The pro football Rams' reception in Los Angeles is mediocre at best. Television ratings have been low to so-so. About 9.8 percent of area homes have been turned on to Rams games. That's worse than the team's ratings in St. Louis, which it deserted for L.A. last year. However, St. Louis is a much smaller market, and attendance at games was consistently poor there.
On November 13, the Seattle/New England game and the Dallas/Pittsburgh game both drew better on TV in the Los Angeles market than the Rams game that day.
Attendance is in the eye of the beholder. The Rams are one of only two teams in the National Football League with attendance below 90 percent of capacity. The Rams are 89.4 percent and the Chargers around 78 percent, by far the worst in the National Football League.
But per capita numbers can be misleading. The Rams play in the L.A. Coliseum, which seats more than 90,000. The Rams' average attendance of about 84,000 is second-highest in the league. Logistically, getting to and from the coliseum can be a nightmare — one reason sportswriters are saying that almost half of yesterday's attendees seemed to be gone before the end. The Rams lost, 42-14.
The Chargers' propaganda machine would have us believe that the San Diego team can decide to leave next month for L.A. But is L.A. a good pro-football market? The last time two teams were there, the mid-1990s, attendance was poor for both teams, and both (the Raiders and Rams) left. There is too much else to do in both L.A.and San Diego. Why go to games of two losing teams? Or watch the agony on TV?