Is St. Louis a Football Town? - Missouri (MO) - Page 4 - City-Data Forum

stlouisan · 11-22-2011, 06:42 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Chicago76

Late to this one, but I think it bears pointing out that when you look at all levels of football, St. Louis is very much NOT a football town.

At the high school level, the vast majority of the elite programs are located outside of metro St. Louis.

College football is not big in the state. Missou has had decent runs here or there, but for a state of MO's size and with only one major college program, Missou football support is relatively weak.

Pro football isn't a great barometer, because like most medium to small sized markets, when the team is doing well, support is strong, but when the team's fortunes change, there is a very noticeable decline in support.

STL is not Pittsburgh, KC, Chicago, any of the major cities in OH, or Detroit when it comes to a culture of football at all levels. This may surprise many here, but it's not even a football town the way Louisville or Indianapolis are. HS football is much bigger in both towns, and college support tends to be stronger (although more divided among several programs...KY/Louisville and Notre Dame/Purdue/and to a much lower extend Indiana).

When it comes to sports, STL is much more similar to east coast cities. Pro sports get good support considering the size of the area. Prep soccer gets relatively more coverage at the expense of prep football compared to most of the country. College football (and college sports in general) aren't as big as they are in most of the Midwest and Southeast. Presence of a non-football Catholic school playing in the A10. St. Louis is definitely an anomaly in the middle american sports world.

I don't know why you're comparing St. Louis to the southeast first off, or Louisville. Except for the "SEC" title, Missouri is not a Southeastern state. ESPN has even jokingly referred to Missouri as the SEC's stepchild of the Midwest. We're not the southeast. Second off, St. Louis is an anomaly only when it comes to football. Chicago, Cleveland, and the rest of the Midwest are all big baseball towns....St. Louis is also not entirely not a football town...however, I will admit our love of football is conditional when compared to the rest of the Midwest. I also would not call Mizzou's support weak at all. I have plenty of friends who will drive 100 miles to Columbia to see the Tigers play. I'm not sure I'd call it strong, but to say that St. Louis or even Missouri is not into football is just wrong. The Rams when they are doing well enjoy huge support here...as of right now, they are so bad that nobody will go to see them. That's kind of how it is with any city. What St. Louis is is a baseball and hockey town. There is more unconditional support for those teams than for the Rams. St. Louis never had a winning team when the Cardinals were here....that's one possibility why there was no support. However, there is no denying that the Rams of the early years of last decade changed a lot of that. Kansas City I would say is a bigger football town because the Royals have done a lot better traditionally. If Mizzou's support is weak, it's because they never win anything.

mike0421 · 11-23-2011, 07:30 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by stlouisan

I don't know why you're comparing St. Louis to the southeast first off, or Louisville. Except for the "SEC" title, Missouri is not a Southeastern state. ESPN has even jokingly referred to Missouri as the SEC's stepchild of the Midwest. We're not the southeast. Second off, St. Louis is an anomaly only when it comes to football. Chicago, Cleveland, and the rest of the Midwest are all big baseball towns....St. Louis is also not entirely not a football town...however, I will admit our love of football is conditional when compared to the rest of the Midwest. I also would not call Mizzou's support weak at all. I have plenty of friends who will drive 100 miles to Columbia to see the Tigers play. I'm not sure I'd call it strong, but to say that St. Louis or even Missouri is not into football is just wrong. The Rams when they are doing well enjoy huge support here...as of right now, they are so bad that nobody will go to see them. That's kind of how it is with any city. What St. Louis is is a baseball and hockey town. There is more unconditional support for those teams than for the Rams. St. Louis never had a winning team when the Cardinals were here....that's one possibility why there was no support. However, there is no denying that the Rams of the early years of last decade changed a lot of that. Kansas City I would say is a bigger football town because the Royals have done a lot better traditionally. If Mizzou's support is weak, it's because they never win anything.

I agree with most of what you say, but not the bolded. I think as it relates to passion, fans will attend games when the team is bad, and to me that's the true hallmark of a dedicated fan base. In the late 70s, for instance, the Giants were coming off of over 15 straight years without a playoff appearance, and there was a 10 year waiting list for season tickets in what was then the new Giants Stadium (since torn down and replaced). The Montreal Canadiens and Toronto Maple Leafs are going to sell their games out even if the teams are perennially in the crapper. SEC college football stadiums will forever be full even when the teams are having down years. There's just a passion gap in sports, with teams, and in the case of the NFL it's evident with the Rams.

Another part of it is most definitely continuity. Here's a strange but true fact: the Arizona Cardinals have now been in Phoenix nearly as long as they were in St. Louis. The Cardinals only logged 28 seasons in this town, and they are now on season 23 in Phoenix.

stlouisan · 11-23-2011, 01:54 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by mike0421

I agree with most of what you say, but not the bolded. I think as it relates to passion, fans will attend games when the team is bad, and to me that's the true hallmark of a dedicated fan base. In the late 70s, for instance, the Giants were coming off of over 15 straight years without a playoff appearance, and there was a 10 year waiting list for season tickets in what was then the new Giants Stadium (since torn down and replaced). The Montreal Canadiens and Toronto Maple Leafs are going to sell their games out even if the teams are perennially in the crapper. SEC college football stadiums will forever be full even when the teams are having down years. There's just a passion gap in sports, with teams, and in the case of the NFL it's evident with the Rams.

Another part of it is most definitely continuity. Here's a strange but true fact: the Arizona Cardinals have now been in Phoenix nearly as long as they were in St. Louis. The Cardinals only logged 28 seasons in this town, and they are now on season 23 in Phoenix.

I guess I would prompted to ask why Cleveland's fanbase seemingly never dwindled even when Cleveland was without a football team for several years. I would certainly think that they must have had dwindling interest when the original Browns moved to Baltimore.

stlcitygirl · 11-24-2011, 09:26 PM

An interesting read: Rams Fans Don't Owe Kroenke Anything
Bernie: Rams fans don't owe Kroenke anything

CoffeeAndBeer · 11-27-2011, 10:34 AM

I grew up during the era of no football in St. Louis, and have fond memories of watching Blues games on the "old" black and white TV in the basement and have little interest in the NFL. I also grew up playing street hockey (and lots of soccer), played a little baseball and of course the world ground to a halt when the (MLB) Cardinals were on... and barely touched a football. I think there is a lot of people kind of like me that grew up in the 80s and early 90s in St. Louis.

I don't mind that sports allegiances are a little different in St. Louis, we are adrift in an endless sea of football towns from mountain range to mountain range. I like that people play soccer and roller hockey.