KCRag Forum

beautyfromashes wrote:

pstokely wrote:

brewcrew1000 wrote:^There would be no chance, i think St Louis would lose a team forever. Since NFL is all about TV ratings, they want large TV markets now, I would think the order of expansion would be.
1. LA
2. London
3. San Antonio/Austin
4. Toronto
5. Mexico City

STL is bigger than San Antonio, also too close to Cowboys (and Texans), networks wouldn't pay more for TV sets outside the US

San Antonio gets the Austin market and the population is growing much faster than St. Louis. Plus, I would think SA would support football like St. Louis would the Cardinals and only has one other major league sport, Spurs.

but STL has more income and Fortune 500 companies, not as much as LA but more than SA, Austin is a Longhorns town and only doesn't really care about the NFL if Longhorns alums aren't playing, the CBS station turned downed the Texans for the Titans just for Vince Young

if LA ever gets another team or 2, which city becomes the NFL's new pawn?

pstokely wrote:if LA ever gets another team or 2, which city becomes the NFL's new pawn?

San Antonio or Toronto. Maybe Salina.

pstokely wrote: but STL has more income and Fortune 500 companies, not as much as LA but more than SA, Austin is a Longhorns town and only doesn't really care about the NFL if Longhorns alums aren't playing, the CBS station turned downed the Texans for the Titans just for Vince Young

I recall reading that major leagues consider the Gross Metro/Regional Product as one factor, not F500 companies. SA/Austin combined GMP is quite a bit higher than STL. STLs is lower than US avg per cap and SA is even lower. Was surprised to see that all 3 have lower per cap GMP than KC, even Austin.

http://www.bea.gov/iTable/iTable.cfm?re ... 000&7002=2

GDP (2013) in millions

san antonio 96,030
st. louis 145,958
austin 103,892
kansas city 117,321
cincinnati 119,090
denver 178,860 (!)
minneapolis-st. paul 227,793 (!!)
nashville 100,841
indianapolis 126,472

http://www.bea.gov

st. louis has a vast underclass compared to all the other cities, to be sure, probably about twice as large as kansas city.

Here is per capita GDP in 2013...

MSP 61,711
KC 53,677
Atlanta 52,178
Austin 52,110
US AVG 52,093
STL 48,738
SA 39,280

Looks like Detroit, STL, Phoenix, Tampa and Miami are the only metros with per cap GDP below US avg that have an NFL team, and 3 of those are heavily Latino immigrants and a lot of retirees not working.

As far as MSP, it helps per cap GDP as more of their retirees leave, but they also have a great economy now. The South has lower per cap GDP partly because of increase of retirees.

warwickland wrote:GDP (2013) in millions

san antonio 96,030
st. louis 145,958
austin 103,892
kansas city 117,321
cincinnati 119,090
denver 178,860 (!)
minneapolis-st. paul 227,793 (!!)
nashville 100,841
indianapolis 126,472

http://www.bea.gov

st. louis has a vast underclass compared to all the other cities, to be sure, probably about twice as large as kansas city.

I don't see how Austin could be excluded from any SA market study any more than Ft Lauderdale could be excluded from the Miami market or the Inland Empire or Orange County from LA.

st. louis 145,958

san antonio 96,030
austin 103,892
TOTAL SA/Austin 199,922

kcjak wrote:

warwickland wrote:GDP (2013) in millions

san antonio 96,030
st. louis 145,958
austin 103,892
kansas city 117,321
cincinnati 119,090
denver 178,860 (!)
minneapolis-st. paul 227,793 (!!)
nashville 100,841
indianapolis 126,472

http://www.bea.gov

st. louis has a vast underclass compared to all the other cities, to be sure, probably about twice as large as kansas city.

I don't see how Austin could be excluded from any SA market study any more than Ft Lauderdale could be excluded from the Miami market or the Inland Empire or Orange County from LA.

st. louis 145,958

san antonio 96,030
austin 103,892
TOTAL SA/Austin 199,922

Austin is a separate TV market from SA, #49

gosh, i guess you would think san antonio and austin could support an NFL team.

st. louis is a weirdly small NFL TV market. i think that indy and nashville really cut into that market that the cardinals own, and i've seen plenty of bears/cardinals crossover in the larger central illinois cities. the blues are now ensconsed into st. louis culture in a way that would take the rams another 3 or 4 decades. show me a rams bar, for instance. i know of bars that are mainly hockey bar

i would so like to see a smaller, riverfront MLS stadium with a little soccer-bar nightlife strip remaining on north broadway (like the blues used to have in downtown dogtown). we already have urban soccer bars that support european and uk clubs, shit...

nightlife strip remaining on north broadway (like the blues used to have in downtown dogtown)

I have heard good things about this. Sadly never made it into the old barn across from Forest Park.

I simply can't imagine that the NFL leaves the STL market (would bet heavily against it happening), but it would certainly be a blow to the region if they do, whether the Rams have much of a following or not.

rxlexi wrote:

nightlife strip remaining on north broadway (like the blues used to have in downtown dogtown)

I have heard good things about this. Sadly never made it into the old barn across from Forest Park.

I simply can't imagine that the NFL leaves the STL market (would bet heavily against it happening), but it would certainly be a blow to the region if they do, whether the Rams have much of a following or not.

Why do you think it's not going to happen? I would think that if more NFL owners liked Kroenke the move would be a done deal; the league wants a presence in the 2nd largest market in the country. Just wondering what the thoughts are on the NFL forcing the Rams to stay in St Louis.

warwickland wrote:gosh, i guess you would think san antonio and austin could support an NFL team.

st. louis is a weirdly small NFL TV market. i think that indy and nashville really cut into that market that the cardinals own, and i've seen plenty of bears/cardinals crossover in the larger central illinois cities. the blues are now ensconsed into st. louis culture in a way that would take the rams another 3 or 4 decades. show me a rams bar, for instance. i know of bars that are mainly hockey bar

i would so like to see a smaller, riverfront MLS stadium with a little soccer-bar nightlife strip remaining on north broadway (like the blues used to have in downtown dogtown). we already have urban soccer bars that support european and uk clubs, shit...

SA is also a "small" TV market, if an NFL franchise ever comes to SA, Austin would probably become a secondary market, and then they'd miss out on former Longhorns in the NFL

kcjak wrote:

rxlexi wrote:

nightlife strip remaining on north broadway (like the blues used to have in downtown dogtown)

I have heard good things about this. Sadly never made it into the old barn across from Forest Park.

I simply can't imagine that the NFL leaves the STL market (would bet heavily against it happening), but it would certainly be a blow to the region if they do, whether the Rams have much of a following or not.

Why do you think it's not going to happen? I would think that if more NFL owners liked Kroenke the move would be a done deal; the league wants a presence in the 2nd largest market in the country. Just wondering what the thoughts are on the NFL forcing the Rams to stay in St Louis.

the owners like the Spanos and Davis families more

Rams are gone. Too much power behind the move and since St. Louis stole the Rams from LA, there really can't be much backlash or protest...not that people in St. Louis really care about the NFL anyway. Kind of poetic justice.

http://www.courant.com/business/dan-haa ... story.html

Hartford urges St. Louis not to tear up its urban fabric for eight football games a year.

there's of course the talk of louring a MLS team with the stadium. i would be ok with a modified site plan that was not so demo-heavy.

unfortunately st. louis has more "old big brick buildings" than anyone knows what to do with here, that warehouse building stock spreads north for miles. i know that sounds awful, but think of buildings in the west bottoms strewn along independence avenue all the way over to 435.

should i perform urbanist seppuku after saying something like that?

beautyfromashes wrote:Rams are gone. Too much power behind the move and since St. Louis stole the Rams from LA, there really can't be much backlash or protest...not that people in St. Louis really care about the NFL anyway. Kind of poetic justice.

that's honestly debatable, i've even come around to realizing that. it's not chiefs level fandom, but it's "average." unfortunately, average may not be good enough.

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.

beautyfromashes wrote:

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 (by NFL standards), 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. however, during the mid 00s the crappy dome was consistantly pulling in higher attendance percentages than KC.

Bernie: St. Louis gets an unfair rap for NFL support
Bernie Miklasz

http://www.stltoday.com/sports/columns/ ... d9584.html

If the Dave Peacock and Bob Blitz stadium plan gets off the ground, it would be the second new NFL stadium constructed and opened for an NFL team in our town since 1995.
If St. Louis has allegedly moved at such a plodding pace — then why isn't anyone talking about the Los Angeles failure to get anything done on the stadium front during the many decades that have rolled by?

...

The Rams' attendance in St. Louis has dropped over the past several seasons, which is understandable given the circumstances that include: (A) the team's terrible 49-110-1 record since last making the playoffs in the 2004 season; (B) an aloof owner who refuses to engage the fans; (C) an owner who is angling to move the franchise; (D) and having home games played in a facility that the Rams deem inadequate and below NFL standards.
Gee, I wonder why attendance would go from having a long string of home sellouts to an average of 57,000 per game?
And by the way: why does St. Louis have to apologize for still drawing 57,000 per game for a franchise that hasn't had a winning season since 2003?
At some point the team — not the fans — should be held accountable for lower attendance.