NFL Merry-Go-Round: Relocation Roundelay

[rams80]

This isn't really about attendance, though. It's about TV. And I'm confident in stating (but don't know how to prove it) that more people tune in for the NFL in St. Louis when they have a team and when said team isn't a disaster.

Time for the brick to the head approach.

St. Louis fans have a team even with the Rams gone

In fact, they have three teams, which is why the Rams do struggle to scrape up meaningful financial support. The Rams leave and the Bears will get theirs, the Packers will get theirs, and the Chiefs will get theirs. We're talking decades of roots here, and at the end of the day, that counts for a lot.

Yes you may ragequit the NFL, but those who don't have options-in some cases reversion options.

[STL FANATIC]

I think you're wrong.

If you're not wrong, I'm not sure I understand why LA is a pressing need.

The idea that a St. Louis market without a team is as strong without one seems absurd to me. Having a league presence in a city absolutely impacts the amount of fans and viewers in that city.

You think even 90% of St. Louis Rams fans will simply decide to become a fan of another team in the midwest and tune in every Sunday to whatever game is on the television? I really don't. And I don't think that was happening in the time between the Cardinals and Rams either.

I can tell you as a child that grew up in a family that turned me into a big sports fan, I would have grown up without a major interest in the NFL if the Rams hadn't moved to town.

If it's about TV, then Los Angeles obliterates St. Louis, especially when it's time to re-up the big-market NFC package.

Again, the white flag has been raised when it comes to STL vs. LA. That's not the point.

The question is should the NFL desire a way to also keep or put a team in St. Louis?

[rams80]

No, you won't keep all of the St. Louis Rams fans, but the lifers (which are a sizable percentage at this point) will pull a Will Leitch and stay with the Rams even when they go to L.A. and invest in satellite packages (or relish the freedom from local blackouts)

The NFL fans will watch anything regardless, and that's another big chunk.

Finally, you have the Bears, Packers, and Chiefs, who have generations of support in downstate Illinois and Missouri west of (Rolla at worst, but Sullivan/Cuba more likely) The regions outside of 255/270 (which appear to not exist in your argument but include a major chunk of what SHOULD be the Rams' natural TV market, will easily revert (or celebrate the return of) their former beloved teams, while those who live in St. Louis will pick up loyalties. The Chiefs can play the Missouri card, the Packers can play the anti-Chicago card.

Honestly, you're not losing all that much if you lose St. Louis as an actual home NFL tv market.

[The_Admiral]

Already seems to be a not insignificant contingent of Packers fans in mid-MO. Apparently, if there are deer to be shot, there are Packers jerseys to be worn.

Chiefs and Cardinals seem to claim the Columbia-Jefferson City area, which to me says it all.

[STL FANATIC]

The Rams have had a very small amount of blackouts and not one in years, but cool cheap shot.

Your other points are valid, but I think you underestimate the amount that will become uber casual. I'm not saying people will swear it off like I will, but A LOT will not make it appointment television. Some Sundays they'll have it on, but many won't care.

Maybe it's not a huge number, but wouldn't the phenomenon you described pretty much be true in any market?

But maybe you're right. Maybe the fact that the NFL has so terrible served the St. Louis market for decades has actually locked in a market of fans that don't need a local team. I'd still venture the NFL would prefer to be in St. Louis in a world in which they can make that choice without giving up LA.

Let's be clear. I'm not suggesting the NFL is going to stretch itself all over the place to save the St. Louis market, and I'm certainly not suggesting it's going to continue to shut out LA just to save St. Louis. I'm saying there's a stadium proposal with $500 million of public dollars on the table in a media market that ranks well within the number of markets the NFL serves, and they might be interested in finding a way to make that work.

[colortv]

When Georgia Brown moved the Rams to St. Lous wasn't there talk about how the NFL didn't want her to because they didn't think it was a good market?

I imagine if they lose the Rams on top of losing the Cardinals we won't see another NFL team there for the foreseeable future.

[STL FANATIC]

When Georgia Brown moved the Rams to St. Lous wasn't there talk about how the NFL didn't want her to because they didn't think it was a good market?

I imagine if they lose the Rams on top of losing the Cardinals we won't see another NFL team there for the foreseeable future.

The NFL didn't want her to, but I think it had more to do with what's been covered and admitted. The LA market trumps the STL market. It wasn't about not wanting to be in St. Louis, it was about not wanting to lose LA. Same goes with LA and Oakland.

FWIW, Roger Goodell worked to help the St. Louis expansion bid back in the mid-90s. Roger himself isn't calling the shots, but I think he may support keeping the NFL in St. Louis. (Again, not necessarily at the expense of LA.) Although, maybe Roger's support of something is a good enough reason to think it's a bad idea.

Also, St. Louis lost the Cardinals because they wouldn't build Bidwell as stadium. If they lose the Rams it will be because the owner had an opportunity to bolt to LA, but with a stadium plan in existence.

I REALLY don't think the NFL will view St. Louis as some broken unworkable market that has twice failed. They may not fall over themselves to get back in, but I think if that stadium plan is on the table, and there's a franchise needing a home, they probably wouldn't hesitate to put them in St. Louis. This isn't your typical "failed" market.

[Gothamite]

The question is should the NFL desire a way to also keep or put a team in St. Louis?

So what you're really asking is whether St. Louis is better for the NFL than Oakland or San Diego. And I'm not sure how you'd make that argument.

[Gothamite]

Also, St. Louis lost the Cardinals because they wouldn't build Bidwell as stadium. If they lose the Rams it will be because the owner had an opportunity to bolt to LA, but with a stadium plan in existence.

Then they'll have to quickly put a stadium plan into existence. Proposing to build on land they don't own with money they don't have is not a plan.

[CubsFanBudMan]

Since we're talking secondary fandoms, this map from Twitter is a fun, yet admittedly limited, way to look at it:

https://interactive.twitter.com/nfl_followers2014/#?mode=team&team=all

There's a way to find the second and third favorite teams in each county as well. (I know Facebook has something like this as well.)

EDIT: Twitter's intro post with examples, including second place:

https://blog.twitter.com/2014/nfl-fan-map-where-are-your-team-s-followers

USA Today broke down some other segments: http://ftw.usatoday.com/2014/10/twitter-map-nfl-fans

[OnWis97]

Interesting. Minnesota's number show that the league probably should have let the Vikings move. The Vikings have all but two rural MN counties, but mostly with pluralities in the 20s. Not that this is necessarly totally accurate.

Also, I noticed one upstate county that had the Jets. I think that was it for them.

[Mac the Knife]

(You could throw Pittsburgh in there, too, which is doing well for now but the Penguins are always a hair's breadth from nobody caring about them.)

You just lost all credibility when talking about professional sports markets. I can't think off-hand of any other market with at least 3 of the 4 major sports in which the hockey team is more popular than its baseball or football counterpart... and the Pens are received a helluva lot better than the Pirates, even with the latter's recent winning.

When Georgia Brown moved the Rams to St. Lous wasn't there talk about how the NFL didn't want her to because they didn't think it was a good market?

I imagine if they lose the Rams on top of losing the Cardinals we won't see another NFL team there for the foreseeable future.

Sweet Georgia Brown?

I REALLY don't think the NFL will view St. Louis as some broken unworkable market that has twice failed. They may not fall over themselves to get back in, but I think if that stadium plan is on the table, and there's a franchise needing a home, they probably wouldn't hesitate to put them in St. Louis. This isn't your typical "failed" market.

No, the St. Louis market definitely hasn't "failed" the NFL. The powers that be recognize the situation for what it is - and it's about facilities. Hell, the Patriots nearly moved out of one of the top 7 markets in the country in the 90's to go to St. Louis. Why? Because St. Louis dangled a new stadium carrot and the Boston area didn't (well, not at first anyway).

[STL FANATIC]

(You could throw Pittsburgh in there, too, which is doing well for now but the Penguins are always a hair's breadth from nobody caring about them.)

You just lost all credibility when talking about professional sports markets. I can't think off-hand of any other market with at least 3 of the 4 major sports in which the hockey team is more popular than its baseball or football counterpart... and the Pens are received a helluva lot better than the Pirates, even with the latter's recent winning.

American NHL markets are hard to judge. Very few draw well for losers. Many draw well for Cup contenders. Pittsburgh was struggling before Crosby right? But they also really stunk, so I'm not blaming them. Just seems like NHL fan bases are more... there's a word here I can't come up with, but it means could gain or lose fans quickly & easily.

[STL FANATIC]

Also, St. Louis lost the Cardinals because they wouldn't build Bidwell as stadium. If they lose the Rams it will be because the owner had an opportunity to bolt to LA, but with a stadium plan in existence.

Then they'll have to quickly put a stadium plan into existence. Proposing to build on land they don't own with money they don't have is not a plan.

FWIW, Peacock said that while they're not going to spend major public money without a team commitment, they're moving forward on land acquisition pretty well right away.

[Mac the Knife]

(You could throw Pittsburgh in there, too, which is doing well for now but the Penguins are always a hair's breadth from nobody caring about them.)

You just lost all credibility when talking about professional sports markets. I can't think off-hand of any other market with at least 3 of the 4 major sports in which the hockey team is more popular than its baseball or football counterpart... and the Pens are received a helluva lot better than the Pirates, even with the latter's recent winning.

American NHL markets are hard to judge. Very few draw well for losers. Many draw well for Cup contenders. Pittsburgh was struggling before Crosby right? But they also really stunk, so I'm not blaming them. Just seems like NHL fan bases are more... there's a word here I can't come up with, but it means could gain or lose fans quickly & easily.

"Fickle" is the word you were looking for. And while I wouldn't say they were struggling pre-Crosby, the post-Mario lull was noticeable. They still were, and are, more popular than the Pirates though.

[STL FANATIC]

The question is should the NFL desire a way to also keep or put a team in St. Louis?

So what you're really asking is whether St. Louis is better for the NFL than Oakland or San Diego. And I'm not sure how you'd make that argument.

The Oakland TV market is covered by San Francisco, and St. Louis is a larger media market than San Diego. I'm not saying I just won the argument, but it's not a difficult one to make.

ALSO, there are no hopeful stadium deals on the table there. Again, that's part of this. I don't expect the NFL to stretch itself to stay in St. Louis, I'm just saying it's market status combined with a new stadium deal on the table might be worth it. MIGHT. (I understand your reservations about the stadium deal actually being viable at this point. For just a second, pretend that everything IS lined up. Does what I'm saying make sense then?)

[The_Admiral]

(You could throw Pittsburgh in there, too, which is doing well for now but the Penguins are always a hair's breadth from nobody caring about them.)

You just lost all credibility when talking about professional sports markets. I can't think off-hand of any other market with at least 3 of the 4 major sports in which the hockey team is more popular than its baseball or football counterpart... and the Pens are received a helluva lot better than the Pirates, even with the latter's recent winning.

Detroit had the Red Wings ahead of the Tigers for a while, I'm sure.

And pretty much every U.S. hockey market has shown itself to be capable of having the bottom drop out. Washington and Boston had runs as ghost towns. Detroit had the Dead Things. St. Louis and Pittsburgh have been on the brink. Minnesota lost a team. Enough has been said about Chicago. The only place I can think of that hasn't had a dangerously bad run is Philadelphia.

[STL FANATIC]

Not sure if this will be a hang up in LA or not. Kroenke's stadium calls for about $100 million in tax re-imbursements. That's not exactly the same as taxpayer funds, but it kind of is. For a stadium, we know that's a relatively small amount, but it's always been said that public funds are a non-starter in LA.

I'm betting they'll be able to get past this, though.

http://www.bizjournals.com/stlouis/morning_call/2015/01/kroenke-l-a-development-expects-100-million-in-tax.html

[FiddySicks]

(You could throw Pittsburgh in there, too, which is doing well for now but the Penguins are always a hair's breadth from nobody caring about them.)

You just lost all credibility when talking about professional sports markets. I can't think off-hand of any other market with at least 3 of the 4 major sports in which the hockey team is more popular than its baseball or football counterpart... and the Pens are received a helluva lot better than the Pirates, even with the latter's recent winning.

Detroit had the Red Wings ahead of the Tigers for a while, I'm sure.

And pretty much every U.S. hockey market has shown itself to be capable of having the bottom drop out. Washington and Boston had runs as ghost towns. Detroit had the Dead Things. St. Louis and Pittsburgh have been on the brink. Minnesota lost a team. Enough has been said about Chicago. The only place I can think of that hasn't had a dangerously bad run is Philadelphia.

Ok now I've never been to Pittsburgh, but has there ever really been a time where the Penguins have been more popular than the Steelers? I find that hard to believe.

And, Mac, if you mean simply more popular than the baseball OR football counterpart, well, yeah. OF COURSE the Penguins have had stretches where they've been more popular than the Pirates. The Pirates had a stretch of futility that came close to rivaling time served for some murder convictions.

[OnWis97]

(You could throw Pittsburgh in there, too, which is doing well for now but the Penguins are always a hair's breadth from nobody caring about them.)

You just lost all credibility when talking about professional sports markets. I can't think off-hand of any other market with at least 3 of the 4 major sports in which the hockey team is more popular than its baseball or football counterpart... and the Pens are received a helluva lot better than the Pirates, even with the latter's recent winning.

Detroit had the Red Wings ahead of the Tigers for a while, I'm sure.

And pretty much every U.S. hockey market has shown itself to be capable of having the bottom drop out. Washington and Boston had runs as ghost towns. Detroit had the Dead Things. St. Louis and Pittsburgh have been on the brink. Minnesota lost a team. Enough has been said about Chicago. The only place I can think of that hasn't had a dangerously bad run is Philadelphia.

I would listen to an argument that the Wild are more popular than the Twins right now. That's partly because the fans still think the Wild are good. That's where Minnesota pro sports are right now.