Originally posted by crabman82:
St Louis about to lose a 2nd nfl team. The mere fact they're this close to moving another team out of that market shows its not an nfl city. Any city can pack the stadium for a few years while they're one of the best teams in the league. The real test becomes when the team is less competitive, and we've seen the results. Jrg can post their attendance from the early 2000s, but I can probably find some good attendance #'s for the marlins in 1997 or 2003. Doesn't make it a good baseball town though.
Do you look at any details at all or just make your judgment based on black and white?
You say this regarding St. Louis (even though they have a reason for low attendance), but totally disregard that Los Angeles originally lost the Rams for the same exact reason. If St. Louis was given a competitive product on the field maybe only here and there, the fans would show. But that hasn't happened. Use the Blues for example. They have NEVER won a Stanley Cup. There is 0 questions about them moving. You know why? They put a product on the ice that people will want to pay to see. Pretty obvious why some wouldn't pay to go to a Rams game. Is San Francisco/Santa Clara suddenly not a good football market? Using your logic, that is what you are saying. Did you see all those empty seats at Levis recently? This has nothing to do with St. Louis. If the product was worth watching, the fans would be there. That has been proven every single season they have been competitive.
Why is everyone so simple minded in this thread? Its like some only look at the situation one way.
[ Edited by jrg on Jan 9, 2016 at 12:58 PM ]
he's pandering to the StL homer sportstalk....what does that seattle still-lives-with-his-momma's boy nerd really know
