that have followed them the whole time they have been in St Louis and they are absolutely geeked up at the thought of them moving back. If you ask most of them, it is a sad deal for the fans in your area but doesn't even come into their thinking that much compared to the possibility of getting the Rams back.
I don't live anywhere near either market so I just want this thing over. But if I am to think about your question, I have to think about one of the most quoted statements in stadiums around the country. Beat LA!!! I also look at what Magic's group has been able to do with the Dodgers in creating not only a revitalized fan base in LA but a real international following that really only happens in a huge international metropolis like LA, NY, and maybe Chicago.
I can't answer if the Rams will lose all their fans in St Louis if they move. They didn't when they moved from LA in the first place so maybe many fans still begrudgingly follow them. And then they pick up a great many in LA.
Another question is if the NFL or major networks will EVER give St Louis even close to the audience they give a team from LA. Is it always going to take something spectacular like the GSOT to get them to take notice of St Louis? Do these networks treat a team from LA like they do a couple other big market teams and play them in Oregon like we NEVER see unless they are on MNF or TNF or playing the shitchickens? Is the Whiner/Rams game a nationally televised game again? With the NFL games being televised in the local market and the blackout rule being lifted, how many new fans do you reach just from LA households alone? Do you convert those fans from mere football fans or casual fans of other teams to Rams fans?
How they attain or build a nationwide fan base is a pretty loaded question.
bluecoconuts
Legend
Funny, I was going to mention the Packers. They are the exception to the rule. A large reason for their national recognition is due to their history. They have a large local draw of course, they're the only show in town. Across the nation they have a following due to a deep and rich history.
As for the Patriots and Chargers, are San Diego and Boston global cities? Yes they are. Although the Chargers aren't really a national team. Same with the Browns, they're not a national brand. Patriots also have a large bandwagon following, but Boston is most certainly a global city. While I know they don't physically play in Boston, its essentially Boston's team. They also included the entire region. New Orleans is on the cuff as well.
Even still, that doesn't mean the Rams can't become a national brand in St Louis, its just easier and quicker to do in LA. Of course winning speeds things up, but so does playing in a large market. Also LA fans show up just fine, I mean shit the Lakers were the fourth worst team in the NBA last year, AND there was another LA team that was the 4th best, and they still averaged 98% attendance.
I think it's important to note how much LA is allowed to spend on the Dodgers because of not having a salary cap in the MLB. The top two players on the Dodgers earn more than the entirety of the Rockies roster. Spending that much money on your team will certainly help, and isn't possible in the NFL.
bluecoconuts
Legend
Kings and Lakers as well, especially the Kings. I saw tons of LA Kings hats and shirts in Europe, I was actually taken back a bit. There were a few reasons that added to this (including AEG owning a German hockey team, and Kopitar being the only Slovenian NHLer, so essentially that entire county is covered in Kings gear), but they're both national brands, and not just because they can spend more than anyone else.
I want to focus on the bolded part, because the region is a big draw for St. Louis. If you look at this picture:
It's not hard to see that it's the Cardinals radio network, but shows what tradition and winning ccould create in the St. Louis area. Look at how big of a region the city draws for the Cardinals. It's there for the Rams to take, all they have to do is settle down and claim it by being loyal to the area and creating the tradition.
I actually don't think that has much to do with fans coming out to see games or tuning in from other countries.
It's unfair to include the Lakers in this conversation. They are one of the most storied franchises in NBA history, and it's not because of LA. Their tradition is unreal. But since you included them, I'll go down the road of even with how much tradition they have, they are having down years and it shows in their attendance.
How long ago were you in Europe? I only ask for the sake of the Kings. If it was within the last year or two, they would be one of the hottest NHL franchises in terms of cups in recent years. Other than my Blackhawks.
I don't think anyone is arguing that the Rams could not build a pretty good following in the St Louis and surrounding markets. But to compare that with the LA metro area, Las Vegas, Santa Barbara, Bakersfield and how solidly they associate with Southern Cal and in particularly LA... just not sure it is a good comparison. It sure looks like the map you show would mostly be comprised of other teams - unlike most of the Southwest corner of the US.I want to focus on the bolded part, because the region is a big draw for St. Louis. If you look at this picture:
It's not hard to see that it's the Cardinals radio network, but shows what tradition and winning ccould create in the St. Louis area. Look at how big of a region the city draws for the Cardinals. It's there for the Rams to take, all they have to do is settle down and claim it by being loyal to the area and creating the tradition.
But winning isn't what has put them there. Being in LA has. Plenty of small market teams have won far more than the Dodgers over the past 20 years and yet - there they are.
That's fair. But if you would compare the Dodgers and the Cardinals, you have a pretty close comparison of attendance numbers regardless of the size of the markets. And that's the point I'm trying to make with regards to tradition and winning.
Sure, I'm not arguing that there's more population between the two. I'm just trying to show that the Rams could draw from the St. Louis region if they hadn't thrown the last 10 years down the toilet in regards to game day records.
And you don't fill the stadium with die hard fans. You fill with bandwagon fans while you're winning. And that rings true regardless of the market.
Chris, the Rams, Dodgers and Lakers were / are all considered on equal footing here in LA. (Well not so much the Rams until they call here home again (if).) All storied franchises.
Lakers with all their championships, Dodgers from #42 on. Rams, 1st logo, 100k+ attendance records. The Rams were LA's identity many years back. LA's first big team. Many considered them the #1 local team.
2nd tier for many are the Clip's and Angels.
It never get's cold enough to get icy here, still LA is home to 2 of the most recent Stanley Cups. I still can's see hockey as a primary sport in LA although I'm sure there are a great many who will disagree with me on that.
Lakers with all their championships, Dodgers from #42 on. Rams, 1st logo, 100k+ attendance records. The Rams were LA's identity many years back. LA's first big team. Many considered them the #1 local team.
2nd tier for many are the Clip's and Angels.
It never get's cold enough to get icy here, still LA is home to 2 of the most recent Stanley Cups. I still can's see hockey as a primary sport in LA although I'm sure there are a great many who will disagree with me on that.
I never questioned their history in LA. I was just asking how recently he was in Europe because I could see the Kings being a big name in hockey with their cups in recent years.
- Status