Jump to content

Local roster building


Recommended Posts

On 4/16/2019 at 7:54 PM, Taj79 said:

St. Louis hasn't changed in my 45 year association with the town .....the baseball Cardinals can do no wrong, the Blues are a cyclical yo-yo,  and the rest, including the only major D1 program in town, are only supported if they win.  The Spirit of St. Louis.  The football Cardinals.  The Greatest Show on Turf.  The Steamers.  The St. Louis Hawks.  The Browns.  The St. Louis Stars.  The St. Louis Ambush.  St. Louis Athletica.  Gone.  Gone.  Gone.  Gone.  Gone.  Gone.  Gone.  Gone.  Gone.  

The losingest team in baseball has called Philadelphia home since 1883.  The Knicks are never rumored to move.  Hockey went back to Minnesota, where ponds are frozen year round.  Ditto football to Cleveland.  Despite being the hotbed of American soccer, the MLS has seen fit to put teams in Columbus and Vancouver but avoided St. Louis to date.  Trend?  Reality?

The last place Cubs would come to play the ninth place Cardinals on the last weekend of the season and 50,000 fans would pack Busch each game of the three-game series.  Only the Cardinals.  

This is just ridiculous and wrong.  But since you mentioned the Phillies averaged 46k =/- during 2011/2111 when they averaged 99.5 wins. 2016/2017 they averaged 68.5 wins and under 24k per year. Can a teams fans be anymore front running than this? Baltimore's attendance drops 20% when they don't make the playoffs and the Phillies drop 50%. Now those are front running cities. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 81
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

What was attendance like for the Cardinals in the 70s, when they were mediocre year after year?  I'm guessing not as much as when they were winning.  Part of why  Cardinal Nation keeps showing up over the the last 40 years is because the Cardinals are never bad for long.  

If the Billikens had a decade long stretch of winning, never mind 40 years, going to the games would become an ingrained behavior.  A new generation of fans would be born. Coach Ford may be the best chance we ever get at that happening. 

Dismissing St. Louis fans as frontrunners when every other city's fans act the same way is looking at the world with blinders on.  A winning tradition has to be established before fans become attached to a team. And even then there's only so many mediocre years you can string together before some fans choose to stay home.  Again, see the Cardinal attendance numbers after the World Series appearances and before Whitey Ball.

Adman likes this
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Wow!  We have really veered off the topic ----- I am not arguing attendance figures, I am not arguing that winning equates to larger attendance, I am not saying that it is a civic responsibility to make any sports organization great, I am not arguing against the fact that every city has front runner fans.  This all stems from someone believing a roster of completely local players will magically translate into 12000 fans a night at Chaifetz.  Or at a very minimum, increased attendance at games.   I'm saying it won't because St. Louis fans ONLY support the Cardinals without quibble.  You go 4 and 25 with five kids from Vashon or Chaminade and the place will still be empty.  I offered a number of former St. Louis teams as evidence.  That's all. 

The point about the Phillies is that despite stinking to high heaven more times than not, they never moved.  The city never abandoned them to that extent.  I was there when the football Cardinals left,  And I was never so proud of the city for telling Bidwell and company to hit the road.  Then they went out and prostituted themselves for the Rams.  How did that turn out?  I felt the same way about Baltimore wooing the Browns.  Oriole fans pay $30 a seat for a Yankee/Bosox encounter (Baltimore charges more per seat per game for 'premium' opponents'), spend maybe three innings in their seats, and then hit the bars on Eutaw Street where they can pay another $11.95 for a Mich Ultra.  National fans are on their cell phones from the first pitch of the second inning (when they usually arrive) to the last pitch of the middle of the seventh (when they all leave). 

skip always responds when I attack the scintillating sport of soccer.  But no answer to the question if St. Louis is a soccer hotbed, why no MLS team since the league was formed in 1993?  I'm telling you -- they know something .....feel free to disagree.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 minutes ago, Taj79 said:

Wow!  We have really veered off the topic ----- I am not arguing attendance figures, I am not arguing that winning equates to larger attendance, I am not saying that it is a civic responsibility to make any sports organization great, I am not arguing against the fact that every city has front runner fans.  This all stems from someone believing a roster of completely local players will magically translate into 12000 fans a night at Chaifetz.  Or at a very minimum, increased attendance at games.   I'm saying it won't because St. Louis fans ONLY support the Cardinals without quibble.  You go 4 and 25 with five kids from Vashon or Chaminade and the place will still be empty.  I offered a number of former St. Louis teams as evidence.  That's all. 

The point about the Phillies is that despite stinking to high heaven more times than not, they never moved.  The city never abandoned them to that extent.  I was there when the football Cardinals left,  And I was never so proud of the city for telling Bidwell and company to hit the road.  Then they went out and prostituted themselves for the Rams.  How did that turn out?  I felt the same way about Baltimore wooing the Browns.  Oriole fans pay $30 a seat for a Yankee/Bosox encounter (Baltimore charges more per seat per game for 'premium' opponents'), spend maybe three innings in their seats, and then hit the bars on Eutaw Street where they can pay another $11.95 for a Mich Ultra.  National fans are on their cell phones from the first pitch of the second inning (when they usually arrive) to the last pitch of the middle of the seventh (when they all leave). 

skip always responds when I attack the scintillating sport of soccer.  But no answer to the question if St. Louis is a soccer hotbed, why no MLS team since the league was formed in 1993?  I'm telling you -- they know something .....feel free to disagree.

at least try to be honest, no one said that a roster of local players ALONE would magically fill the arena....obviously it has to be a WINNING product.....but to argue that it's not beneficial attendance wise, is not being fair either.....i was surprised and disappointed by the attendance in the Majerus years, which didn't have any local star players...The Spoon years proved conclusively that a winning team with local players was a boon to attendance.........

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, dennis_w said:

grawer said he only wanted local kids he knew would play. didnt want malcontents with local families harassing him

]

This is a good rule thumb. Having a kid from Chaminade or Vashon who never plays is counterproductive to your recruiting efforts.  There have to be success stories to sell to future recruits.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

22 minutes ago, BIG BILL FAN said:

at least try to be honest, no one said that a roster of local players ALONE would magically fill the arena....obviously it has to be a WINNING product.....but to argue that it's not beneficial attendance wise, is not being fair either.....i was surprised and disappointed by the attendance in the Majerus years, which didn't have any local star players...The Spoon years proved conclusively that a winning team with local players was a boon to attendance.........

or the most part i agree with the above, however my memory says that during spoons big attendance years we had no nfl football as well in st louis (when did the cardinals leave and the rams come in.   i am a very distant football fan so i dont know and google is way to complicated for my simple mind).   if true, i am sure that some of that extra sports money in locals pockets was spent on billiken basketball instead of football tickets that would have been purchased.  

regardless, i too believe it is a winning formula to both win and win with locals as your star players.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, billiken_roy said:

or the most part i agree with the above, however my memory says that during spoons big attendance years we had no nfl football as well in st louis (when did the cardinals leave and the rams come in.   i am a very distant football fan so i dont know and google is way to complicated for my simple mind).   if true, i am sure that some of that extra sports money in locals pockets was spent on billiken basketball instead of football tickets that would have been purchased.  

regardless, i too believe it is a winning formula to both win and win with locals as your star players.  

correct, with cardinals gone there was a big winter sports gap. some were hoping slu would get into football

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Taj79 said:

Wow!  We have really veered off the topic ----- I am not arguing attendance figures, I am not arguing that winning equates to larger attendance, I am not saying that it is a civic responsibility to make any sports organization great, I am not arguing against the fact that every city has front runner fans.  This all stems from someone believing a roster of completely local players will magically translate into 12000 fans a night at Chaifetz.  Or at a very minimum, increased attendance at games.   I'm saying it won't because St. Louis fans ONLY support the Cardinals without quibble.  You go 4 and 25 with five kids from Vashon or Chaminade and the place will still be empty.  I offered a number of former St. Louis teams as evidence.  That's all. 

The point about the Phillies is that despite stinking to high heaven more times than not, they never moved.  The city never abandoned them to that extent.  I was there when the football Cardinals left,  And I was never so proud of the city for telling Bidwell and company to hit the road.  Then they went out and prostituted themselves for the Rams.  How did that turn out?  I felt the same way about Baltimore wooing the Browns.  Oriole fans pay $30 a seat for a Yankee/Bosox encounter (Baltimore charges more per seat per game for 'premium' opponents'), spend maybe three innings in their seats, and then hit the bars on Eutaw Street where they can pay another $11.95 for a Mich Ultra.  National fans are on their cell phones from the first pitch of the second inning (when they usually arrive) to the last pitch of the middle of the seventh (when they all leave). 

skip always responds when I attack the scintillating sport of soccer.  But no answer to the question if St. Louis is a soccer hotbed, why no MLS team since the league was formed in 1993?  I'm telling you -- they know something .....feel free to disagree.

 

Blues Attendance.png

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Taj79 said:

skip always responds when I attack the scintillating sport of soccer.  But no answer to the question if St. Louis is a soccer hotbed, why no MLS team since the league was formed in 1993?  I'm telling you -- they know something .....feel free to disagree.

The reason we've never had a team has almost everything to do with stadium plans falling through/not having a big name or super rich primary owner to headline a bid. MLS has been trying to get a team in STL since its inception due to the perceived amount of local support and extraordinary attendance for one-off matches with the USNTs and club friendlies, providing a direct counter to your hypothesis on this particular issue. The fans have never been the problem, it has been down to unfunded stadium proposals and ownership groups that weren't quite rich enough to satisfy the league's cabal of owners. Both of those problems seem to have been solved with the Taylor group, which is why we have jumped to the front of the list for expansion!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Where were the Blues moving to?  Saskatoon?  I actually like the Blues but this is not an attendance thing.

Most won't like this either but I also have to question if the MLS will actually survive in St. Louis.  If you get a stadium, it will be small(er).  The initial uniqueness will carry the day.  For a while.  Maybe they win maybe they don't.  My question is will St. Louis support the Martinez', the Huerto's and the Brickenbrackers of the world? Or will they demand a team stocked with St. Louisans?  Will we move the Billikens 12 blocks east of our campus home to play as interlopers in a stadium rental deal as well? 

I can't wait to be tap-danced on when I'm wrong.  And isn't there an XFL team coming?  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, cgeldmacher said:

Blues support doesn't seem very front runnerish to me.

Blues support is actually a lot like Billikens support.  They have approximately 12,000 bluesiers who will show up faithfully no matter what.  We have 5000 who will do the same.  The Blues were begging for more fans at the end of the Dave Checketts era.  Additionally, they are on shaky financial ground even when they're selling out.  I wouldn't be citing the Blues as a bulletproof franchise.

 

 

 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Band Legend said:

Blues support is actually a lot like Billikens support.  They have approximately 12,000 bluesiers who will show up faithfully no matter what.  We have 5000 who will do the same.  The Blues were begging for more fans at the end of the Dave Checketts era.  Additionally, they are on shaky financial ground even when they're selling out.  I wouldn't be citing the Blues as a bulletproof franchise.

 

 

 

 

 

You can thank the lockouts for that, and I hear they'll be another one next year or 2021. Bettman is incompetent.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 hours ago, slufanskip said:

This is just wrong. The MLS not being here has nothing to do with whether or not they believed St. Louis would support a team.  With very few exceptions all cities are frontrunners to some extent. Team wins more fans come. Seems pretty simple. How about those frontrunning Oriole fans?  Approximately 20% less came last year than the year before and about 33% less than 2014 when they made the playoffs. 

Actually I did respond but you think what you want. I believe you know the reason we don't have a team. Is has nothing to do with what the MLS believes fan support will be, but you already know that. 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Taj79 said:

Where were the Blues moving to?  Saskatoon?  I actually like the Blues but this is not an attendance thing.

Most won't like this either but I also have to question if the MLS will actually survive in St. Louis.  If you get a stadium, it will be small(er).  The initial uniqueness will carry the day.  For a while.  Maybe they win maybe they don't.  My question is will St. Louis support the Martinez', the Huerto's and the Brickenbrackers of the world? Or will they demand a team stocked with St. Louisans?  Will we move the Billikens 12 blocks east of our campus home to play as interlopers in a stadium rental deal as well? 

I can't wait to be tap-danced on when I'm wrong.  And isn't there an XFL team coming?  

So you think it'll be like the Orioles and Camden Yards or the Indians and Jacobs Field. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 4/16/2019 at 7:54 PM, Taj79 said:

St. Louis hasn't changed in my 45 year association with the town .....the baseball Cardinals can do no wrong, the Blues are a cyclical yo-yo,  and the rest, including the only major D1 program in town, are only supported if they win.  The Spirit of St. Louis.  The football Cardinals.  The Greatest Show on Turf.  The Steamers.  The St. Louis Hawks.  The Browns.  The St. Louis Stars.  The St. Louis Ambush.  St. Louis Athletica.  Gone.  Gone.  Gone.  Gone.  Gone.  Gone.  Gone.  Gone.  Gone.  

The losingest team in baseball has called Philadelphia home since 1883.  The Knicks are never rumored to move.  Hockey went back to Minnesota, where ponds are frozen year round.  Ditto football to Cleveland.  Despite being the hotbed of American soccer, the MLS has seen fit to put teams in Columbus and Vancouver but avoided St. Louis to date.  Trend?  Reality?

The last place Cubs would come to play the ninth place Cardinals on the last weekend of the season and 50,000 fans would pack Busch each game of the three-game series.  Only the Cardinals.  

This is truly a brilliant post. I'm amazed that you could name so many minor league teams. St. Louis lost Football but neither time was any different than Baltimore losing the Colts. They lost the Hawks when the League merged with the NBA but again you know all this. Didn't Baltimore lose both the Bullets and the Colts? They don't support their baseball team unless they're winning and I'm sure I could do some research and find a list of minor league sports that have come and gone.  

NCAA D1 average attendance 4600. SLU average attendance 6200. Saint Louis actually does a decent job supporting the Bills. I can only find the top 30 and a listing of all teams in alphabetical order but a quick scan of the list tells me we're probably in the top 100. I'd bet our attendance ranking is better than our rpi most years.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

skip -- read my lips ... this has little to do with attendance and teams moving.  This has to do with the question of will more local players on the roster result in greater attendance at Billiken games.  My answer remains the same --- no.   Yes, there might be an exception in a Hughes or Tatum or Beal-type player but in general, no.  Names?  How about Kevin Lisch.  Tommie Liddell III.  Dwayne Polk.  Luke Meyer.  Matt Naiak.  Luther Burden.  PeeWee Lenard.  John Duff.  Reditt Hudson.  Dale Renken.  Chris Sloan.  All ns, just like my list of minor league teams.  I'd offer you can have a team comprised of 13 St. Louisans and if they go 10 and 24, short of their families, the general St. Louis area and fan won't care.   

All teams move (so it seems) and will continue to do so if the bottom lien remains in the red.  I would say Baltimore lost the Colts because Irsay put a bad product on the field, made going to a game miserable and expensive for such a poor product and when no one showed up, gave him the  perceived  right to bolt to Indy. Bidwell continually put a weak product on the field and made constant demands on the city.  As I said, I was proud of the city when they said don't let the door hit you in the ass on the way out.  And what has that family done since they got to Arizona?  One miraculous Super Bowl appearance.  And constant runs for the #1 draft pick.

The Bullets eventually moved because the Baltimore Arena (still used today) is/was antiquated.  Still is.  There is no fan experience there.    They got a sweet deal to move to Largo and play in the Cap Center.  Then, what with allthe killings in DC and Baltimore, 'Bullets' was too politically insensitive,  They went to Wizards.  The Cap Center was akin to DC as Florissant is to downtown St. Louis, ergo the downtown Verizon Center (or whatever it is) with its fan-friendly, price-gouging amenities.

The only reason you don't hear about the Orioles moving is because Peter Angelos got a sweet deal in the Expo's relocation from Montreal to DC.  It created the Mid-Atlantic Sports Network (MASN) and gave the Orioles and Nats equal-standing television outlets whereby they generate and keep their own revenues.  Or at least add to the pot.  Ownership of baseball in Baltimore is not concerned with winning or losing --- they have the revenue and Oriole Park is seen as a additional source for such -- the product on the field is horrible.  All these new palaces are like that ---- look over here, we have a nice crab cake stand or craft beer line.  Don't look over there, the product on the field s horrible.

Have you seen Jacobs Field lately?  The Indians can't draw to fill the stadium.  They have changed over the upper deck in right field into something other than stands.  I think the press might sit there or something like some sort of picnic deck.  In any case, they took a lot of the seats out.  So yes .... exactly like the Indians and Jacobs Field.

Your point on D1 attendance is fine ---- however, there are what, 354 "D1" teams in NCAA men's basketball?  Powerhouse places like High Point, New Jersey Institute of Technology, Chicago State, Florida A&M, Arkansas -Pine Bluff.  I would offer that average attendance is more telling if you only do it for the Top 8 or 10 conferences.  Then do your average.  Then see how SLU compares.  My problem is with SLU's accounting ---- I believe they count tickets sold, not fannies through the turnstiles.  Which might be the way every team does it.  But you could have a 'sell out' and no  one shows.  I was at the Butler game which I believe was labeled a sell out and seats were available or unoccupied to say the least.  This still would never answer the question 'what was the walk up crowd?' which I think is also important in determining if the support is local to the area or just local to people affiliated with the school.  Bottom lien is we'd never really know.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Brighton said:

I'll say this,  this thread will be revisited the next time most of you complain about the local media and fan interest.

wow switching identity mid day!   that must be so confusing.   

Link to comment
Share on other sites

44 minutes ago, Taj79 said:

skip -- read my lips ... this has little to do with attendance and teams moving.  This has to do with the question of will more local players on the roster result in greater attendance at Billiken games.  My answer remains the same --- no.   Yes, there might be an exception in a Hughes or Tatum or Beal-type player but in general, no.  Names?  How about Kevin Lisch.  Tommie Liddell III.  Dwayne Polk.  Luke Meyer.  Matt Naiak.  Luther Burden.  PeeWee Lenard.  John Duff.  Reditt Hudson.  Dale Renken.  Chris Sloan.  All ns, just like my list of minor league teams.  I'd offer you can have a team comprised of 13 St. Louisans and if they go 10 and 24, short of their families, the general St. Louis area and fan won't care.   

All teams move (so it seems) and will continue to do so if the bottom lien remains in the red.  I would say Baltimore lost the Colts because Irsay put a bad product on the field, made going to a game miserable and expensive for such a poor product and when no one showed up, gave him the  perceived  right to bolt to Indy. Bidwell continually put a weak product on the field and made constant demands on the city.  As I said, I was proud of the city when they said don't let the door hit you in the ass on the way out.  And what has that family done since they got to Arizona?  One miraculous Super Bowl appearance.  And constant runs for the #1 draft pick.

The Bullets eventually moved because the Baltimore Arena (still used today) is/was antiquated.  Still is.  There is no fan experience there.    They got a sweet deal to move to Largo and play in the Cap Center.  Then, what with allthe killings in DC and Baltimore, 'Bullets' was too politically insensitive,  They went to Wizards.  The Cap Center was akin to DC as Florissant is to downtown St. Louis, ergo the downtown Verizon Center (or whatever it is) with its fan-friendly, price-gouging amenities.

The only reason you don't hear about the Orioles moving is because Peter Angelos got a sweet deal in the Expo's relocation from Montreal to DC.  It created the Mid-Atlantic Sports Network (MASN) and gave the Orioles and Nats equal-standing television outlets whereby they generate and keep their own revenues.  Or at least add to the pot.  Ownership of baseball in Baltimore is not concerned with winning or losing --- they have the revenue and Oriole Park is seen as a additional source for such -- the product on the field is horrible.  All these new palaces are like that ---- look over here, we have a nice crab cake stand or craft beer line.  Don't look over there, the product on the field s horrible.

Have you seen Jacobs Field lately?  The Indians can't draw to fill the stadium.  They have changed over the upper deck in right field into something other than stands.  I think the press might sit there or something like some sort of picnic deck.  In any case, they took a lot of the seats out.  So yes .... exactly like the Indians and Jacobs Field.

Your point on D1 attendance is fine ---- however, there are what, 354 "D1" teams in NCAA men's basketball?  Powerhouse places like High Point, New Jersey Institute of Technology, Chicago State, Florida A&M, Arkansas -Pine Bluff.  I would offer that average attendance is more telling if you only do it for the Top 8 or 10 conferences.  Then do your average.  Then see how SLU compares.  My problem is with SLU's accounting ---- I believe they count tickets sold, not fannies through the turnstiles.  Which might be the way every team does it.  But you could have a 'sell out' and no  one shows.  I was at the Butler game which I believe was labeled a sell out and seats were available or unoccupied to say the least.  This still would never answer the question 'what was the walk up crowd?' which I think is also important in determining if the support is local to the area or just local to people affiliated with the school.  Bottom lien is we'd never really know.

 

Again, no one is arguing that winning is not important....that said, how can you argue that a winning team with local players, is not the optimum formula for higher attendance???? do you not remember the Spoonhour years????

t

Link to comment
Share on other sites

43 minutes ago, Taj79 said:

skip -- read my lips ... this has little to do with attendance and teams moving.  This has to do with the question of will more local players on the roster result in greater attendance at Billiken games.  My answer remains the same --- no.   

Didn't read anything after this. But just want to clarify. If for example we have 2 teams, one with say 4 local players and one with 0 local players. They are both of equal talent and are winning the same amount of games. You think that the team with local players is not drawing any more eyes or interest compared to the team without local representation? That could be an even worse take for you than the Goodwin take.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


×
×
  • Create New...