New: Perception Vs Reality Re: St. Louis & Oakland NFL Fans

[STL-Rams]

I'd like to know how many tickets were purchased so the game wouldn't be blacked out localy. those seats are counted, which skews the actual attendance upward.

That hasn't been needed that often in the past outside of the 15-65 years, especially of late when tickets sold to avoid blackout were reduced by the league.

 

[FrantikRam]

I don't think attendance numbers are relevant to the fan bases - it's a fact that most teams are closer to St. Louis than Oakland - so it stands to reason STL would get a lot more visiting fans - and I'd be willing to bet the attendance numbers would tell a different story if it didn't include opposing fans.

The two games I went to recently were close to 50/50 - I'd go to more but Ohio is a bit far.

The STL fans get a bad rep for so many opposing fans being present at the stadium, the environment at the games (often commented on by announcers), and for me personally, the comment that a local in a store had "not seen a Rams fan in a minute" when I walked into his store dressed in Rams gear....this was less than 10 minutes away from the stadium.

Also, while the records might be the same, the Rams are one of only 11 teams to win the superbowl since the Rams moved to St. Louis.

That's 21 fanbases with a longer championship draught than the Rams - which included two appearances in the past 20 years. The other franchises to do that? Broncos, Packers, Seahawks, Ravens, Patriots, Steelers, Giants, Colts.

That puts us in even more elite company. So while the Rams have gone through a bad stretch, there are 21, or you could argue 23 other fanbases that have it worse than us.

 

[dbrooks25]

I don't think attendance numbers are relevant to the fan bases - it's a fact that most teams are closer to St. Louis than Oakland - so it stands to reason STL would get a lot more visiting fans - and I'd be willing to bet the attendance numbers would tell a different story if it didn't include opposing fans.

The two games I went to recently were close to 50/50 - I'd go to more but Ohio is a bit far.

The STL fans get a bad rep for so many opposing fans being present at the stadium, the environment at the games (often commented on by announcers), and for me personally, the comment that a local in a store had "not seen a Rams fan in a minute" when I walked into his store dressed in Rams gear....this was less than 10 minutes away from the stadium.

Also, while the records might be the same, the Rams are one of only 11 teams to win the superbowl since the Rams moved to St. Louis.

That's 21 fanbases with a longer championship draught than the Rams - which included two appearances in the past 20 years. The other franchises to do that? Broncos, Packers, Seahawks, Ravens, Patriots, Steelers, Giants, Colts.

That puts us in even more elite company. So while the Rams have gone through a bad stretch, there are 21, or you could argue 23 other fanbases that have it worse than us.

What games did you attend? I went to the Cowboys game and while there were a lot of Cowboys fans there, it wasn't nearly 50/50 as some like to suggest, and Cowboys fans are every freakin where.

As far as the comment about the other 21 fanbases, that's a weak argument. There is no way 21 fanbases have had it worse than us. If you want to go back to the championship years, then you can't argue attendance figures then because all Rams games were selling out.

 

[blue4]

I don't think attendance numbers are relevant to the fan bases - it's a fact that most teams are closer to St. Louis than Oakland - so it stands to reason STL would get a lot more visiting fans - and I'd be willing to bet the attendance numbers would tell a different story if it didn't include opposing fans.

The two games I went to recently were close to 50/50 - I'd go to more but Ohio is a bit far.

The STL fans get a bad rep for so many opposing fans being present at the stadium, the environment at the games (often commented on by announcers), and for me personally, the comment that a local in a store had "not seen a Rams fan in a minute" when I walked into his store dressed in Rams gear....this was less than 10 minutes away from the stadium.

Also, while the records might be the same, the Rams are one of only 11 teams to win the superbowl since the Rams moved to St. Louis.

That's 21 fanbases with a longer championship draught than the Rams - which included two appearances in the past 20 years. The other franchises to do that? Broncos, Packers, Seahawks, Ravens, Patriots, Steelers, Giants, Colts.

That puts us in even more elite company. So while the Rams have gone through a bad stretch, there are 21, or you could argue 23 other fanbases that have it worse than us.

How many others have a playoff drought as long as ours? How many have a WINNING season drought? Only Oakland compares, unfortunately. There's no way those 21 have had it worse than Rams fans, from any location.

The announcers didn't comment until last couple of years. You know, after a solid 7 or 8 years of terrible football. When the Rams were competitive regularly, they commented the opposite. We were known as a great sports town.

I think that if a guy ten minutes from the stadium hasn't seen a Rams fan, it says more about his store than the fan base.

 

[Rambitious1]

Thank you my friend. It's been awhile. How are you doing? I agree with your sentiments completely. It's ridiculous the false beliefs and the double standards that abound on this topic.

Hi Shane,

I'm doing well. I just got home from a short trip to Las Vegas - had lots of fun - and now getting back to work. All is well on my end of things. Thank you for asking.

I hope you are well also.

 

[FrantikRam]

What games did you attend? I went to the Cowboys game and while there were a lot of Cowboys fans there, it wasn't nearly 50/50 as some like to suggest, and Cowboys fans are every freakin where.

As far as the comment about the other 21 fanbases, that's a weak argument. There is no way 21 fanbases have had it worse than us. If you want to go back to the championship years, then you can't argue attendance figures then because all Rams games were selling out.

I went to the Vikings game that AP ran all over us, and the Broncos game from last year.

But yes, I would argue that those 21 other fanbases have had it worse than us. What was more painful, a 3-13 season or the playoff loss to the Saints, Panthers, and super bowl loss to the Patriots?

A fan base like the Eagles have had it MUCH worse than us. Always being on the cusp, but NEVER getting there. I don't know about you, but the losses referenced above individually all hurt twice as much as the poor seasons combined. I bring those up, and reference the Eagles, because these 21 other fan bases, IMO, have had it worse than us because they haven't won the big one.....some of them at all...since we have. I've been to lots of Browns games; no excuse for Browns fans to be more supportive than Rams fans - but they seem to be when I attend games.

There are 21 fan bases, some of whom have had it MUCH worse than us, but most of those cities support their team better. Had the Rams never moved, I believe they'd have more fans.

One thing that doesn't get talked about is when the NFL blew up, popularity wise. That took place in the late 90s early 2000s (Sunday ticket) and has just been increasing ever since. This all took place after the Rams left LA, so it stands to reason that there should be FAR more fans now than there were then. Yet there doesn't seem to be.

 

[dbrooks25]

I went to the Vikings game that AP ran all over us, and the Broncos game from last year.

But yes, I would argue that those 21 other fanbases have had it worse than us. What was more painful, a 3-13 season or the playoff loss to the Saints, Panthers, and super bowl loss to the Patriots?

A fan base like the Eagles have had it MUCH worse than us. Always being on the cusp, but NEVER getting there. I don't know about you, but the losses referenced above individually all hurt twice as much as the poor seasons combined. I bring those up, and reference the Eagles, because these 21 other fan bases, IMO, have had it worse than us because they haven't won the big one.....some of them at all...since we have. I've been to lots of Browns games; no excuse for Browns fans to be more supportive than Rams fans - but they seem to be when I attend games.

There are 21 fan bases, some of whom have had it MUCH worse than us, but most of those cities support their team better. Had the Rams never moved, I believe they'd have more fans.

One thing that doesn't get talked about is when the NFL blew up, popularity wise. That took place in the late 90s early 2000s (Sunday ticket) and has just been increasing ever since. This all took place after the Rams left LA, so it stands to reason that there should be FAR more fans now than there were then. Yet there doesn't seem to be.

I went to that Vikings game as well, and it was nowhere near 50/50. I'm not going to get into the other argument, because there is just no way those other 21 fan bases have had it worse than us. There is just about no one here who will agree with you as far as that's concerned. Your last point holds no weight, either, not worth the time to get into.

Btw, Peterson didn't run all over the Rams that day. He had 75 yards on 21 carries for an avg of 3.6 ypc.

 

[FrantikRam]

I went to that Vikings game as well, and it was nowhere near 50/50. I'm not going to get into the other argument, because there is just no way those other 21 fan bases have had it worse than us. There is just about no one here who will agree with you as far as that's concerned. Your last point holds no weight, either, not worth the time to get into.

Btw, Peterson didn't run all over the Rams that day. He had 75 yards on 21 carries for an avg of 3.6 ypc.

It was the Vikings the game the year before that. I guess technically it was 2 years and 7 months ago. Peterson did run all over us.....and to my eye they were close to 50/50 in both games.

Of course the average person wouldn't agree with me....most people want to believe they've had it bad. My point does hold some weight, you just don't agree with it - that's fine. This is my point:

1. Fact: we've won a superbowl more recently than 21 teams.

2. Opinion: playoff losses to the Panthers and Saints, and the superbowl loss to the Pats hurt much worse for me than the terrible stretch of losing football the Rams have had - I'm guessing there would be some people who agree with me on that.

Number 2 is relevant because when discussing whose fans have had it worse, I'd take the Rams all day versus a team like the Eagles or Lions who have had decent teams and even made the playoffs but never won it all.


When a city signs up for a football team, nowhere does it say that team has to be good. It's on the city to support the team, regardless, because if they don't they will leave. It's as simple as that.

It's like dating someone that's batshit crazy - you love them, you want them to change, but they won't. If you cant give them what they want, regardless of how they act and what they do, they'll find someone else who will. The whole argument of how bad the Rams have been is completely irrelevant. The good news is, yesterday is history - the power is solely in the hands of the fine St. Louis people. Turn it around this year, go to the games. Then the Rams stay.

 

[STL-Rams]

I will just say -- in all due respect -- that anybody suggesting that 21 fan bases have had it worse than us is either terribly misinformed or dishonest. It is, respectfully, one of the most errant statements I've read or seen anywhere in a long time. It is simply outlandish and ridiculous and not remotely true.

 

[STL-Rams]

Hi Shane,

I'm doing well. I just got home from a short trip to Las Vegas - had lots of fun - and now getting back to work. All is well on my end of things. Thank you for asking.

I hope you are well also.

Doing good... glad you are too my friend