[Elvis]

http://www.stltoday.com/sports/columns/ ... 20df8.html

Bernie: If Kroenke builds it, will LA come?

Earlier this week, Emily Kaplan of the Monday Morning Quarterback at SI.com. wrote a piece about the likely return of an NFL team to Los Angeles. The story included many comments from LA-area fans. And before the NFL even gets to Los Angeles, there's apathy.

Will Los Angeles support a team?

Football, only football, may not be enough, Kaplan surmised. There's got to be some sizzle, glamour and buzz to go with it. Side attractions. Multiple entertainment options. Distractions. Stuff for bored kids.

Maybe build a Splash Mountain replica. (Wait a second, that would lead to drought shaming, and the water vigilantes would show up. Riot? Bad idea.) Have Slash from Guns 'N Roses stage an adjacent concert. Roll in the Food Trucks. Install a Kardashian dunking booth, and put it right next to the Short Attention Span Theater.

"League and real estate experts say that for the NFL to prosper in the current L.A. climate, a team would need to build more than just a stadium," Kaplan wrote. "The NFL in L.A. would need to be an experience. Think Jerry World, only amplified..."

This sure sounds like a job for the world's most exciting man, Stan Kroenke. The pride of Cole Camp, Mo. is desperate to move the Rams back to Los Angeles, the team's second home, after they began as the Cleveland Rams.

Missouri Gov. Jay Nixon and the St. Louis task force led by Dave Peacock and Bob Blitz are trying to finalize funding and land acquisition for a new football stadium on the north riverfront. They hope the NFL will reject Kroenke's relocation request or steer another league franchise to St. Louis.

Kaplan's story prompted an intriguing reaction from SI's Peter King, who heads the Monday Morning Quarterback site. King's theory: the LA fan apathy may actually work to Kroenke's advantage as Enos Stanley tries to outmaneuver the San Diego Chargers and Oakland Raiders in the three-team battle for Los Angeles.

"The upshot of the story, at least the one I took from it, is that the area isn’t burning with passion for the return of the NFL, gone since Christmas Eve 1994," King wrote. "Here’s why this story is better for the Rams than for either the Chargers or Raiders, both of whom have the same kind of wanderlust as the Rams: The Los Angeles area, as polls over the years have shown, won’t be a lock to support one team through thick and thin, never mind two.

"And what’s the team most likely to garner support early? Probably the Rams. They have the best remaining local fan base, from the looks of it. It’s not overwhelming support, to be sure, and who knows? ... a former USC player (Jeff Fisher) would likely be coaching the Rams, and a franchise running back (Todd Gurley) would be a looming star, and the St. Louis defense could be good enough to be a playoff defense in 2016.

"When owners meet to discuss L.A. on Aug. 11 in Chicago, I think the weight of having to support two teams in a market that appears to be just fine with zero is going to fall on the shoulders of the owners, and they’re more likely to say, 'Let’s just put one there for now' instead of opting for two.

"It’s just the safer move, even if it means stadium-poor San Diego and Oakland have to put up with bad venues for a year or two longer while each team considers other options. If the Rams are the golden franchise that gets to move, then St. Louis and San Antonio step to the front of the line for one of the dissatisfied California franchises, and then it’s back to ground zero for the two losers in the L.A. derby."

So give me a moment to process this. Let's see, if I am understanding this correctly ...

Los Angeles, which lacks enthusiasm for pro football, would still be awarded an NFL franchise, anyway. Just because, well, it's BIG. And the Rams probably will become that team, simply because the LA ambivalence and apathy is so deep, you can't even consider putting two NFL teams in the nation's second-largest market. It's risky to expect strong fan support for even one team — and so two teams are out of the question.

I can imagine this scene, taking place in a private meeting of NFL owners before the vote on what to do with Los Angeles:

Commissioner Roger Goodell: "Well, what will it be? Chargers and Raiders in Carson or Kroenke and the Rams in Inglewood?"

Various NFL owners: "Hell, we don't know if the Rams can count on healthy support in Los Angeles, and Kroenke has been a big-time loser in St. Louis, where his team is 27th in the league in wins since he took over before the 2010 season. The Rams are 29-50-1 in St. Louis with Kroenke as the owner, and the franchise hasn't had a winning season since 2003. Is this a good idea? I mean, does anyone in here really think Kroenke is going to be like the late Jerry Buss, the perfect owner for LA, who built the 'Showtime Lakers.' We need excitement and sizzle out there to keep the interest of those short-attention span fans. And so our solution is to go with the guy who made a fortune building WalMarts? Really? That's the best we can come up with out there?

"This is a tough call, but I say we rip the team out of St. Louis, anyway. Yeah, we know even though there's already a team in Southern California that's been trying to get a new stadium built for 14 years, and could move to LA by making a two-hour drive north on the I-5. Let's put the Rams in Los Angeles, because if anything will get the fans fired up there it's having a franchise that's won 49 out of its last 161 games since last making the playoffs in 2004."

Is that it?

This is Alice in Wonderland stuff, yes?

Let me say this: I actually believe LA initially would go nuts over the Rams if Kroenke can get the move approved. There's no doubt in my mind that the initial support would be tremendous. And I believe the die-hard NFL/Rams fans out there are loyal and would fully embrace this team.

But what happens if the Rams continue to be bad, mediocre or dull?

How would that play in LA after several seasons?

I was tinkering around with attendance figures the other day, and came up with a couple of notes:

1. In 2014, the Rams' 11th consecutive non-winning season, St. Louis had a larger average attendance for home games than the 1984 LA Rams team that won 10 games and went to the playoffs with future Hall of Famer Eric Dickerson setting a single-season NFL rushing record with 2,105 yards.

The 2014 Rams averaged 57,018 per home game.

The 1984 Rams averaged 54,455 per home game.

2. Between 1983 and 1989, seven seasons, the LA Rams made the playoffs six times and had the NFL's sixth-best winning percentage at .604. They were also No. 5 in points scored over the seven-year span. I think we'd all agree that this was a successful and entertaining stretch for the football fans of Los Angeles.

OK, now let's compare the average home attendance of the Rams' six playoff teams in LA to the 57,018 average at The Edward Jones Dome in 2014:

1983, LA: 52,780 ... less than the '14 Rams.

1984, LA: 54,455 ... less than the '14 Rams.

1985, LA: 56,242 ... less than the '14 Rams.

1986, LA: 59,285 ... 2,451 more per game than '14 Rams

1988, LA: 54,469 ... less than the '14 Rams

1989, LA: 58,846 ... 1,828 more per game than '14 Rams.

3. OK, this is even better. And funnier: Let's compare the Rams' home attendance in Los Angeles during the run of six playoff teams in seven seasons to the home attendance of the worst team in NFL history over five consecutive seasons.

Not that you need to be reminded, but between 2007 and 2011, the St. Louis Rams played 80 regular-season games and lost 65 times. That hideous 15-65 record is in fact the worst five-year mark in NFL history. There has never been an NFL team as hopeless and pathetic as the 2007-2011 Rams — not over a five-season stretch, anyway.

On the left-coast side, those six LA Rams teams that made the playoffs went 61-35. Between 1983 and 1989, the Rams competed in 10 NFL postseason games, winning four.

During that seven-season stretch only San Francisco (14) and Denver (11) competed in more postseason games than the LA Rams. And though the Rams went 4-6 in those games, only five NFL teams won more postseason games over that time.

Between '83 and '86 Dickerson averaged 1,742 yards rushing per season. Between 1986 and '89, QB Jim Everett ranked sixth among NFL quarterbacks in passer rating, and only nine league quarterbacks threw more TD passes.

That LA offense also had the wonderful Henry Ellard, who was not only a top 10 NFL wide receiver, but a dynamic punt returner as well. Those Rams teams had two Hall of Famers, OT Jackie Slater and Dickerson. They had a future Hall of Famer in pass rusher Kevin Greene (and yes he will make it to Canton.) Between 1983 and '89, the Rams had the league's No. 6-ranked defense.

Those LA Rams didn't win a Super Bowl or make it to one, but they did play in two NFC Championship games. They just had the misfortune of having to go against that 49ers dynasty, and also the '85 Bears who may have had the best defense in NFL history for a single season.

But during that time of franchise history, the Rams gave their SoCal fans six playoff teams in seven years, a .604 winning percentage, one of the greatest-ever running backs, and excellence on both sides of the ball.

And between 2007 and 2011, the Rams gave St. Louis fans 65 losses in 80 games. A team that was outscored by 922 points in those 80 contests.

OK, so let's close this out:

Over seven seasons those terrific LA Rams averaged 56,012 per game at home.

And the St. Louis Rams, who were the worst team in NFL history over five seasons? Well, they averaged 57,765 per home game.

That's right.

The team with the poorest five-season stretch in NFL history that plays in a mid-sized market drew more fans at home than the nation's No. 2 market at a time when the LA Rams were winning 60.4 percent of their games and going to the NFL playoffs six times in seven seasons.

This is true.

But just remember the lazy national-media narrative, and repeat it many times. And you too can get paid to be an NFL pundit:

St. Louis is a baseball town.

St. Louis doesn't support the Rams.

There you go. Keep practicing that.

You'll be on TV as an "insider" in no time.

Thanks for reading ...

— Bernie

[LoyalRam]

Ok...It was WAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAY to long from Bernie M, that POS. Skimming through part of it in his fantasy scenario, he degrades the LA attendence numbers, without mentioning the Raiders had moved to the Colieseum and had won a Super Bowl there..The Rams had moved to Anaheim and plyed in a baseball stadium. Within the space of 100 or so miles, 3 NFL teams were competing for fans..Did I mention the Rams have NEVER HAD a new stadium in LA? Of course, Bernie mentions none of this because he is a POS. He also never mentioned the revenue generating ability of the new stadium in Inglewood, where EVERY air traveller into LAX, will see advertising on the Rams roof, let alone the impressive increasein corporate sponsorships...

What a desperate, bloviating, smelly troll, posing as a sports journalist

[Elvis]

I think the best thing i can say about Bernie is he's an every man. His opinions blow in the wind just like the public.

He's down, he's defeated, bitter, not making a ton of sense. I'm sure that's how a lot of Rams fans in St. Louis feel these days...

[LoyalRam]

It would have been more honest to look at Rams attendence numbers from the late 60's and 70's...My first game to the Coliseum, the attendence was about 80,000 in 1973...The stadium was bad and getting worse in 1973, along with folks getting more television sets at that point..Lots of factors went into the decrease in attendence numbers for the Rams in LA and Anaheim..NONE of which Bernie M mentioned

[Hacksaw]

I just posted this a RRF in response to that article by Bernie. What a tool.
___________

Message to Bernie. Los Angeles had 2 pro football teams in town during those years and unfortunately for the Rams, we had Georgia and they had a 'commitment to excellence'. A slogan they were living up to. Market share.

Bernie might give you guys great rah rah pieces but he make's the StL look second rate like he is. And StL isn't.

King is right though. LA hasn't had a team in 20 years so it's been ripped from out life's blood. I can't count on both hands the number of my apathetic friends who will bust out in cheers and totally go all in if they come back. Then there are all my football junkie bro's who still do.
Point being, LA is cold on football although when it's here we will embrace it in a big LA way. Still it is safer for the league to bring in one team at a time to be sure and the Rams are the safest choice.
This method also affords Spanos the most flexibility and aligns with what Kroenke wanted which is to have a couple years head start to build the sponsorships and sell the boxes in return for his investment.
Davis may be hurting but the G4 and a chunk of ESK's relocation penalty will get Oakland over the hump.
Spanos might just get his downtown stadium which would be best for those involved here as SD and LA are now 2 new warm weather Superbowl sites, the Chargers won't be playing 2nd fiddle to either the Rams or the Raiders in LA and Oakland stays put in the bay area. This avoids all 3 teams playing in their 2nd choice stadium.
I don't know what to say about StL but the effort and lengths to which your town has gone should and can't be overlooked. I get Bernie's angst there.
If the Rams do go back to Los Angeles, I hope the next expansion team or even better/sooner the Raiders become the new StL Stallions. That is a great name IMO and you great fans there should have your own team that is from St. Louis..

[dieterbrock]

I tried to look it up but cant seem to find a good link that gives NFL attendance figures, but at one point I had seen that the Cardinals averaged about 35k fans the last 3 seasons in St Louis.
So I'd say that if they averaged 35k for a mediocre Cards team outdoors and 55k for a lousy Rams team indoors they may want to realize that the dome has been a factor in keeping fans coming.

[OldSchool]

I have just two questions for this mental giant Bernie.

1) what was the NFL average attendance for the years you cited Los Angeles attendance and how did the Rams ranks.

2) same question just switch to St. Louis.

When he investigates this and realizes those bad years in Los Angeles were closer to the NFL average than the St. Louis years were I'd like an audio recording of his reaction/response. The best thing about a move to LA is this turd wouldn't be a Rams beat writer anymore.

[LoyalRam]

If you trust Wikapedia, the attendence number averages are there, along with the NFL leage average..

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_o ... geles_Rams

[The Ripper]

I have just two questions for this mental giant Bernie.

1) what was the NFL average attendance for the years you cited Los Angeles attendance and how did the Rams ranks.

2) same question just switch to St. Louis.

When he investigates this and realizes those bad years in Los Angeles were closer to the NFL average than the St. Louis years were I'd like an audio recording of his reaction/response. The best thing about a move to LA is this turd wouldn't be a Rams beat writer anymore.

The Rams were 17 out of 28 teams and in 2014 the attendance was 31 of 32.
http://www.losangelesrams.org/about/sta ... dance.html

The St Louis Cardinals for the same period were at the bottom of the league. It's a little skewed because the stadiums was also the smallest in the league. I have the numbers just can't find them.

[dieterbrock]

Cardinals stadium was small, only held 60k. Still, from what I recall I saw an average of around 35k per game