NFL Merry-Go-Round: Relocation Roundelay

[bosrs1]

There were (may all be down now) sites for the LA Rams, LA Raiders, Phoenix Cardinals, and Boston Patriots. Maybe others too.

There's a whole bunch of reasons to think the Rams will wind up in LA. I don't think this registers as anything whatsoever, though.

If it doesn't register as anything, why would the NFL take it down...?

Because everyone freaked out about it as supposed evidence of an imminent move. When in reality it's just a vestige of the last Rams relocation that everyone read way too much into. Removing it removes the ability to read anything into it.

You know, nfl.com was only authorized two days before the Rams' move to St. Louis was approved. I'm not sure that's vestigal.

True, but they have vestigial websites for the Boston Patriots too... and they haven't been a thing since the DARPAnet days.

[The_Admiral]

they haven't been a thing

No!

[bosrs1]

they haven't been a thing

No!

No?

[Gothamite]

The St. Louis Business Journal ran an article a couple days ago looking at season ticket sales for the three teams threatening relocation.

http://www.bizjournals.com/stlouis/news/2015/05/05/ticket-sales-mixed-for-nfl-teams-looking-at-l-a.html?page=all

They results were interesting:

The San Diego Chargers are 4,500 season tickets ahead of last year’s pace. In contrast, the St. Louis Rams are off significantly from their level of sales at this point a year ago, while the Oakland Raiders, the Chargers’ partner in a potential Carson, California, stadium, are about even.

I know it's really hard to stay involved when you think your team is moving, but this is an opportunity to show support and put pressure on local officials. I'm glad that San Diegans seem to be taking that to heart. Oaklanders, on the other hand, seem to be used to this uncertainty as their status quo.

[bosrs1]

The St. Louis Business Journal ran an article a couple days ago looking at season ticket sales for the three teams threatening relocation.

http://www.bizjournals.com/stlouis/news/2015/05/05/ticket-sales-mixed-for-nfl-teams-looking-at-l-a.html?page=all

They results were interesting:

The San Diego Chargers are 4,500 season tickets ahead of last year’s pace. In contrast, the St. Louis Rams are off significantly from their level of sales at this point a year ago, while the Oakland Raiders, the Chargers’ partner in a potential Carson, California, stadium, are about even.

I know it's really hard to stay involved when you think your team is moving, but this is an opportunity to show support and put pressure on local officials. I'm glad that San Diegans seem to be taking that to heart. Oaklanders, on the other hand, seem to be used to this uncertainty as their status quo.

Not Oaklanders, just Raider fans. Oakland as a whole are Niners, not Raiders fans and have been for 30 years. Which has always been part of the Raiders problem. They were never embraced after they came back. Which shouldn't shock anyone, you can't :censored: the bed, leave and then come back and act like nothing happened.

[Gothamite]

Well. I'll have to take your word for that.

The important part is that Chargers fans are stepping up, Raiders fans are staying the course, and Rams fans are missing out on a great opportunity.

[The_Admiral]

bosrs1 won't be happy until the Raiders relocate to the moon. And I thought I took too many shots at the White Sox.

[bosrs1]

bosrs1 won't be happy until the Raiders relocate to the moon. And I thought I took too many shots at the White Sox.

Nah not the moon, just need them to get the hell out of Oakland. I mean their fans don't seem to care if they go back back to LA... so go. The A's have been waiting on them to make a move for years now.

[FiddySicks]

I wouldn't say that the east bay has shunned the Raiders quite as much as bosrs1 is making sound. I know plenty of people there who are absolutely HUGE Raiders fans. But if push came to shove (which I think it eventually will) and it was a choice between the A's or Raiders, the A's win that battle every day of the week. Raiders games are better attended than A's games, but the out of town influence and the fact that it's the NFL has a good amount to do with that. The A's only real problem is facilities. I still think there are better options for them directly in the Bay Area than the current location, but the coliseum site itself isn't a terrible spot for a stadium when it comes to convenience. I think the crime can be cleaned up too if they so choose. The China Basin was pretty much San Francisco's skid row before the Giants came in and kicked all the bums down the block to Market St.

[STL FANATIC]

Well. I'll have to take your word for that.

The important part is that Chargers fans are stepping up, Raiders fans are staying the course, and Rams fans are missing out on a great opportunity.

I still don't think this is that important. Even the Rams, who would have the most to gain by spinning this as reflective of the market potential, continue to publicly comment that it's not fans faults. They blame themselves for a lack of performance and also understand the stadium location is enticing to ticket buyers.

Or maybe they have so much to gain that they're trying to convince Rams fans it's no big deal so they continue to not by ticket and then claim it really is a big deal and they're leaving...oooo...

[Gothamite]

It doesn't really matter if the Rams are currently making excuses, does it?

No blackouts means that everyone in St. Louis will be able to see the empty seats on television. The Rams and NFL will be able to point to that as an example of a failed market. And why should local poloticians go out of their way to help Peacock if the people in the city, the ones who elect them, don't care?

[The_Admiral]

The China Basin was pretty much San Francisco's skid row before the Giants came in and kicked all the bums down the block to Market St.

[STL FANATIC]

It doesn't really matter if the Rams are currently making excuses, does it?

Matter? I don't know. All I'm saying is that the Rams have very publicly and very often said that low attendance is their fault, not the fans fault. Yes, they can change tunes and try to tell the NFL it means it's a failed market, but nobody here is an idiot. That's pretty easy to see through.

At the same time, no it doesn't matter because both the Rams and the NFL will just do what they want anyways.

No blackouts means that everyone in St. Louis will be able to see the empty seats on television. The Rams and NFL will be able to point to that as an example of a failed market. And why should local poloticians go out of their way to help Peacock if the people in the city, the ones who elect them, don't care?

In all likelihood the political stuff will be wrapped up by then. So it's probably a non-factor there, too.

IF attendance mattered (and I'm extremely skeptical), what's done is done. I find it very hard to believe the upcoming years attendance is going to play a particularly large factor.

Maybe if literally everything else is equal.

[Gothamite]

Maybe it is too late. It certainly would have been better if Rams fans had managed to muster up some support for keeping the club over the last several years, once it was clear they were in danger of moving.

There are relocations which stand today as injustices to cities and their fans. The Brooklyn Dodgers. The Milwaukee Braves. The Baltimore Colts. Good markets deprived of their teams. And there are those rare teams which moved because they weren't wanted, such as the Boston Braves or St Louis Browns. The St. Louis Rams are sliding into that latter category.

[Mac the Knife]

And there are those rare teams which moved because they weren't wanted, such as the Boston Braves or St Louis Browns.

Actually in both of those cases, playing second banana in terms of attendance wasn't as much a deciding factor as was new ownership coming in and seeing greener pastures elsewhere... and their moves were ultimately linked to one another.

The Braves weren't in bad shape as far as "second" teams in markets went. But Milwaukee had built a brand-new stadium in hope of attracting a major league franchise, and the Braves just happened to have rights to the territory thanks to having their AAA team (well, their then-equivalent of an AAA team, anyway) there. Lou Perini figured out there was more money to be made as the only team in Milwaukee as opposed to being one of two in Boston, bought out his partners and applied to relocate.

The Browns meanwhile have gone down in history as St. Louis' "second team," but in fact had the upper hand with respect to the market right up until the Busch family bought the Cardinals. Both teams were at break-even, and the Browns owned Sportsman's Park. Despite this, Don Barnes got permission to sell the stadium to the Cardinals and move to Los Angeles - annnounced on December 6, 1941 and to be voted on by AL owners at a meeting two days later. But of course by then, World War II was underway and the deals were dead. Barnes ultimately would sell out, but by 1952, it was actually the Cardinals that were about to move.

Their owner, Fred Saigh, was indicted on tax evasion and other charges in association with some shady dealings, and was pressured to sell out. Like the Braves with Milwaukee, the Cardinals held rights to another territory (Houston, Texas) and were poised to be sold to a group that would have moved the team there. But then the Busch family stepped in and bought the team, at which point now-Browns owner Bill Veeck realized despite the leverage of owning Sportsman's Park, he'd never be able to compete head-to-head with an owner whose financial resources literally could be tapped. Veeck first tried to move the team (back) to Milwaukee, but got thwarted by Lou Perini and the Braves. He then looked to Baltimore, where they eventually went (after Veeck got shoved out as owner).

[Gothamite]

You're wrong about Boston Braves - they struggled mightily at the box office. In their last five years, they were in the bottom half of NL attendance figures every year except 1948, when they won the pennant. And even then, the Red Sox killed them at the box office. In fact, the Red Sox almost doubled the Braves' attendance in those last five years in Boston.

At the time the Braves announced their move to Milwaukee in 1953, they only had two dozen season ticket holders. And this was just days from Opening Day! Even if Milwaukee hadn't offered a better place to play, the Braves were done in Boston.

As for the Browns, you're right that it was a bit of a competition to see who could leave St. Louis. The Cardinals almost moved (the Browns had the advantage of owning the ballpark the teams shared), but when the Busch family bought the Cardinals Veeck saw the writing on the wall. That was an example of a one-team town not being able to support two teams.

I stand by the point - there are a few relocarions which were good calls. So long as Ram fans refuse to stand up, they run the risk of this one being put into that category.

[STL FANATIC]

Not gonna go into it further again, but the Rams are a terrible organization with a bad product that won't make any statements of commitment to their market. Thus they've had bad attendance and now in their potential walk year, they have worse attendance.

The Raiders are a terrible organization with a bad product that often makes statements about wanting to find a way to commit to their market. Thus they've had bad attendance and now in their potential walk year will still have bad attendance.

Sports attendance is based on the product.

[STL FANATIC]

By the way, it's not entirely accurate to suggest the Dodgers move was any more of an injustice based on fan support. They had a wonderfully successful team in Brooklyn, but were frequently failing to fill their deteriorating stadium to even half of its capacity.

Walter O’Malley was also justified in considering a move from Ebbets Field. By 1957 the right field screen hung in tatters, the bathroom odors were stifling, and parking was available for only 700 cars. In 2003 Buzzie Bavasi wrote, “Ebbets Field was a great place to watch a game if you were sitting in the first 12 rows between the bases. Otherwise, we had narrow seats, narrow aisles, and a lot of obstructed views.”

Mid-1950s attendance compared with the Dodgers’ primary rivals of that time was also disturbing. From a high of 1.8 million in 1947,6 as the team won five more pennants and finished second three other times, Dodger attendance dwindled. When the Boston Braves moved to Milwaukee before the 1953 season, a worrisome situation grew dire.

Table 1: Dodgers attendance vs. top competitors.

Lower attendance compared with the primary competition meant fewer concessions sold, less money available for player procurement and development, and was perhaps a sign of waning interest. On the last Wednesday of the 1956 season, with the defending World Champions one-half game out of first place, the day after Maglie had thrown a no-hitter, the Dodgers drew 7,847 to Ebbets Field.7 Player procurement would be more important than ever as the team rebuilt, and O’Malley would have been justified in worrying that he wouldn’t have the cash to compete.

http://sabr.org/research/walter-omalley-was-right

Attendance figures: http://www.baseball-almanac.com/teams/laatte.shtml

Capacities: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ebbets_Field

[Mac the Knife]

You're wrong about Boston Braves - they struggled mightily at the box office. In their last five years, they were in the bottom half of NL attendance figures every year except 1948, when they won the pennant. And even then, the Red Sox killed them at the box office. In fact, the Red Sox almost doubled the Braves' attendance in those last five years in Boston.

At the time the Braves announced their move to Milwaukee in 1953, they only had two dozen season ticket holders. And this was just days from Opening Day! Even if Milwaukee hadn't offered a better place to play, the Braves were done in Boston.

As for the Browns, you're right that it was a bit of a competition to see who could leave St. Louis. The Cardinals almost moved (the Browns had the advantage of owning the ballpark the teams shared), but when the Busch family bought the Cardinals Veeck saw the writing on the wall. That was an example of a one-team town not being able to support two teams.

I stand by the point - there are a few relocarions which were good calls. So long as Ram fans refuse to stand up, they run the risk of this one being put into that category.

The only market baseball ever should have had two teams in (from the original 16) was New York, and they should have only had two, rather than three. I've always been somewhat surprised that Los Angeles got the Angels just three years after the Dodgers got there, but I guess given that the powers that be felt compelled to replace the original Senators in Washington or potentially lose their antitrust exemption, Los Angeles seemed a logical companion market once O'Malley signed off on it.

[STL FANATIC]

The Colts move from Baltimore also was perhaps not so unjust by this criteria.

Baltimore's Memorial Stadium had a capacity of 65,000 for football. Here's the attendance figures I can find.

1983

52,613

34,350

35,618

38,565

32,343

57,319

35,462

20,418

1982

39,055

23,598

25,920

19,073

1981

44,950,

41,630

33,060

41,921

31,521

24,784

54,871

17,073

1980

54,914

33,373

53,924

33,506

45,369

36,184

30,564

16,941

Sure their record was 26-62-1 from 1978 to 1983, but that doesn't matter. And talks for a new stadium had been going on since 1971. And Robert Irsay had been shopping the team to other cities since 1976, and picked up the pace in 1979. So there was plenty of warning for Baltimore to "step up."

Most team relocations aren't so different from each other. About the best justification is calling it a business. Fan shaming is rarely legitimate.