Nielsen ranks Rams fan base 26th --Wagoner

[RamBill]

Nielsen ranks Rams fan base 26th
By Nick Wagoner

http://espn.go.com/blog/st-louis-rams/post/_/id/15140/nielsen-ranks-rams-fan-base-26th


EARTH CITY, Mo. -- Earlier this week, Nielsen Scarborough released its annual ranking of the 32 NFL fan bases based on the percentage of adults in each market who have watched, attended or listened to a game in the past 12 months.

According to the ratings, the St. Louis Rams' fan base checked in at No. 26 on the list, with 48 percent of the fans in the market having done at least one of those things in the past year. The Rams' ranking is actually up one spot from 2013, when it was No. 27.

By way of comparison, Green Bay Packers' fans finished first at an impressive 84 percent. The Rams ranked ahead of Arizona, Tampa Bay, Miami, the New York Giants, the New York Jets and the Oakland Raiders. Oakland was last at 29 percent.

It should be no surprise that Seattle's fan base grew the most in the past year, jumping 27 percent to 71 percent, which was tied for fifth-most in the league. That's pretty common for a team after winning the Super Bowl.

As for Rams fans, I would argue that 48 percent is a pretty good showing for a fan base that has been subjected to nothing but losing for the better part of the past decade. St. Louis has stood by its team better than one could reasonably expect, given the product on the field.

Given the enthusiasm for the Rams during the brief run of the "Greatest Show on Turf" in 1999 and the early 2000s, it's fair to say these numbers would surge in St. Louis if the team can find a way to get out of its rut of mediocrity and become a contender again.

 

[Big Willie]

Everyone is quick to measure everything. The teams below us generally have a higher population and more to do in their cities. Are they measuring just Green Bay WI, or they including more populated cities like Milwaukee. IMO this rating means nothing and is a waste of money by Nielson.

(This is not a negative for the posting...I like to read everything)

 

[rdlkgliders]

It is actually these sort of stats that make being a Ram fan sweeter. I have lived with this my whole life.
It beats being a Cowboy,or Steeler fan 2 teams that have had fans from acrossed the country for my 50+ years most of which are Obnoxious. then there is the niner or packer fan 2 teams that seem to load the bandwagon when playing well or god forbid a Raider fan that tends to know more about dealing drugs or acquiring illegal weapons than football. And you have the Patriots and Brady and anywhere P manning plays............WHATEVER!!!!!

Don't misrepresent the facts.
As for Rams fans, I would argue that 48 percent is a pretty good showing for a fan base that has been subjected to nothing but losing for the better part of the past decade.

We have not had a winning record since 03 that's 11 years or seasons brother

 

[CGI_Ram]

Those are actually pretty strong ratings when you consider the consecutive losing seasons and lease situation.

It would appear; When we start winning, those ratings will surge top 20 easily.

 

[jap]

Those are actually pretty strong ratings when you consider the consecutive losing seasons and lease situation.

It would appear; When we start winning, those ratings will surge top 20 easily.

Top 20? More like top 5 or better. If the Rams start rolling offensively with Sam arcing laser beam strikes to Kenny & Brian, with Tavon & Sted exploiting the short to intermediate routes, and with Tre & Benny running wild, the band wagoners will take us close if not actually to #1. So is was in 1999, and so it shall be again!

 

[CGI_Ram]

Top 20? More like top 5 or better. If the Rams start rolling offensively with Sam arcing laser beam strikes to Kenny & Brian, with Tavon & Sted exploiting the short to intermediate routes, and with Tre & Benny running wild, the band wagoners will take us close if not actually to #1. So is was in 1999, and so it shall be again!

I tried looking up the ratings for back then but couldn't find it.

Yeah, they'll surge up. Just surprised by the 26 being better than I would have guessed.

 

[jap]

I tried looking up the ratings for back then but couldn't find it.

Yeah, they'll surge up. Just surprised by the 26 being better than I would have guessed.

I don't remember any fan base ratings for 1999. However, I do remember a lot of jokers coming in out of the woodwork and claiming they were longtime Rams' fans. They were so ignorant of well known Rams lore that it was pathetically obvious they were band wagoners rather than true longtime fans. I never know what to make of fair weather fans to begin with, but what the hell would ever possess someone to lie about being a longtime fan, while exposing their ignorance by flunking basic Rams history facts? :huh:

 

[Big Unit]

I'm glad to see #26, too - given the decade of almost-historic losing; the uncertainty in the front office; and the uncertainty of the lease/dome, etc.

One thing they don't factor in, and which in my opinion is significant, is the dominance/lack of dominance of other local teams. St. Louis has two long-standing and rabid fan bases; the Blues and, particularly, the Cardinals. We took our son to the airport today; there was plenty of local publicity of the City celebrating the Cardinals; nothing related to the Rams. Think how many comparable, but higher-ranking NFL fan bases do NOT have such dominant MLB franchises. Tennessee? No. Green Bay? No. Jacksonville? No. Indianapolis? No. Jacksonville? No. Carolina? No. Buffalo? No. Most of those NFL teams have NO competing MLB franchise, much less a dominant one. And I'd argue that even in the markets where MLB has a franchise, the order is often reversed, with the NFL franchise #1, MLB franchise #2 - or at least close. I can think of numerous examples: Pittsburgh; Baltimore; Tampa Bay; Miami; Cleveland; Kansas City; Denver; Seattle. Even where the order of NFL vs. MLB is subject to debate - Arizona; San Francisco; Detroit - the franchises are close.

I'd argue that maybe Cincinnati is closest to St. Louis. When the Reds are good, they are the face of the city, maybe more so than the Bengals. But the Reds are in no way comparable as a franchise to the Cardinals, in success or in dominance of the local market.

So #26 isn't bad. If the Rams get some franchise stability, AND some success - particularly in a new stadium - they'll move up quickly. St. Louis is a good sports town; well deserving of an NFL franchise. (As is LA, I'd add; comparing apples and oranges.)

 

[Big Unit]

Forgot to mention New York and Boston. (Freudian, I guess.) New York is dominated by the Yankees - as reflected by the Giants and Jets ranking below St. Louis. And Boston is/was a Red Sox town; the Patriots are just on a bandwagon roll. And DC: the Nationals are the "newcomers", comparable to the Rams; the Redskins are dominant in the market.

 

[Pancake]

Lets have a cage match and see what team has the number one fans.

 

[CGI_Ram]

I'm glad to see #26, too - given the decade of almost-historic losing; the uncertainty in the front office; and the uncertainty of the lease/dome, etc.

One thing they don't factor in, and which in my opinion is significant, is the dominance/lack of dominance of other local teams. St. Louis has two long-standing and rabid fan bases; the Blues and, particularly, the Cardinals. We took our son to the airport today; there was plenty of local publicity of the City celebrating the Cardinals; nothing related to the Rams. Think how many comparable, but higher-ranking NFL fan bases do NOT have such dominant MLB franchises. Tennessee? No. Green Bay? No. Jacksonville? No. Indianapolis? No. Jacksonville? No. Carolina? No. Buffalo? No. Most of those NFL teams have NO competing MLB franchise, much less a dominant one. And I'd argue that even in the markets where MLB has a franchise, the order is often reversed, with the NFL franchise #1, MLB franchise #2 - or at least close. I can think of numerous examples: Pittsburgh; Baltimore; Tampa Bay; Miami; Cleveland; Kansas City; Denver; Seattle. Even where the order of NFL vs. MLB is subject to debate - Arizona; San Francisco; Detroit - the franchises are close.

I'd argue that maybe Cincinnati is closest to St. Louis. When the Reds are good, they are the face of the city, maybe more so than the Bengals. But the Reds are in no way comparable as a franchise to the Cardinals, in success or in dominance of the local market.

So #26 isn't bad. If the Rams get some franchise stability, AND some success - particularly in a new stadium - they'll move up quickly. St. Louis is a good sports town; well deserving of an NFL franchise. (As is LA, I'd add; comparing apples and oranges.)

That's a great point. +++

I was in St. Louis over the holidays and couldn't find any Rams gear in the airport. I DID hear Sam Bradford welcome me to St. Louis tho!

 

[den-the-coach]

Every fan base would be challenged with the continues failures of the Rams. The New England Patriots has the worst fan base in the NFL prior to Robert Kraft and Belicheat. If you win they will come and the Rams need to find the formula for success otherwise they will kill off what remains of their fan base.

 

[Big Unit]

That's a great point. +++

I was in St. Louis over the holidays and couldn't find any Rams gear in the airport. I DID hear Sam Bradford welcome me to St. Louis tho!

Cool! Hope Sam keeps welcoming you, for years to come.

That's a factor recently, too. Used to be plenty of Oklahoma fans who followed Sam to St. Louis; could see plenty of "OU" flags while tailgating. I'd argue that Bradford's injuries the past two years may have killed that.

Somebody pointed out that the Rams' 3 highest-paid players were injured most of this year: Sam, Jake Long and Chris Long. Tough to overcome.