OFFICIAL (and only) "Rams to L.A." Thread

[macrammer]

[QUOTE=gap;452499]So you're saying the RAMS, over the last 8 years, have been better than the "sabotaged" years? And now the team isn't committing to the fans, but they expect the fans to commit to them?

Not buying it.

No, i was simply refuting your perspective of the lean LA years. I lived it. did not read about it, did not talk around the water cooler, I lived it. This team truly did not commit to being better sans Rosenbloom until Stan took over. As a long time Ram fan, I saw the greatness that we were melt away into the travesty we became prior to the move to St Louis. Your comment that LA does not deserve a team because they did not support the Rams is misguided and not belayed by facts.

[HUbison]

This team truly did not commit to being better sans Rosenbloom until Stan took over.

I hate this stupid civil war as much as anyone, but the Rams went to the NFC Championship a full decade after Rosenbloom died. They went to the playoffs in 7 of the 10 seasons following his death. They were still playing great football in the 80's.

I know everyone hates Georgia for various reasons, but it's not like this franchise just fell apart after CR died.

[mh-i]

Having lived through it there's a few things not being mentioned about the Rams leaving LA. Both the Rams and the Raiders wanted new stadiums. Neither Anaheim or LA were willing at the time. The other altertenatives that are available today weren't available then. Now that it's been almost 20 years things have changed and the area has 2 stadium projects waiting in the wings for a NFL team.

As far as attendence the reality in the LA area is what it is. Fans won't flock to see a perennial loser. I will but casual fans won't. There's too many choices on how to spend your money. Back then it was Rams, Raiders, Lakers, Kings, Ducks, Angels, Dodgers, USC, UCLA, Long Beach St., plus many, many more college sports programs all within a 30 mile radius. That's just sports choices to compete with. Throw in all the non sports entertainment choices in So Cal and it's a brutal market.

Did Rams ownership allow the team to go downhill so fans in LA would lose interest? I didn't see that as much as I saw extremely poor player personell decisions. It continued after the Rams landed in St. Louis. Letting Dickerson go and letting Bettis go to name two. Dick Vermiel finally became the guy that said enough is enough and built a winner.

Do I think the Rams will end up in LA? I don't think the time window is large enough. LA wants to move ASAP. Unfortunately I think the odds are better the Chargers will end up here than the Rams coming back.

[macrammer]

I hate this stupid civil war as much as anyone, but the Rams went to the NFC Championship a full decade after Rosenbloom died. They went to the playoffs in 7 of the 10 seasons following his death. They were still playing great football in the 80's.

I know everyone hates Georgia for various reasons, but it's not like this franchise just fell apart after CR died.

1965-1979 in this 15 year span, Rams had 13 winning seasons and two losing seasons. Season record winning % = 86% positive, 14% negative
1980- 1994 in this 15 year span, Rams had 7 winning seasons v 8 losing seasons. Winning season % = 46% losing = 54%
1995-2010 in this span Rams had 10 losing 2 .500 and 4 winning seasons winning season = 25%
losing season = 62% .500 = 13%

So, prior to Georgia, Rams had a clip of 86% of winning seasons. After her takeover, it dropped to 32%


IMO It could be argued that ownership did not know how to keep the dynasty "they" assembled.....Rams, if managed more effectively, should never have hit the doldrums after GSOT we have all experienced.

[HUbison]

1965-1979 in this 15 year span, Rams had 13 winning seasons and two losing seasons. Season record winning % = 86% positive, 14% negative
1980- 1994 in this 15 year span, Rams had 7 winning seasons v 8 losing seasons. Winning season % = 46% losing = 54%
1995-2010 in this span Rams had 10 losing 2 .500 and 4 winning seasons winning season = 25%
losing season = 62% .500 = 13%

So, prior to Georgia, Rams had a clip of 86% of winning seasons. After her takeover, it dropped to 32%


IMO It could be argued that ownership did not know how to keep the dynasty "they" assembled.....Rams, if managed more effectively, should never have hit the doldrums after GSOT we have all experienced.

I'm sure we can all agree that the Shaw, Zygmunt, Frontiere days were less palatable than the Rosenbloom era. My only point, which is a valid one, is that the franchise did not fall apart right after Rosenbloom died. And therefore, that is not what led to the drop in attendance throughout the 80's.

I'm sure there were all sorts of factors that led to that decline, but bad football wasn't one. The 80's were a very winning decade for the Rams.

[Vinnie25]

All these facts and stats are nice, but it still doesn't explain why St. Louis fans aren't going out and supporting they're team. I know the team has been crap for the past couple years, but even the Cleveland Browns, Arizona Cardinals, and Kansas City Chiefs have beat us in attendance during that time. Even this year when the Rams were competitive and had a winning product on the field, there would still be tons of empty seats.... I just don't get it.

[gap]

As Macrammer said, you have no clue what you're talking about. The Rams were the biggest ticket in LA before she-who-will-not-be-named took control. 100,000 in LA in the crappy old LA Coliseum. Look at the numbers for the Dodgers, Angels, Ducks, Kings, Lakers and Clippers and tell me LA doesn't support their team. As Mac said, you can't compare what happened in last few years to the history here. LA should have a team because the money is here. ...and that's the bottom line.

I guess we'll have to wait and see, shall we? But as it has been said before, the fans of Stl had better start supporting the Rams or they will be gone. To be 30th out of 32 venues is pathetic. They've shown a promise for the future, and still no attendance?

Well, if your talking about buying history and support from the NFL, then LA can have an illegitimate winning team like the cheatroits and digits. I would probably stop rooting for the RAMS if the officials all of a sudden started calling things in their favor just because they are in LA. That's not a real team, nor anything worth giving my time to.

As far as knowing what I am talking about, how do you know?

From what I see, the LA area will only support a winner, and they feel they deserve a winning team or they won't show up. Better to be 30th in a small market area, than be 30th or 32nd in the second largest market. St. louis has supported the RAMS better over 8 years of "sabotage" than LA did over 4 or 5 years of "sabotage". And St. louis is a much smaller market. I stand by what I said before, LA deserves a football team less than St. Louis does, be it the RAMS or a franchise.


gap

[Vinnie25]

Well, if your talking about buying history and support from the NFL, then LA can have an illegitimate winning team like the cheatroits and digits. I would probably stop rooting for the RAMS if the officials all of a sudden started calling things in their favor just because they are in LA. That's not a real team, nor anything worth giving my time to.

As far as knowing what I am talking about, how do you know?

From what I see, the LA area will only support a winner, and they feel they deserve a winning team or they won't show up. Better to be 30th in a small market area, than be 30th or 32nd in the second largest market. St. louis has supported the RAMS better over 8 years of "sabotage" than LA did over 4 or 5 years of "sabotage". And St. louis is a much smaller market. I stand by what I said before, LA deserves a football team less than St. Louis does, be it the RAMS or a franchise.

gap

Whether or not St. Louis deserves a football team is irrelevant, they have one and need to start supporting it.

[gap]

All these facts and stats are nice, but it still doesn't explain why St. Louis fans aren't going out and supporting they're team. I know the team has been crap for the past couple years, but even the Cleveland Browns, Arizona Cardinals, and Kansas City Chiefs have beat us in attendance during that time. Even this year when the Rams were competitive and had a winning product on the field, there would still be tons of empty seats.... I just don't get it.

Mostly, I agree. And as a former St. Louisian, it upsets me to see all those empty seats. As a RAMS fan living in St. Louis, it was frustrating to see empty seats, but not being able to buy them. This is because the tickets were already sold (PSL and Season Tickets), but the holder wasn't going. If they were selling, they we selling for more than face value.

Here is why there was a lack of support this year. If you don't have season tickets, you can only buy tickets for three games per household. If you want to buy season tickets, you have to buy PSLs first. This is assuming PSLs and season tickets are still available. Ticket horders may already have the majority of the bought up. If PSLs are available, would you buy PSLs for seats that may not have football games to see in a couple years? I know I wouldn't. I would pick the three games I really wanted to see, and buy tickets for those games.

Until the RAMS commit to staying in St. Louis, there is NO WAY they can (or should) expect anyone to buy PSLs. If they cannot commit to St. Louis, they need to sell season tickets without the PSL requirement, or allow people to buy as many tickets as they want. Right now they are doing NOTHING to make fans want to support the team.


gap

[MoonJoe]

... The 80's were a very winning decade for the Rams.

Ummm, the Rams lost the one Superbowl they were in 1980 (from the 79 season when CR died) and their Division rivals, the FortyNiners won four, with an owner willing to spend the money to win (and yes, rig the free agency market).

So I am not convinced it was that "winning" of a decade for them.

[mh-i]

So I am not convinced it was that "winning" of a decade for them.

They were a playoff team with Dickerson and went to the NFC Championship Game at the end of the '89 season.

[MoonJoe]

LOL, ok that was winning compared to the niners four super bowls! Oh and the queen wouldn't give Dickerson the money he wanted either...

[HUbison]

Ummm, the Rams lost the one Superbowl they were in 1980 (from the 79 season when CR died) and their Division rivals, the FortyNiners won four, with an owner willing to spend the money to win (and yes, rig the free agency market).

So I am not convinced it was that "winning" of a decade for them.

7 playoff seasons in ten years is NOT a winning decade???

[MoonJoe]

If by definition of "winning" you mean better than a 50% record, sure. But again 4 lost wildcard games, two won wild cards, lost two division playoffs, and two lost conference champions ships. What I see is the squeaked in 4 of those years anyway because of the wildcard system. I call it the decade of almost winning. And that is what LA/OC had to deal with...

1980 Lost Wild Card Playoffs (Cowboys) 34-17
1983 Won Wild Card Playoffs (Cowboys) 24-17 Lost Divisional Playoffs (Redskins) 51-7
1984 Lost Wild Card Playoffs (Giants) 16-13
1985 Won Divisional Playoffs (Cowboys) 20-0 Lost Conference Championship (Bears) 24-0
1986 Lost Wild Card Playoffs (Redskins) 19-7
1988 Lost Wild Card Playoffs (Vikings) 28-17
1989 Won Wild Card Playoffs (Eagles) 21-7, Won Divisional Playoffs (Giants) 19-13, Lost Conference Championship (*****) 30-3

[HUbison]

I call it the decade of almost winning. And that is what LA/OC had to deal with...

Gosh, that must have been tough on you guys. Going to the playoffs in only 7 of 10 years.

My point still stands. This franchise went to crap starting in 1990, not right after CR's death 11 years earlier.