warwickland wrote: it's not chiefs level fandom, but it's "average." unfortunately, average may not be good enough.
Not even close to average. I can't think of a city, besides perhaps Jacksonville, that cares and supports their team less than St. Louis.
okay, Rams attendance has been pretty bad, and it's been in a slump since around 2007-08. but at the same time, i never thought that KC was ever NOT a baseball town, and thought that the MLB doesn't belong in KC, even when the stands were barren. even in 2014, attendence at kauffman was 63.7%? am i reading that right? there's more to consider.
i think it's a huge myth that st. louis is simply not an NFL town. it's a solid midwestern sports city with one of the three big franchises in the ditch. upside down. on fire.
Attendance bumps normally come a year after a big breakout. I expect the Royals will have higher attendance this year, even if the team sucks. Also, the Royals were in real danger of not even making the playoffs with a week to go in the season.
Otherwise, I agree with the points about attendance not equalling passion for a sport. I don't have a great feel for how abused the Rams' fan base feels, ala the Glass family ruining the Royals franchise.
I wasn't really looking at attendance to demonstrate St. Louis' view of the NFL. I just would think that if you asked people from St. Louis the order of their favorite team, the Rams would be down the list for most. But, this really has nothing to do with the fans. The Dome is terrible, the product sucks and the owner can get more money and wants to move.
beautyfromashes wrote:I wasn't really looking at attendance to demonstrate St. Louis' view of the NFL. I just would think that if you asked people from St. Louis the order of their favorite team, the Rams would be down the list for most. But, this really has nothing to do with the fans. The Dome is terrible, the product sucks and the owner can get more money and wants to move.
well you stated that that St. Louis doesn't really care about the NFL, but I argued that it does. the mayor and county executive are hustling to keep the NFL here for a good reason (NFL support, for one).
i sort of believed that too, until i understood the nuances of the situation.
Nixon says deals are in place with Ameren and the railroad to make available the stadium site.
As I mentioned earlier, Rams aren't and never were going anywhere. Just wanted their free stadium on the taxpayer dime, and would lower themselves to any amount of shameful behavior to get it...sad to see they will get what they want.
rxlexi wrote:Nixon says deals are in place with Ameren and the railroad to make available the stadium site.
As I mentioned earlier, Rams aren't and never were going anywhere. Just wanted their free stadium on the taxpayer dime, and would lower themselves to any amount of shameful behavior to get it...sad to see they will get what they want.
Rams will do everything possible to get out of STL, the stadium is meant to house an NFL team which may or may not be the Rams, does STL really want the the "element" the Raiders would bring?
i doubt someone would build a stadium on the missouri river!
Took me too long to get this, but then I lol'd.
But hey, isn't the Ram's practice facility and offices in Earth City?
yeah. those disgusting goose poop canals that circulate through earth city might as well be an extension of the missouri river. so, by that definition, the rams practice field is "on" the missouri river, in the floodplain, next to a disgustingly pungent landfill straight out of new jersey with radioactive waste that may or may not be in danger of catching on fire.
i doubt someone would build a stadium on the missouri river!
Took me too long to get this, but then I lol'd.
But hey, isn't the Ram's practice facility and offices in Earth City?
yeah. those disgusting goose poop canals that circulate through earth city might as well be an extension of the missouri river. so, by that definition, the rams practice field is "on" the missouri river, in the floodplain, next to a disgustingly pungent landfill straight out of new jersey with radioactive waste that may or may not be in danger of catching on fire.
earth city is a biblical-scale abomination.
Yeah, surprised to see that landfill next to it is still(!) on fire. IIRC, the waters haven't mixed by the time the reach downtown St. Louis, so the Missouri side would have the water from the Missouri River.
well, the chain of rocks and the cahokia bypass canal is past the confluence, so i imagine there's some mixing. one thing is certain, it's a different river after the missouri dumps in. the comment was relating to the turbidity as well as the cantankerus nature of the course of the missouri river, which is a highly channeled braided stream. while not the blue danube, the mississippi is (slightly) less volatile, and actually increasingly scenic upstream of the confluence (below is the less scenic area at the chain of rocks).
Drive by that area when going to see a granddaughter.
BTW, I would think St. Louis would have developed at the confluence of the rivers instead of its present site. Any idea why?
aknowledgeableperson wrote:Drive by that area when going to see a granddaughter.
BTW, I would think St. Louis would have developed at the confluence of the rivers instead of its present site. Any idea why?
aknowledgeableperson wrote:Drive by that area when going to see a granddaughter.
BTW, I would think St. Louis would have developed at the confluence of the rivers instead of its present site. Any idea why?
aknowledgeableperson wrote:Drive by that area when going to see a granddaughter.
BTW, I would think St. Louis would have developed at the confluence of the rivers instead of its present site. Any idea why?
The confluence is low and flat, all the way to St. Charles. Have to build out of the flood plain, especially in 1764.
