cardsfan04 wrote:But, I think the lack of fan support isn't because of St. Louis. I think it's because the Rams have sucked as a franchise. If they were elsewhere, I don't think it would be very different. I mean, there would be the initial boost of fans when they initially move, but I think many cities (especially LA) would struggle to continue showing up supporting the team after a decade of irrelevance (or 2 decades of irrelevance if you take away a ~3 year run).
I agree ....somewhat. You are right about LA, but there are many markets in the league that support their teams even in bad times. The Rams won a Superbowl 12 years ago..how many franchises can say that? My point is that the Rams have bandwagon fans...not die hard fans. There are teams like Cleveland, Chicago, Washington, and Green Bay that sell out every game, every year, not matter what.
Furthermore, 'it's not St. Louis fans' can not be more incorrect. You sight 'success' yet the Blues are doing better and their ticket sales are down and the Cards won the series but had their lowest attendance in the new stadium and failed to sell out two playoff games.
The St. Louis sports fan base is simply spending less money on tickets period. No matter what sport. And when you are third or fourth down the food chain the way the Rams are.....it's even more significant.
All that said, (regular) fan attendance is one of the least significant sources of revenue for NFL franchises. Even if the NFL knew they wouldn't sell a single ticket to average Joe fan in LA. As long as they get the TV market and sold the luxury boxes and such...they wouldn't think twice about putting a team back there.