Jump to content

NFL Merry-Go-Round: Relocation Roundelay


duma
 Share

Recommended Posts

Here's the thing.

LA will host 2 teams max. So the NFL knows it has to either keep the third team where it is or find another viable market for it.

So that leads me to believe they will arrange it so the 2 teams least likely to stay in their current market are moved to LA, so neither are left high and dry when the dust settles and the league will probably step in and help the 3rd the team stay where it is.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You can get Rams tickets on the secondary market for roughly a quarter the price of Blues tickets. The Rams are a rather cheap outing at the moment, so I don't buy that "competition for the sports dollar" crap.

Not to mention that everyone knows they are in serious danger of losing their team, and that fan support is a factor in whether the league will allow a move. Even setting said the ability to put pressure on public officials, we keep hearing how NFL bylaws prevent moving (or at least make it difficult to move) a team with demonstrated public support. Swaths of empty seats in prime time games actually demonstrate quite the opposite.

That was admirable spin, but there's not enough lipstick in Missouri for that pig.

If/when the Rams move, I guarantee everyone will look back at these nationally-televised games as one of the reasons why.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I can't blame fans for not showing up to support a team that has been a consistent loser and may not be committed to them on or off the field. While attendance is certainly very important, there's other ways to guage support and to answer the "if we build it, will they come?" question. Going to an NFL game is still a committment - be it price, logistics, etc., and going just to "make a statement" doesn't always justify it. Now if there was some organized thing where you knew that others would be doing the same thing and the place would be full of people chanting "please don't go", then that's one thing. But making that commitment and putting dollars in to the hands of people who don't care about you just to fill one of the thouseands of open seats isn't worth it.

I'm not sayying STL is a good market - in fact I think that it's not - just that I don't think that attendance right now in december 2014 is very relevant.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You can get Rams tickets on the secondary market for roughly a quarter the price of Blues tickets. The Rams are a rather cheap outing at the moment, so I don't buy that "competition for the sports dollar" crap.

Not to mention that everyone knows they are in serious danger of losing their team, and that fan support is a factor in whether the league will allow a move. Even setting said the ability to put pressure on public officials, we keep hearing how NFL bylaws prevent moving (or at least make it difficult to move) a team with demonstrated public support. Swaths of empty seats in prime time games actually demonstrate quite the opposite.

That was admirable spin, but there's not enough lipstick in Missouri for that pig.

If/when the Rams move, I guarantee everyone will look back at these nationally-televised games as one of the reasons why.

Yeah, you can go to a Rams game for cheaper via the secondary market. But if you go to the Rams game, you get to see a mediocre squad that has an outside shot at finishing .500 and no shot at the playoffs. If you go to a Blues game, you get watch a Stanley Cup contender.

Suggesting that game had no impact seems kinda ignorant to me. It obviously wasn't the main factor. I said as much when I noted attendance has been a struggle all year. But yes, sporting events compete with each other for fans. I probably shouldn't' have called it "competition for the sports dollar," but rather competition for the sports fan. Because price aside, people can't be in two places at once, and if I was offered free tickets to both games, I'm taking the Blues tickets.

And if the Rams move, I think almost nobody will look back at attendance—nationally televised games or not—as a reason. You will. That's abundantly clear. But I don't think most will. And regardless of perception, it will have no impact on whether the Rams stay or go.

But, they're probably staying anyways, so it probably doesn't matter.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Now if there was some organized thing where you knew that others would be doing the same thing and the place would be full of people chanting "please don't go", then that's one thing.

Yeah, if there was only some sort of way of organizing an event, getting the word out to like-minded people and coordinating an excursion to make yourself heard. Some sort of socialable medium. :P

Look, the fans in LA certainly appeared to get a couple hundred people showing up to the Chargers game. Those are just the people holding signs and wearing specifically "LA Rams" tshirts, and presumes that the vast, vast majority of the people wearing Rams gear in San Diego came either to support St. Louis or came on their own in affiliated with any group.

Look, fans in St. Louis don't have to do these things. But there's a prime opportunity to step up and show both the local politicians and the NFL that the city wants to keep its team. And since we keep hearing so much about how the by laws require them to consider existing fan support, I'm kind of staggered that they're not mobilizing in significant numbers. Yes, there was a sign at one it the games. But that's only a first step. Organize the season ticket holders. Lead a march before a home game. Hold a big tailgate with signs and songs and roasting hot dogs. Stage a demonstration outside the stadium for the ESPN cameras (you think they wouldn't love to cover that?).

You vote with your feet just as sure as you vote with your wallet. As somebody who rates relocation on principle, I'm amazed that they are wasting a chance to slow or stop it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Fair enougj, but It could be argued that in Missouri, staging an organized demonstration to support a billioin-dollar private entity is pretty low on the priority list (even just on the demonstration list!), so it may be tough to get people to participate in something that in the grand scheme of things is pretty trivial compared to the realities of other events that are taking place. Not that I'm endorsing any of the other things that are going on there, but when all you see on the news is demonstration after demonstration over race relations and other serious stuff, I'd be hard pressed to throw on a sports jersey and get all serious about marching outside of a stadium for the privilege of being able to spend 00s of $ at Rams games for years to come.

On the flip side, social unrest could be used as a factor to justify a move, so it works both ways.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If they can't manage to organize a tailgate party that doesn't look like "social unrest", then they probably don't deserve a team. I guess I just have more faith in the good people of St. Louis than that.

That's not what I meant at all. I'm saying that with the existing social unrest, it seems trivial to do such a thing, and it can give the appearance of priorities being out of wack.

Unless 500 people in Marshall Faulk jerseys lay down in front of the team buses (or moving vans, depending on when they choose to do this), of course it won't look like that.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You can get Rams tickets on the secondary market for roughly a quarter the price of Blues tickets. The Rams are a rather cheap outing at the moment, so I don't buy that "competition for the sports dollar" crap.

Not to mention that everyone knows they are in serious danger of losing their team, and that fan support is a factor in whether the league will allow a move. Even setting said the ability to put pressure on public officials, we keep hearing how NFL bylaws prevent moving (or at least make it difficult to move) a team with demonstrated public support. Swaths of empty seats in prime time games actually demonstrate quite the opposite.

That was admirable spin, but there's not enough lipstick in Missouri for that pig.

If/when the Rams move, I guarantee everyone will look back at these nationally-televised games as one of the reasons why.

Yeah, you can go to a Rams game for cheaper via the secondary market. But if you go to the Rams game, you get to see a mediocre squad that has an outside shot at finishing .500 and no shot at the playoffs. If you go to a Blues game, you get watch a Stanley Cup contender.

Suggesting that game had no impact seems kinda ignorant to me. It obviously wasn't the main factor. I said as much when I noted attendance has been a struggle all year. But yes, sporting events compete with each other for fans. I probably shouldn't' have called it "competition for the sports dollar," but rather competition for the sports fan. Because price aside, people can't be in two places at once, and if I was offered free tickets to both games, I'm taking the Blues tickets.

And if the Rams move, I think almost nobody will look back at attendance—nationally televised games or not—as a reason. You will. That's abundantly clear. But I don't think most will. And regardless of perception, it will have no impact on whether the Rams stay or go.

But, they're probably staying anyways, so it probably doesn't matter.

The Rams played the current #1 seed in the NFC to a standstill (oh look, a Super Bowl contender!) on Thursday. They've beaten Seattle and Denver in the EJD. They had just shut out their last two opponents This is not one of the "Triumph of Death" teams, and if St. Louisans actually gave a rats ass about NFL football they'd know that.

And I'm not sure why we're treating the Blues like a credible Stanley Cup contender when this crew's last 3 seasons have seen them crash out in the 2nd, 1st, and 1st rounds the last 3 seasons. Mediocrity, thy name is Blue-regular season results be damned.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

L.A. Canfora's L.A.test:

http://m.cbssports.com/s/36902/142?arenaName=NFL&articleId=24886791&teamId=424&arenaAbbr=nfl&newsType=arena&platform=webapp

Above all else, Grubman stressed what has already become painfully clear to officials of the teams seeking to move to LA, which is that the NFL will continue to dictate this process and it will be the league's decision which team or teams, and on which timeline, they move to Los Angeles.

And...

Rams owner Stan Kroenke, whose strong desire to get to LA as soon as possible is well known in league circles...

ORLY?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The Rams played the current #1 seed in the NFC to a standstill (oh look, a Super Bowl contender!) on Thursday. They've beaten Seattle and Denver in the EJD. They had just shut out their last two opponents This is not one of the "Triumph of Death" teams, and if St. Louisans actually gave a rats ass about NFL football they'd know that.

Yes, this is all true, and it's why their was a noticeable buzz about the Rams around St. Louis the past couple weeks. But they did all of this and still had no shot at the playoffs and just an outside shot at finishing .500. And what did the Rams do against the Cardinals team (that you paint as the #1 seed for your purposes but anyone that gives " frats ass about NFL football" would know is on the brink of collapse)? Continued to play good defense but failed miserably on offense once again proving to Rams fans they should never bother getting their hopes up about the local squad.

And I'm not sure why we're treating the Blues like a credible Stanley Cup contender when this crew's last 3 seasons have seen them crash out in the 2nd, 1st, and 1st rounds the last 3 seasons. Mediocrity, thy name is Blue-regular season results be damned.

Because at the end of the day, the teams that are the best in the league are always credible contenders whether they've gone our early in the past or not.

Now you're really stretching it. "Fans in St. Louis suck because they choose to go see a 1st place hockey team that hasn't had past playoff success over a last place football team that hasn't won 8 games in 8 years."

Link to comment
Share on other sites

And if the Rams move, I think almost nobody will look back at attendance—nationally televised games or not—as a reason. You will. That's abundantly clear. But I don't think most will. And regardless of perception, it will have no impact on whether the Rams stay or go.

But, they're probably staying anyways, so it probably doesn't matter.

What will the reason(s) be, then?

You have an owner that seems to be giving a city he likes every chance possible to convince him to keep the Rams there.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

And if the Rams move, I think almost nobody will look back at attendance—nationally televised games or not—as a reason. You will. That's abundantly clear. But I don't think most will. And regardless of perception, it will have no impact on whether the Rams stay or go.

But, they're probably staying anyways, so it probably doesn't matter.

What will the reason(s) be, then?

You have an owner that seems to be giving a city he likes every chance possible to convince him to keep the Rams there.

The one and only reason will be that the owner wanted a new building and the city wouldn't give him one. The same reason any NFL team moves. Fan support is just the reason owners hide behind. The Rams didn't move to St. Louis because the fans in LA weren't attending games (even though it's true that they weren't).

L.A. Canfora's L.A.test:

Rams owner Stan Kroenke, whose strong desire to get to LA as soon as possible is well known in league circles...

ORLY?

LOL. If he reports it enough, it must be fact. He could be right, but he still seems to be the charge behind all other reports.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1. Arizona's season may be screwed because the Rams injured Drew Stanton on Thursday. After ending Carson Palmer's season the last time they played. The defense put the offense in a position to win the game, which is not something that could be said during the Triumph of Death.

2. I see we're going by division standings on that First Place/Last Place crap. Why do the Blues get a frickin' pass because we all know this team folds when you give teams 7 games to figure out Ken Hitchcock's crap? There's no reason for hope here. It's the same argument you deploy to excuse St. Louisans for not showing up to Rams games.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Can't it be said that the city and/or Kroenke would be more willing to put their money into a stadium, as well as signing a new long-term lease, if they knew fans coming to games weren't an issue?

If there is a buzz in the team, the fans certainly aren't doing their part in this if they aren't willing to show up to games where the team's in the national spotlight. Especially if the team was coming off of back-to-back shutout victories and earlier beat both representatives of last year's Super Bowl (and two teams that very well could be there again). Buzz includes going to games, not just talk on sports radio and water-cooler discussions.

If I were the owner, I know I'd be real hesitant on building a new stadium and signing a long-term lease with St. Louis if there's little-to-no desire on the fanbase to show up.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2. I see we're going by division standings on that First Place/Last Place crap. Why do the Blues get a frickin' pass because we all know this team folds when you give teams 7 games to figure out Ken Hitchcock's crap? There's no reason for hope here. It's the same argument you deploy to excuse St. Louisans for not showing up to Rams games.

We needn't turn this into a hockey thread, but the Blues have lost pretty much soley because they couldn't score timely goals. Now they can due to a couple key signings and Tarasenko's development. It's not like the Blues show up in the playoffs and crap the bed. They've generally outplayed their opponents.

And there's a pretty large gap between a first place team not succeeding in the playoffs being disappointing and a football team not being able to even win 8 games being disappointing.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Can't it be said that the city and/or Kroenke would be more willing to put their money into a stadium, as well as signing a new long-term lease, if they knew fans coming to games weren't an issue?

Yeah it could be said. And I'm sure it will be said. But it's probably not reality is all.

And just to reiterate something I've shared in the past. The Rams have PUBLICLY absolved fans from blame for the attendance woes. They've repeatedly stated that they know it's their fault that the building isn't full because they've put forth a bad product for many years.

So if the Rams admit it's not the fans fault, what's left to be said?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Can't it be said that the city and/or Kroenke would be more willing to put their money into a stadium, as well as signing a new long-term lease, if they knew fans coming to games weren't an issue?

Yeah it could be said. And I'm sure it will be said. But it's probably not reality is all.

And just to reiterate something I've shared in the past. The Rams have PUBLICLY absolved fans from blame for the attendance woes. They've repeatedly stated that they know it's their fault that the building isn't full because they've put forth a bad product for many years.

So if the Rams admit it's not the fans fault, what's left to be said?

That reminds me, Kevin Demoff really needs to not accompany the Rams to Los Angeles.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

 Share

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Terms of Use.