urbanSTL

As long as it's derailing Kroenke's plans, I'm okay with it.

I don't think you can derail Kroenke's plans with smoke. Kroenke is fire. The only way to stop Kroenke from getting to LA is to beat him there with a real project.

So if the Carson project isn't real, then they're not stopping him.

I suspect you're correct. Kroenke's plan is for real, so it's happening if things work out the way they're going. Something needs to happen to change the game, and it probably needs to happen within the next nine months or so.

STLEnginerd, I see your point, but that is first assuming the NBA could work in STL. That is questionable at best. We can't even fill a small college arena (SLU) for D1 basketball. I know the A-10 is not a good conference for a STL team, but it is so small. How can we not fill the place. STL has become a fickle sports town. We only support winners (or competitive teams) / (Cardinals notwithstanding). We have a 'show me' attitude with sports. I think a mediocre to bad NBA team would fail miserably in STL. Just like hockey in Atlanta. The NBA game is junk IMO. I love the college game, but the NBA is all about showboating and not running offenses. I know there are exceptions, but for the most part, the product is junk. I think they need to raise the rim and move back the 3 point line. Then it might be fun again. It is too easy for pros now. Again, I see your point on the additional games and revenue/traffic downtown, but as Jstreibel mentioned, this could hurt the Blues. Then again, will the Blues and the NBA really have the same fanbase? doubtful... some crossover, but not a large % unless the NBA team is very good.
If I could have a Sporting Park somewhere in the City, it would be a no-brainer.

We Need Your Feedback
Dear St. Louis Rams Fan:

As you know a task force for the City of St. Louis is developing plans for a new open-air stadium in the St. Louis area to replace the Edward Jones Dome as the home of the St. Louis Rams.

The Edward Jones Dome has served as the home of the St. Louis Rams since opening in 1995, but has undergone minimal capital improvements over the past 21 years and has since become one of the oldest and most outdated facilities in the National Football League (NFL). The NFL and each of its franchises are putting an increased emphasis on enhancing the in-stadium experience for its fans. As a means of providing a unique and exciting experience for fans and the corporate community alike, we are currently assessing a new open-air stadium in the St. Louis area.

Conventions, Sports & Leisure International, a sports facility planning and advisory firm located in Plano, Texas, is currently conducting a market feasibility study to determine the potential support for a new open-air stadium. As part of the study efforts, your participation in an online survey is very important to us so that informed decisions can be made regarding a potential new open-air stadium.

CLICK HERE TO TAKE THE SURVEY
https://gate.customintercept.com/CSL-StLouisRams
Thank you in advance for your participation!





Conventions, Sports & Leisure






https://gate.customintercept.com/CSL-StLouisRams

DogtownBnR wrote:STLEnginerd, I see your point, but that is first assuming the NBA could work in STL. That is questionable at best. We can't even fill a small college arena (SLU) for D1 basketball. I know the A-10 is not a good conference for a STL team, but it is so small. How can we not fill the place. STL has become a fickle sports town. We only support winners (or competitive teams) / (Cardinals notwithstanding). We have a 'show me' attitude with sports. I think a mediocre to bad NBA team would fail miserably in STL. Just like hockey in Atlanta. The NBA game is junk IMO. I love the college game, but the NBA is all about showboating and not running offenses. I know there are exceptions, but for the most part, the product is junk. I think they need to raise the rim and move back the 3 point line. Then it might be fun again. It is too easy for pros now. Again, I see your point on the additional games and revenue/traffic downtown, but as Jstreibel mentioned, this could hurt the Blues. Then again, will the Blues and the NBA really have the same fanbase? doubtful... some crossover, but not a large % unless the NBA team is very good.
If I could have a Sporting Park somewhere in the City, it would be a no-brainer.

We have become fickle. But I also think that's a function of the "down" local economy and cost of going to games outpacing wage increases.

I used to tailgate at Rams games with a number of buddies who used to work at the Ford and Chrysler plants. None of them go any more as they can't afford it.

I just took it. It basically asked about what we like and dislike about the Dome. Also asked what we'd be willing to commit to regarding the new stadium... tickets, PSLs, season tix..etc...
Then it let me freelance and tell them what I'd want in a new venue. I told them MLS is a must, good use of the riverfront, preservation of historic buildings, amongst other things.

After I was done, it linked me back to the St. Louis Rams official website. Could this be the Rams gauging interest and weighing the costs/benefits of staying in St. Louis if this stadium gets built???

dweebe wrote:

DogtownBnR wrote:I just took it. It basically asked about what we like and dislike about the Dome. Also asked what we'd be willing to commit to regarding the new stadium... tickets, PSLs, season tix..etc...
Then it let me freelance and tell them what I'd want in a new venue. I told them MLS is a must, good use of the riverfront, preservation of historic buildings, amongst other things.

So what did you say regarding likes/dislikes about the Dome? Did they ask about open air/retractable/solid roof preference for the new place?

I just took it too. They did not ask about roof preference. All of the questions were predicated specifically on the proposal already underway by Peacock/Blitz.

First, they ask you about how you feel about the current gameday experience at the Dome. Then, it asks whether you're a season ticket holder, how many years you've been one, and if you ever purchased a PSL. Then, it asks about your history buying tickets for other area pro and college sports teams, including asking you to rank the Rams, Blues and Cardinals by "importance." Then it asks how you feel about the new stadium being built, what kind of funding sources you would support being used to finance its construction (ticket surcharges, PSLs, property taxes, sales taxes, hotel/restaurant taxes, etc.), how likely the new stadium would make you want to buy new PSLs and season tickets, which kinds, and for how much money.

They would show you what views inside the new stadium look like from each section and ask "would you buy tickets here? for how much? Would you purchase a PSL for this much? How about this much? What kind of financing options for the PSLs would you entertain?"

They also asked about what other kinds of events you'd consider attending at the new stadium.

Like someone else said, you're redirected to the St. Louis Rams website once you submit it.

The NFL is behind the survey.

http://www.stltoday.com/sports/football ... 3a690.html

STLEnginerd wrote:

Lastly, I'd take MLS over NBA any day of the week! (That is assuming we have a venue similar to KC's)

As much as I would love to have the MLS here, if it was a choice, I have to disagree.

I'll ignore for a moment that Sporting Park is in KC's equivalent of Belleville and imagine that it would be built downtown or in some similarly urban location.

KC Sporting Park Capacity is 18,467
Scottrade Center Capacity is 19,150
proposed new NFL stadium is 64,000

Total MLS Home games is 17
Total NBA home games is 41
Total NFL home games is 8

Total vistors to downtown MLS: 313,939
Total visitors to downtown NBA: 785,150
Total visitors to downtown NFL: 512,000

There is a clear winner from an economic impact point of view. Plus even if the NBA required a new venue to relocate here, the venue could pull double duty with the Blues. An MLS venue (of Sporting Parks capacity) is pretty limited in its uses. So from a value for the dollar no one beats the NBA, except baseball.

Additional advantage of NBA is no silly expectations of massive tailgating parking lots.

Now I'll grant you that soccer is a growing sport so it makes some sense to secure a team asap, and NBA seems to be fading a bit of late (high ticket prices aren't helping) but I still don't think (from a purely economic arguement) that it makes sense to prefer MLS or the NFL for that matter, over the NBA.

There may be a clear winner, but your analysis didn't prove that it's the NBA.

First, NBA teams are expensive. The Bucks, one of the cheapest out there, sold for $550 million. Thats about 3x the cost of an MLS team. And like others have mentioned, I highly doubt that STL can/will support an NBA team. Further, I believe NJ will get a team again before STL. So that puts us 3rd in line, after Seattle and NJ, probably 4th (I believe KC would get a NBA team before STL). And like most sports teams, the money is made on the sponsorship side. Sharing a sports venue greatly reduces the potential revenue from in stadium display ads and naming rights. If Scottrade pays $3 million per year for their name on the outside of the venue, that number doesn't double just because the NBA comes in town. So that means less money for the NBA team owner, which means he'll have to raise ticket prices.

Second, out of those 8 NFL games, 7 of those will be played on Sunday. Many people will tailgate or purchase stadium food and majority of those visitors aren't hanging out and going to bars after the game on a Sunday in downtown STL; they're going straight home (especially if a stadium is built in a rather disconnected or remote location). Additionally, the per ticket cost for an NFL game probably prohibits most from wanting to spend more money after the game, especially if the Rams lose. And when was the last time the Rams sold out a game? Real world Rams game occupancy is around 80%; so your 500,000 visitor number is down to 400,000. No doubt with a new stadium, the ticket prices will increase, further limiting who and how many people attend, thus decreasing occupancy.

Third, we're a soccer town (or city, whichever you prefer). An MLS match would sell out way before an NBA or NFL game would. With ticket prices being half of what they are for NFL and NBA, a soccer match offers a much more family friendly environment (as it pertains to cost). Also, with the savings, the family could go visit City Museum, the Arch, or any other attraction, before or after a match. Thus spending more time and money at more downtown establishments. And as far as multiple uses, if we're to get a soccer specific stadium, I have no doubt in my mind that the St. Louis Sports Commission would attract NCAA soccer tourneys and maybe even Lacrosse tournaments. And lastly, a soccer specific stadium at a cost of $250 million and MLS team at a cost of $250 million would cost close to what Milwaukee Bucks sold for (actually, to get an NBA team now, you're probably looking at $750 million).

So back to your initial point about which is a clear economic winner - I dont know, it's hard to say, but if I had to make a bet, it'll be in favor of MLS.

DogtownBnR wrote:STLEnginerd, I see your point, but that is first assuming the NBA could work in STL. That is questionable at best. We can't even fill a small college arena (SLU) for D1 basketball. I know the A-10 is not a good conference for a STL team, but it is so small. How can we not fill the place. STL has become a fickle sports town. We only support winners (or competitive teams) / (Cardinals notwithstanding). We have a 'show me' attitude with sports. I think a mediocre to bad NBA team would fail miserably in STL. Just like hockey in Atlanta. The NBA game is junk IMO. I love the college game, but the NBA is all about showboating and not running offenses. I know there are exceptions, but for the most part, the product is junk. I think they need to raise the rim and move back the 3 point line. Then it might be fun again. It is too easy for pros now. Again, I see your point on the additional games and revenue/traffic downtown, but as Jstreibel mentioned, this could hurt the Blues. Then again, will the Blues and the NBA really have the same fanbase? doubtful... some crossover, but not a large % unless the NBA team is very good.
If I could have a Sporting Park somewhere in the City, it would be a no-brainer.

http://articles.philly.com/2014-03-24/s ... ch-madness << When College Basketball outlawed the dunk.

"The feeling was that this was a game of skill and the dunk was not a skillful maneuver," Ed Bilik, a longtime committee member, explained in 1998.

In retrospect, though, it's hard to imagine that race did not play a major role.

Immediately after the ban, though the committee never publicly acknowledged such a link, many suggested its motivation was the dominance 7-foot-2 sophomore Lew Alcindor had displayed in leading UCLA to 1967's national title. In fact, many would refer to it as the Alcindor Rule.

But in 2004, Alcindor's legendary coach, John Wooden, no fan of the dunk, denied that was the case.

"Lewis felt that way, but I didn't," said Wooden, who died in 2010. "Some on the committee told me that Lewis' name did come up in the discussion, but that he wasn't the reason."

Others believe the move was a response to a number of developments the panel found unsettling - Lattin's in-your-face dunk; Texas Western's title with its unprecedented five black starters; and Houston's pregame dunking display at the 1967 Final Four, a day before the controversial vote was taken.

I always wondered where the hatred of the NBA and love for the College game stemmed from, it wasn't until a few years ago that I found out that the dunk was outlawed in college ball. Now hatred of the NBA is my go to litmus test for implicit racism in St. Louis. Admittedly not very sound but usually a good indicator. interesting how your views line up with views on the game 50 years ago. Maybe more than any other sport and league, race seems to always seems to be closer to the surface in basketball.

An NBA team in St. Louis would probably go much the same as it last did. St. Louis hasn't changed at all.

^Bosnia Ivory Coast didn't sellout, but I do think the MLS will do fine here. St. Louis is a top 10 sports city even with its drawbacks.

arch_genesis wrote:

DogtownBnR wrote:STLEnginerd, I see your point, but that is first assuming the NBA could work in STL. That is questionable at best. We can't even fill a small college arena (SLU) for D1 basketball. I know the A-10 is not a good conference for a STL team, but it is so small. How can we not fill the place. STL has become a fickle sports town. We only support winners (or competitive teams) / (Cardinals notwithstanding). We have a 'show me' attitude with sports. I think a mediocre to bad NBA team would fail miserably in STL. Just like hockey in Atlanta. The NBA game is junk IMO. I love the college game, but the NBA is all about showboating and not running offenses. I know there are exceptions, but for the most part, the product is junk. I think they need to raise the rim and move back the 3 point line. Then it might be fun again. It is too easy for pros now. Again, I see your point on the additional games and revenue/traffic downtown, but as Jstreibel mentioned, this could hurt the Blues. Then again, will the Blues and the NBA really have the same fanbase? doubtful... some crossover, but not a large % unless the NBA team is very good.
If I could have a Sporting Park somewhere in the City, it would be a no-brainer.

http://articles.philly.com/2014-03-24/s ... ch-madness << When College Basketball outlawed the dunk.

"The feeling was that this was a game of skill and the dunk was not a skillful maneuver," Ed Bilik, a longtime committee member, explained in 1998.

In retrospect, though, it's hard to imagine that race did not play a major role.

Immediately after the ban, though the committee never publicly acknowledged such a link, many suggested its motivation was the dominance 7-foot-2 sophomore Lew Alcindor had displayed in leading UCLA to 1967's national title. In fact, many would refer to it as the Alcindor Rule.

But in 2004, Alcindor's legendary coach, John Wooden, no fan of the dunk, denied that was the case.

"Lewis felt that way, but I didn't," said Wooden, who died in 2010. "Some on the committee told me that Lewis' name did come up in the discussion, but that he wasn't the reason."

Others believe the move was a response to a number of developments the panel found unsettling - Lattin's in-your-face dunk; Texas Western's title with its unprecedented five black starters; and Houston's pregame dunking display at the 1967 Final Four, a day before the controversial vote was taken.

I always wondered where the hatred of the NBA and love for the College game stemmed from, it wasn't until a few years ago that I found out that the dunk was outlawed in college ball. Now hatred of the NBA is my go to litmus test for implicit racism in St. Louis. Admittedly not very sound but usually a good indicator. interesting how your views line up with views on the game 50 years ago. Maybe more than any other sport and league, race seems to always seems to be closer to the surface in basketball.

An NBA team in St. Louis would probably go much the same as it last did. St. Louis hasn't changed at all.

In an era where most of the best college teams are predominantly black, I really don't know that you're theory holds up. Perhaps if people talk of outright hating the NBA, there's something there. But not just not caring for it and enjoying college basketball.

There is simply a different vibe about college ball, although I think it's generally for reasons beyond the ones typically cited. I think it has more to do with more investment from the fans, more meaning to every basket, etc.

I wouldn't suggest NBA players don't try until the 4th quarter, but their level of ability makes much of what happens up until the 4th quarter irrelevant. Deficits close in the snap of a finger when the 4th quarter rolls around in the NBA. The players are so good. The game comes so easy to them. And when that's the case, the first 24-32 minutes don't carry the same intensity.

The fact that music plays during the game has always made it weirder to me too. I feel like more than any other major sport, you're there to be entertained by the event, and not just the game.

Now, that said, I'm certain I'd be into it if I had a St. Louis team to be loyal too. But I don't. And I think that's a factor too. It's not fair to say St. Louis doesn't like the NBA. St. Louis is racist. Of course St. Louis doesn't like the NBA. We haven't had a team for 50 years. Why would we have any attachment to the NBA?

Arch genisus, to imply that somebody is racist because they dislike the NBA style of basketball is a complete joke and just ridiculous. I never mentioned not liking the dunk. I loved the NBA game back in the Michael Jordan era. The college game has a very diverse mix of people playing in it. I would guess that the majority of college basketball players are African-American. I love the college game because I feel like it is a more pure game. I played basketball and I know the game very well. The college game is a pure game that reminds me of my days playing. To make a statement like you did is out of line! Way to take the thread way off topic. The NBA will not work in St. Louis for a multitude of reasons. Race may play a role, but the fact we have not had a team since the NBA became a mainstream sport in the United States is the biggest reason. If we'd had a team with stars, winning and competing, it would work. The rim needs to be raised and 3 pt. Line moved back. That has been proposed by many and that has nothing to do with race.... Sorry to burst your bubble.

I'm done with that conversation... Now, back to the Rams stadium situation.....

DogtownBnR wrote:Arch genisus, to imply that somebody is racist because they dislike the NBA style of basketball is a complete joke and just ridiculous. I never mentioned not liking the dunk. I loved the NBA game back in the Michael Jordan era. The college game has a very diverse mix of people playing in it. I would guess that the majority of college basketball players are African-American. I love the college game because I feel like it is a more pure game. I played basketball and I know the game very well. The college game is a pure game that reminds me of my days playing. To make a statement like you did is out of line! Way to take the thread way off topic. The NBA will not work in St. Louis for a multitude of reasons. Race may play a role, but the fact we have not had a team since the NBA became a mainstream sport in the United States is the biggest reason. If we'd had a team with stars, winning and competing, it would work. The rim needs to be raised and 3 pt. Line moved back. That has been proposed by many and that has nothing to do with race.... Sorry to burst your bubble.

I'm done with that conversation... Now, back to the Rams stadium situation.....

Implicit bias means you're not aware of it and it isn't intentional. I'm not saying you're racist because you don't like the NBA
only that discussing the NBA can possibly expose implicit biases. I believe it has. I believe it does. Sorry if you're offended but it's just one man's observation. I guess we can't talk about race in St. Louis in 2015. I guess we can't look at race through the lens of sport.

College Basketball is better to you yet the only thing you can ascribe to it is, "more pure". Can't quite put your finger on it but you know everything wrong with the NBA. The NBA's rim is too high (same height as in college) its three-point line is too short, (longer than college's). The NBA doesn't run offenses (UConn won a national title running an NBA pro-style offense).
The NBA is all about showboating, (the most popular college basketball player of last year was Marshall Henderson of Ole Miss)And music being played during games is weird to jstriebel. Nevermind vuvuzelas or bongos or any songs that are sung full-throated during soccer matches. Must be the rap music.

Yeah I'm way out of line. Anyway, this is a Rams thread sorry for being the one to bring up NBA Basketball.

I agree

First off, the NBA is a league of men, while the NCAA is a league boys growing into men, with some men. The fact that the rim needs to be raised, is the fact that it is too easy for the "men" to dunk and score. I want it to be more challenging, not so easy. Again, nothing to do with race. Next, when I say pure, I mean they are not playing for money (except the future NBA players). Yeah, yeah, some NBA players don't care about that stuff, get it. . . . Most college players are playing the game and that is their focus, not money, fame, endorsements, etc. I have watched the NBA and watched it for years and it has gotten to be boring to me. That has nothing to do with race. Again, I played the game in HS & college. That means something, with regards to how I perceive the game. Again, nothing racial. I played with people of all backgrounds. I don't even watch the NBA until the conference finals. That is better basketball and guess what. It has the rap music (why you bring that up is beyond me) and all of the things you claim to be a source of disdain from whites. The drive to a championship makes the game much more watchable. Again, nothing to do with race. In MY case, you have wrongly lumped me in with the group of people you feel hate the NBA for racial reasons. That is not the case here. Since Ferguson, you have been on a 'Doug-like" rant. Your points might have some validity, but not in my case. I can see some of your points, but lumping everyone into categories based on loose perceptions is wrong. I have my reasons and opinions and they are not racial. Since this topic has now high-jacked the thread, I will drop it and move back to Rams related topics. I just feel the need to counter your argument, since you are so hung up on race, on this board. Those points need to be moved to the Ferguson/race relations threads. Not the Rams stadium thread. Clearly, people cannot have their opinions without being stereotyped. Practice what you preach.

PS_ "Hate" the NBA was a bit strong. I just do not enjoy it nearly as much as I used to. That might be why you are so quick to judge. I take that back. I do not care for it.