Another metric of just how bad the LA viewership was. (1 Viewer)

Previous Next
rodgepodge9 said:
I live in Los Angeles. I keep saying this over and over and I really truly am shocked that this really simple truth somehow escapes the minds and research capabilities of a multi billion dollar company like the NFL.

I am from New Orleans. I will ALWAYS be a Saints fan. LA viewership is always going to be whack because it is essentially a city full of people from everywhere. The viewership numbers will likely skew to match closely with the nation as a whole.

It is pretty nice having a team here, I have gotten to see the Saints each of the past few seasons and the one coming up as well.

We all laugh at the fan attendance at Rams games (no Rams fans) .. but I think that is kind of the point. LA IS ACTUALLY a big enough market to warrant a team being here... but it is kind of more for the opposing fans than it is the city of LA.

That being said, lots of folks out in LA are fickle ... and making/winning the super bowl probably has/would have created more of a fan base out here. (I strongly lean to the theories about our NFCCG)

I do NOT think they need two teams here... that is the shocking part of all of this.

I got off point a little bit but... anyone who thinks viewership in LA for the Rams or Chargers is going to be high ... well they are stupid. The only way it really works is if they are playing the long game and trying to establish a team 10-15 years from now all the young kids growing up love and adore.

Say what you want about crappy LA fans ( I do hate them...) But they are very loyal to their Lakers.
Click to expand...
You hit on the bottom line for the NFL, which is the bottom line. A lower percentage of 5 million plus people is most likely going to be a greater number than a higher percentage of less than 2 million people.

TV revenue, merchandising and suite sells are the primary sources of NFL revenue. The NFL and the Rams will make more money from those sources with the Rams being in Los Angeles, than they ever would with the Rams being in St. Louis or smaller markets.
 
Last edited:
Bill said:
Yep, it truly was a bad divorce between the Rams franchise and the city of St Louis. The fact that this story is from a St Louis source is proof to me that the Rams would have always had a much more loyal fan base in that city than they will EVER have in Los Angeles. L.A. is like an infant being force-fed strained peas & carrots. They may eat a little of it, but it's never going to be their favorite food.
Click to expand...

Great Analogy!
 
Bill said:
Yep, it truly was a bad divorce between the Rams franchise and the city of St Louis. The fact that this story is from a St Louis source is proof to me that the Rams would have always had a much more loyal fan base in that city than they will EVER have in Los Angeles. L.A. is like an infant being force-fed strained peas & carrots. They may eat a little of it, but it's never going to be their favorite food.
Click to expand...
They couldn’t even sell out in St. Louis. At least the Rams have had a fifty year plus history in Los Angeles. They belong there.
 
Saint Jack said:
They couldn’t even sell out in St. Louis. At least the Rams have had a fifty year plus history in Los Angeles. They belong there.
Click to expand...


With the record of the Rams in the last 10 years in St Louis was it any wonder. St Louis Supported the Rams. The Rams (Kroenke) didn't support St Louis.
2016 4-12-0
2015 7-9-0
2014 6-10-0
2013 7-9-0
2012 7-8-1
2011 2-14-0
2010 7-9-0
2009 1-15-0
2008 2-14-0
2007 3-13-0
2006 8-8-0
2005 6-10-0
2004 8-8-0

Won 68 Loss 139
 
RMFN said:
With the record of the Rams in the last 10 years in St Louis was it any wonder. St Louis Supported the Rams. The Rams (Kroenke) didn't support St Louis.
2016 4-12-0
2015 7-9-0
2014 6-10-0
2013 7-9-0
2012 7-8-1
2011 2-14-0
2010 7-9-0
2009 1-15-0
2008 2-14-0
2007 3-13-0
2006 8-8-0
2005 6-10-0
2004 8-8-0

Won 68 Loss 139
Click to expand...
L.A. supported the Rams for fifty plus years before St. Louis stole the Rams.
 
Last edited:
faceman said:
St. Louis is a baseball town and L.A. is a lakers town. That's not going to change very soon.
Click to expand...
The Rams should’ve never moved in the 90s. The only reason they left was because of the owner at the time.
And I agree, St. Louis is a baseball town and L.A. is a Lakers town, but that doesn’t mean the Rams should’ve relocated to St. Louis.
 
StudioSaint said:
You hit on the bottom line for the NFL, which is the bottom line. A lower percentage of 5 million plus people is most likely going to be a greater number than a higher percentage of less than 2 million people.

TV revenue, merchandising and suite sells are the primary sources of NFL revenue. The NFL and the Rams will make more money from those sources with the Rams being in Los Angeles, than they ever would with the Rams being in St. Louis or smaller markets.
Click to expand...
A lot of people miss this^ point completely. The NFL knows that the Rams are not the big sports draw in L.A. But the key is that they don't need to be in order to bring in the bucks the league is looking for. Even a mediocre Rams team will still bring a percentage of local football fans to the games and adopt the Rams. And that's all they need in such a large population/market.

But I do think the jury is still out on the survival of the Chargers in that area. They don't have the background in that location as do the Rams. By far more fans of the game will adopt the Rams over the Chargers as their team. Having both franchises there just seems to be a matter of trying to feed two birds with one stadium. :scratch:
 
Bill said:
A lot of people miss this^ point completely. The NFL knows that the Rams are not the big sports draw in L.A. But the key is that they don't need to be in order to bring in the bucks the league is looking for. Even a mediocre Rams team will still bring a percentage of local football fans to the games and adopt the Rams. And that's all they need in such a large population/market.

But I do think the jury is still out on the survival of the Chargers in that area. They don't have the background in that location as do the Rams. By far more fans of the game will adopt the Rams over the Chargers as their team. Having both franchises there just seems to be a matter of trying to feed two birds with one stadium. :scratch:
Click to expand...
I think the Chargers move had more to do with CBS not wanting to be left out of Los Angeles.
 
Saint Jack said:
I think the Chargers move had more to do with CBS not wanting to be left out of Los Angeles.
Click to expand...
I wouldn't doubt that at all. No matter the size of the pie, everyone is trying to get a slice.
 

Create an account or login to comment

You must be a member in order to leave a comment

Create account

Create an account on our community. It's easy!

Register

Log in

Already have an account? Log in here.

Previous Next

Users who are viewing this thread

    Total: 2 (members: 0, guests: 2)

    Share this page

     

    Twitter

    Back
    Top Bottom