San Dee-Ay-Go, make that Los An-Gel-Es, Super Chargers?

On a scale of 1-10 how much will the people of St. Louis care if the Rams leave?

 

As much as the people of Los Angeles will care in the Rams come?

 

I'm far from the "voice of the people," but I wouldn't think that much, or it will be a major issue for a relatively short period of time. It will be disappointing and frustrating to lose another team, but let's face it, the Cardinals dominate the sports conversation, even during winter. From a non-sports perspective? Well...the good people of the 314 have bigger fish to fry at the moment.

 

LA can keep the Clippers and send St. Louis that second MLS team

 

About a 3.

No one over 30 in St. Louis "grew up" with the Rams.

I covered the Vikings-Rams Divisional Game in 1999 in St. Louis - the first home playoff game EVER in the city - and it was about what you would expect. Sold out and loud... but you never once had the sense this was a "Rams Town". This was also when the Cardinals weren't in the World Series every other year.

Where it struck me, about the St. Louis support for the Rams, was that, once Warner left town and the team went on the slide, the Dome just cleared out. Now it's like Tennessee or Jacksonville on environment. No one really cares.

I compare with the NFL Cardinals games I attended in the 1980s. In one year, people cared (1984) but, even then, Busch didn't really sell out even with only about 53,000 seats.

The Cardinals 28-year run from 1960 to 1987 with few winning seasons and no playoff wins - nor any home playoff games - kept the market from being rabid. Even when the Cardinals left, there wasn't a huge hole from 1988 until 1995 -- some of that was, perhaps, the Blues stepping up and being a damned exciting team (Hull's peak) even if star-crossed in the playoffs.

After the MLB Cardinals, St. Louis sports fans just Ping-Pong to whatever winter sports is doing well. Some years it's the Blues, if the Billikens are hot, people notice. The Rams haven't been an "it" team for a dozen years.

Move to LA...

 

A very fair point.

 

I'll offer the contrarian point for St Louis. I think it's going to hurt a lot.

Grew up there in the glory years of Hart, Metcalf, Gray, Dierdorf, Dobler. When they moved, it felt like a betrayal, and gave me reason to root against the helmet and the Bidwills for the ever after. Moe often than not, with very pleasing results.

Been gone for over a quarter century now, although much of my family remains in the area. No allegiance now or ever to the Rams. Adopted the Falcons when I moved to Atlanta in 94.

But, losing an NFL team, twice, is a death sentence. Say what you will about the dome and the current iteration of the team, but there will never, ever be another chance for NFL football in that city. At least not in this generation's lifetime. Similar to hockey where I live now--never will I see an NHL game on my home turf while I'm among the living.

The NFL is the biggest game in town in every town on Sundays from September to December. Yes, the baseball fervor in St Louis lessens that impact, but losing a franchise in the biggest sport, by far is a painful and crippling blow that will be felt there for decades--whether it seems that way or not right now.

 

Did the ownership ever really want the Rams to be a success in St. Louis, or was it always a SABOTAGE?!

 

Wrong character, Jake. Stan Kroenke is clearly played by Sir Stewart Wallace.

 

I don't think it's a stretch to think Kroenke knew the lease situation to the letter before he even bought the team, knew the city wouldn't give him a new stadium and knew he could bid his time, then leave for LA. He's not a stupid businessman.

And he's not the bad guy here. The city fucked up with that ridiculous clause in the lease that it would have never been able to live up to. The Dome barely met that clause when it opened.

 

St. Louis is a weird sports market because of the damn Cardinals fans. They eat that up, watch all 162 games, wear their red hats everywhere.

Yet, since the Rams' return, it very much ebbs and flows along wins and losses. In 1995, when the Rams were 4-0 to start out (and no one saw THAT coming), people cared. Then they finished 5-11. The Dome was depressing until Trent Green was lying in agony on the turf and Kurt Warner did his thing for the next three years. Then back to indifferent.

Going by the market demographics, you'd like St. Louis would be like Pittsburgh and Cincinnati -- an old river city that is very traditional. Yet Pittsburgh loves football, in large part because of the Steel Curtain setting the foundation for generations of fans. Cincy strikes me as incredibly similar -- a baseball town from way back that has turned more towards the Bengals in recent years.

St. Louis had awful ownership between TWO franchises. In 1985, Bidwill made a lot of noise about a new stadium. STL wouldn't build him one and he moved to Tempe, where he languished for 18 years before he finally got one.

In the end, St. Louis did a lot right to get the Rams. Build a dome, guarantee the sellouts, etc. Yet that clause about being a top-tier NFL stadium will be the undoing. The part that's crummy is they built the damn dome -- and they'll have no one to play in it after only 20 seasons.

I don't think it will really effect the area that much. When you see those studies and maps on NFL team popularity, you'll see huge chunks in the Midwest for the Bears, Packers, Chiefs, Vikings and Colts. The Rams hold a tiny little pocket from St. Louis to about four counties in all directions.

The older fans never had much of an allegiance to the Rams because they've been there 20 years and the younger ones mostly remember the shit teams they've put out there since 2004. Except for the Greatest Show on Turf three-year window, most sports fans flock to Busch Stadium II, drink too much before and after the game and obsess over every September call-up. It's just the culture.

Hell, if Trent Green stays upright in 1999, the Rams just may have gone all 20 years in St. Louis without the playoffs. They'd be in about Year 6 back in LA by now.

I felt more betrayed that the Cardinals kept Neil O'Donoghue as their kicker those years when they actually had an offense - Lomax to Green - than I was when Bidwill packed up for Arizona.

If Kroenke was REALLY serious about keeping the Rams in Missouri, he would have bought 80 acres of prime land in Ferguson last month, recently bulldozed, close to I-270 and multiple tire stores.



No, these maps aren't scientific but I do think they can show how much (or how little) interest there is with a particular team within a region. St. Louis is TV Market 21 but how much of a footprint do they really have? How many TV markets on this map are "Rams First". St. Louis and...wait for it... Cape Girardeau (and the Illinois side of the Cape market -- all Bears). That's it. Even the Chiefs - with Kansas City as a smaller TV market (#32) - have a fan base that extends into Omaha, Wichita, Springfield MO - all mid-sized markets.

Likewise, New Orleans is TV Market 51 but holds interest in virtually all of Mississippi and much of Alabama.

The only other teams with a similar level of truly only "local impact" are Buffalo and Jacksonville. Even the dreadful Titans, less than 20 years in that state, cover every corner except for Memphis.

 

Very interesting map, ex. Two things jump out at me:

1) how much folks identify with successful teams, and

2) identifying with state boundaries in cases where there's only one team (Tenn and Carolina for example)

Pretty neat. Thanks.