ESPN is ranking college basketball's 10 most indispensable players. Was pleasantly surprised to see Gardner listed. With all the preseason recognition he's getting, he could end up on quite a few All-American lists by the time the year is done if he can play consistently well. Anyway...here's the link if you want to vote him up.
http://espn.go.com/sportsnation/post/_/id/9506647/indispensable-ncaa-hoops-players
Come on scoopers, get out the vote! DG barely has 200 1st place votes so far
So who has my "I Voted" sticker?
Quote from: barfolomew on August 21, 2013, 01:34:58 PM
So who has my "I Voted" sticker?
That would require me to go to ESPN's website and not Fox Sports, which I now try to frequent more often.
I cannot help thinking that Jamil Wilson is more indispensable than Gardner.
Isn't this pretty old? I feel like I commented on it awhile ago.
good catch, it was posted July 24th
Quote from: BagpipingBoxer on August 21, 2013, 02:42:36 PM
Isn't this pretty old? I feel like I commented on it awhile ago.
Weird...just saw it on the NCAA Men's front page today.
Quote from: brewcity77 on August 21, 2013, 11:41:57 AM
ESPN is ranking college basketball's 10 most indispensable players. Was pleasantly surprised to see Gardner listed. With all the preseason recognition he's getting, he could end up on quite a few All-American lists by the time the year is done if he can play consistently well. Anyway...here's the link if you want to vote him up.
http://espn.go.com/sportsnation/post/_/id/9506647/indispensable-ncaa-hoops-players
I guess this is another one of those attempts by ESPN to marginalize the NBE and paint us as mid-Majors--why else would they list a couple of our guys alongside Andrew Wiggins, Russ Smith and Mitch McGary.
Quote from: brewcity77 on August 21, 2013, 03:56:04 PM
Weird...just saw it on the NCAA Men's front page today.
Media these days love to take the same articles, apply a new catch phrase and reuse articles about a month later. They really don't care if you read the article once you realize you've seen it before, they just want the hits.
Quote from: The Equalizer on August 21, 2013, 08:13:22 PM
I guess this is another one of those attempts by ESPN to marginalize the NBE and paint us as mid-Majors--why else would they list a couple of our guys alongside Andrew Wiggins, Russ Smith and Mitch McGary.
I'm not going to bother. You're just being a troll, which has pretty much become your schtick, you just draw the posts out to try to make them seem legit. Doesn't change that trolling is trolling.
Quote from: brewcity77 on August 21, 2013, 09:52:28 PM
I'm not going to bother. You're just being a troll, which has pretty much become your schtick, you just draw the posts out to try to make them seem legit. Doesn't change that trolling is trolling.
In other words, because I dared to point out that contrary to your pet theory ESPN is clearly NOT trying to marginalize the NBE in every article, that somehow makes me a troll?
Instead of resorting to name calling, why didn't you try to back up your claim and explain how I missed the point of how this article marginalizes the NBE and paints the league as mid-majors?
Maybe, the reason is because this article (as well as the other one today) shows that ESPN is doing no such thing.
If ESPN was trying to marginalize the Big East and paint the league as a bunch of mid-majors in every post, they wouldn't positively feature McDermott and Gardner in an article of the NCAA's most indespensible players.
Quote from: The Equalizer on August 21, 2013, 11:08:01 PM
In other words, because I dared to point out that contrary to your pet theory ESPN is clearly NOT trying to marginalize the NBE in every article, that somehow makes me a troll?
Instead of resorting to name calling, why didn't you try to back up your claim and explain how I missed the point of how this article marginalizes the NBE and paints the league as mid-majors?
Maybe, the reason is because this article (as well as the other one today) shows that ESPN is doing no such thing.
If ESPN was trying to marginalize the Big East and paint the league as a bunch of mid-majors in every post, they wouldn't positively feature McDermott and Gardner in an article of the NCAA's most indespensible players.
You are completely full of crap as usual. The mention of a player or two does not change the general tone that has gone on in articles and broadcasts for the past 6-8 months. If you are too blind to see that the focus from ESPN about our league has constantly been on what is it not (the old Big East) rather than what it is (a solid top-5 league going forward) then I don't know what to tell you.
Do you really believe the mother ship is some wondrous impartial news outlet free from agenda? If so, that's as asinine as it is stupid. You probably pretend Fox News, MSNBC, and even FS1 are agenda free too (did you see all the UFC coverage from FS1 on Saturday into Sunday airing of Fox Sports News?).
Trolling from the bushes with one minor point does not change that ever since this league was announced does not change that ESPN has painted it with a mid-major brush since the start and will continue to do so because THEY ARE A BUSINESS and have operated as such for ages. In the past they promoted leagues and sports that served their interests (Tebow, X Games) while reducing the priority of of leagues and sports (last year's Mountain West, decreased NHL coverage) that didn't.
Regardless, blather on and pontificate all you like. I'm done with you and your incessant trolling tendencies. I have better things to do in my life than read your smarmy, condescending, one-sided posts. Ignored.
Get Buckets Get Votes.....#297, I voted :P
Quote from: brewcity77 on August 21, 2013, 11:31:52 PM
You are completely full of crap as usual. The mention of a player or two does not change the general tone that has gone on in articles and broadcasts for the past 6-8 months. If you are too blind to see that the focus from ESPN about our league has constantly been on what is it not (the old Big East) rather than what it is (a solid top-5 league going forward) then I don't know what to tell you.
Do you really believe the mother ship is some wondrous impartial news outlet free from agenda? If so, that's as asinine as it is stupid. You probably pretend Fox News, MSNBC, and even FS1 are agenda free too (did you see all the UFC coverage from FS1 on Saturday into Sunday airing of Fox Sports News?).
Trolling from the bushes with one minor point does not change that ever since this league was announced does not change that ESPN has painted it with a mid-major brush since the start and will continue to do so because THEY ARE A BUSINESS and have operated as such for ages. In the past they promoted leagues and sports that served their interests (Tebow, X Games) while reducing the priority of of leagues and sports (last year's Mountain West, decreased NHL coverage) that didn't.
Regardless, blather on and pontificate all you like. I'm done with you and your incessant trolling tendencies. I have better things to do in my life than read your smarmy, condescending, one-sided posts. Ignored.
In the last day you and I have butted heads on two articles posted here--neither of which made any sort of attempt to marginalize the NBE as a mid-major league, and both of which can only be considered positive for the league and Marquette.
I know from past posts that you tend to be pretty thin skinned about having any of your ideas questioned. I suspect that you're equally thin skinned about any ESPN article or story that isn't 100% boosterism.
The bottom line here is that ESPN didn't marginalize the BE in their recent post about the best Xs and Os coaches.
- They didn't do it in their recent article about about the best recruiters.
- They didn't do it in thier recent article on the best at developing talent.
- They didn't do it in their article about the most dispensible players.
- They didn't do it in their articles highligting the upcoming Wooden Classic.
- They didn't do it in their articles annoucing the commitments from Malik Harris or Sandy Cohen
So, no, there isn't evidence to support your claim of widespread attempts by ESPN to disparage the NBE. At worst, even if you bothered to find some less than flattering article, all it would show is that they're not 100% boosters of the NBE--but that wasn't really your argument, was it?
I think the people at NHL headquarters would have a thing or two to say about ESPN's treatment of leagues to which it doesn't hold the rights.
When ESPN held the league's rights, not only did hockey get substantial coverage on Sportscenter, the network had a nightly show (NHL2Night) dedicated to the league. That show, coincidentally, was dropped when the NHL sold its rights to NBC.
Nowadays, the NHL goes virtually unnoticed by ESPN.
According to the Deadspin story linked below, Sportscenter gave the entire NHL got a total of 459 minutes of coverage on Sportscenter in 2012. That's less than half what just the Miami Heat got.
http://deadspin.com/what-i-learned-from-a-year-of-watching-sportscenter-5979510
A cynic might suggest ESPN's lack of hockey coverage could have something to do with the fact that the sport is now carried by a competitor.
Quote from: Pakuni on August 22, 2013, 12:43:40 PM
I think the people at NHL headquarters would have a thing or two to say about ESPN's treatment of leagues to which it doesn't hold the rights.
When ESPN held the league's rights, not only did hockey get substantial coverage on Sportscenter, the network had a nightly show (NHL2Night) dedicated to the league. That show, coincidentally, was dropped when the NHL sold its rights to NBC.
Nowadays, the NHL goes virtually unnoticed by ESPN.
According to the Deadspin story linked below, Sportscenter gave the entire NHL got a total of 459 minutes of coverage on Sportscenter in 2012. That's less than half what just the Miami Heat got.
http://deadspin.com/what-i-learned-from-a-year-of-watching-sportscenter-5979510
A cynic might suggest ESPN's lack of hockey coverage could have something to do with the fact that the sport is now carried by a competitor.
SJS's explanation should be interesting.
Quote from: Lennys Tap on August 22, 2013, 01:33:00 PM
SJS's explanation should be interesting.
I'll summarize. Nobody gives a sh!t about hockey. That was easy.
I would have thought certain lottery pick Mitch McGary would be the most indispensable player on the list.
For me, I voted McDermott. They lose him, they are toast. MU loses DG, not good but not toast either.
Quote from: ATL MU Warrior on August 22, 2013, 02:19:49 PM
I'll summarize. Nobody gives a sh!t about hockey. That was easy.
Nope, nobody at all.
(http://sports.cbsimg.net/images/nhl/blog/Blackhawks_Parade.jpg)
Quote from: ChicosBailBonds on August 22, 2013, 02:30:07 PM
I would have thought certain lottery pick Mitch McGary would be the most indispensable player on the list.
For me, I voted McDermott. They lose him, they are toast. MU loses DG, not good but not toast either.
I also voted for McDermott. Jamil Wilson is more indispensible than Gardner. Gardner is more fun to watch.
Quote from: bilsu on August 22, 2013, 02:43:12 PM
I also voted for McDermott. Jamil Wilson is more indispensible than Gardner. Gardner is more fun to watch.
The best jump shooter will be the more indispensable because we seem to not have one RIGHT NOW! At least a proven one.
Quote from: ChicosBailBonds on August 22, 2013, 02:30:07 PM
I would have thought certain lottery pick Mitch McGary would be the most indispensable player on the list.
Mitch was a certain lottery pick in last year's draft, one whose weakness led you (illogically) to excuse the epic failure of a team with 2 top 5 picks. I don't think anyone has him pegged a certain lottery pick in this year's stacked class, though it's quite possible.
Quote from: The Equalizer on August 21, 2013, 08:13:22 PM
I guess this is another one of those attempts by ESPN to marginalize the NBE and paint us as mid-Majors--why else would they list a couple of our guys alongside Andrew Wiggins, Russ Smith and Mitch McGary.
Your use of the term "us" is disingenuous to say the least.
Quote from: Pakuni on August 22, 2013, 02:30:25 PM
Nope, nobody at all.
(http://sports.cbsimg.net/images/nhl/blog/Blackhawks_Parade.jpg)
A team wins a championship and a million people -- 980,000 of whom couldn't name 2 Blackhawks before the 2010 title team -- come out to the rally. That proves nothing. Oh, and my son, a huge Blackhawks fan (when the team wins) was at that rally.
I agree ESPN has given the NHL short shrift. But do folks here really think American sports fans care more about hockey than about LeBron James and the Heat? Come on. The Heat have become the Yankees/Duke/ND of the NBA. Lots of people love 'em and lots of people hate 'em, but most sports fans have an opinion of 'em.
I like hockey, but it really still is a niche sport, very local in its fanbases. Frankly, I was always surprised when ESPN dedicated entire segments to Barry Melrose and Steve Levy.
Quote from: Pakuni on August 22, 2013, 02:30:25 PM
Nope, nobody at all.
(http://sports.cbsimg.net/images/nhl/blog/Blackhawks_Parade.jpg)
Hawks fans are the biggest fairweather fans in the world. My first two years at Marquette, no one from Chicago gave a crap about hockey. Couldn't name any players and would openly trash them at any opportunity. Last two years all of the sudden they are the greatest and those some fans have been "following the Hawks since they were little"
Sorry, can't stand Blackhawk fans...alright I'll confess. I'm a Wings fan.
Since we're way off the thread...
NHL is indeed America's game... for the "americans" above that line on top of Minnesota.
Both of 'em.
Oh, and by the way, McDermott will prove far more indispensable than Gardner. Nice to see Gardner on this type of list, though, because I believe that when he plays well, MU will win. any game where he has 12/8 or better, we win.
Quote from: TAMU Eagle on August 23, 2013, 12:11:03 AM
Hawks fans are the biggest fairweather fans in the world. My first two years at Marquette, no one from Chicago gave a crap about hockey. Couldn't name any players and would openly trash them at any opportunity. Last two years all of the sudden they are the greatest and those some fans have been "following the Hawks since they were little"
Sorry, can't stand Blackhawk fans...alright I'll confess. I'm a Wings fan.
People support winners... And the cubs but mainly winners and with that being said the Blackhawks starts winning a couple years to build back a following then won the 2010 cup. Before that the last time anyone gave a crap about hockey in Chicago was when we lost the 1992 cup to Pittsburgh. But the statement in question wasnt whether they were bandwagoners or not, it was whether people give a crap about hockey and bandwagon or not it's still giving a crap. (Personally I'm an early bandwagoner got on the year before the 2010 cup)
Quote from: TAMU Eagle on August 23, 2013, 12:11:03 AM
Hawks fans are the biggest fairweather fans in the world. My first two years at Marquette, no one from Chicago gave a crap about hockey. Couldn't name any players and would openly trash them at any opportunity. Last two years all of the sudden they are the greatest and those some fans have been "following the Hawks since they were little"
Sorry, can't stand Blackhawk fans...alright I'll confess. I'm a Wings fan.
I guess it wouldn't be fair to expect a Wings fan to know the history at play, but suffice to say the reason for waning support of the Blackhawks in the late 90s and 00s is a lot more complex than "durr, they're a bunch of fairweather fans."
The reality is that through much of the 60s, 70s and 80s, the toughest ticket in town to get was for the Hawks. Not the Bears, not the Cubs, certainly not the Bulls (pre MJ) or Sox. That ended when Dollar Bill Wirtz began doing everything he could to alienate the fan base - trying to put the team on pay TV (Sportsvision, Hawksvision), refusing to broadcast home games, cutting loose popular team personalities like Pat Foley and trading away its best and most popular players (Roenick, Chelios, Belfour) for little in return because the team didn't want to pay market value for them.
The losing, of course, didn't help, but that was just another symptom of the team's mismanagement, not the sole cause of the fan apathy.
The resurgence in Hawks popularity didn't begin in 2010, but in 2007 when Bill Wirtz died and his son, Rocky, began reversing decades of disastrous team policies.The Hawks led the league in attendance in 2008-09 - with more than a 1,000 more fans per game than the runner up.
Speaking of fairweather fans, though, how are things at the Joe these days? Seems to be a lot of Wings fans dressing as empty seats. Except, of course, when the Hawks are in town.
Quote from: Pakuni on August 22, 2013, 12:43:40 PM
I think the people at NHL headquarters would have a thing or two to say about ESPN's treatment of leagues to which it doesn't hold the rights.
When ESPN held the league's rights, not only did hockey get substantial coverage on Sportscenter, the network had a nightly show (NHL2Night) dedicated to the league. That show, coincidentally, was dropped when the NHL sold its rights to NBC.
Nowadays, the NHL goes virtually unnoticed by ESPN.
According to the Deadspin story linked below, Sportscenter gave the entire NHL got a total of 459 minutes of coverage on Sportscenter in 2012. That's less than half what just the Miami Heat got.
http://deadspin.com/what-i-learned-from-a-year-of-watching-sportscenter-5979510
A cynic might suggest ESPN's lack of hockey coverage could have something to do with the fact that the sport is now carried by a competitor.
Terrible analogy. Brew didn't merely say the Big East would get less coverage--he said ESPN was marginalizing the NBE and painting it as a mid-major league.
Sorry, but that's just not happening. MU and the NBE is getting plenty of positive coverage from ESPN. Recent articles treat teams (and players) as the high-majors they are, as evidenced by the two articles in threads discussed here, or the six articles I mentioned in my prior post.
I'm sorry, but I just haven't seen all theses articles and stories that Brew refers to that equate the NBE with the Horizon, CUSA or A10.
Quote from: TAMU Eagle on August 23, 2013, 12:11:03 AM
Hawks fans are the biggest fairweather fans in the world. My first two years at Marquette, no one from Chicago gave a crap about hockey. Couldn't name any players and would openly trash them at any opportunity. Last two years all of the sudden they are the greatest and those some fans have been "following the Hawks since they were little"
Sorry, can't stand Blackhawk fans...alright I'll confess. I'm a Wings fan.
Having lived in Chicago for better part of a decade, excepting Bears fans in my experience, most everyone is a bandwagon sports fan. But I'm sure it's not much different than most cities these days where people are less interested in anything other then themselves, even superfluous crap like sport.
Quote from: Golden Avalanche on August 23, 2013, 09:20:36 AM
Having lived in Chicago for better part of a decade, excepting Bears fans in my experience, most everyone is a bandwagon sports fan. But I'm sure it's not much different than most cities these days where people are less interested in anything other then themselves, even superfluous crap like sport.
Almost everyone in Chicago is a bandwagon fan? The Cubs won 66 games in 2006 and drew 3.123 million. They won 97 in 2008 and drew 3.3 million. Nearly a 50% increase in wins equaling a 6% attendance increase hardly suggests that almost all Cub fans are of the bandwagon variety. Same goes for the Sox. In the 24 years since 1989 (excluding the strike year and the year after) the Sox attendance has been in a very tight range (2.13-2.57 million) despite teams that range from futility to World Series champions. Finally, the Bulls, who continued to sell out through years of being the laughing stock of the league in the post Jordan era.
Maybe you're hangin' out with the wrong people.
Quote from: The Equalizer on August 23, 2013, 08:45:06 AM
Terrible analogy. Brew didn't merely say the Big East would get less coverage--he said ESPN was marginalizing the NBE and painting it as a mid-major league.
Sorry, but that's just not happening. MU and the NBE is getting plenty of positive coverage from ESPN. Recent articles treat teams (and players) as the high-majors they are, as evidenced by the two articles in threads discussed here, or the six articles I mentioned in my prior post.
I'm sorry, but I just haven't seen all theses articles and stories that Brew refers to that equate the NBE with the Horizon, CUSA or A10.
Well, you've got a pretty odd definition of "marginalizing" if you don't think that's what ESPN has done with the NHL since losing its rights.
Back when ESPN held the rights, it had a daily (five days/week) 30-minute show dedicated to the NHL. Over an eight month season, excluding commercials, that's something in the neighborhood of 3,600 minutes of coverage, in addition to Sportscenter highlights. Today, ESPN is giving the league 459 minutes. Even assuming that's all the league got on SC back in 2003 (it's not) the league is barely getting a 1/10th the coverage it did a decade ago.
And those wishing to make the argument that "it's because hockey's not popular," please note that the NHL set ratings records this year, both during the regular season and playoffs. When matched up with prime time baseball in the spring, the NHL drew more viewers, and by a solid margin among the 18-49 demo that is ESPN's wheelhouse. Viewership numbers are telling ESPN to give the NHL
more coverage, not less.
One doesn't have to actively deride or mock a league to marginalize it. ESPN.com still has hockey writers who write positively about the sport, and employs anchors/analysts (Buccigross and Levy in particular) who aren't shy about their fandom. But they've clearly chosen to give the game significantly less coverage, a move that doesn't match viewership trends for the NHL (which are heading the other direction) and didn't just coincidentally begin when NBC bought the league's rights.
The logical conclusion is that because ESPN doesn't broadcast the NHL, it doesn't cover the NHL.
mar·gin·al·ize
transitive verb \ˈmärj-nə-ˌlīz, ˈmär-jə-nəl-ˌīz\
Definition of MARGINALIZE
: to relegate to an unimportant or powerless position within a society or group Fair to say ESPN has relegated the NHL to an unimportant position within the group of sports?
It really is silly to have this argument about ESPN and the NBE now when only the hardest of hard-core fans really care about college basketball. Let's see what happens when the season starts.
And I'm not sure why it should surprise anyone that they will tout the properties they own more. I expect the NBE to get more coverage on FS1. I mean, they devote time to UFC on whatever their nightly show is called...primarily because they show it. Why would we expect otherwise????
Quote from: Lennys Tap on August 23, 2013, 10:17:35 AM
Almost everyone in Chicago is a bandwagon fan? The Cubs won 66 games in 2006 and drew 3.123 million. They won 97 in 2008 and drew 3.3 million. Nearly a 50% increase in wins equaling a 6% attendance increase hardly suggests that almost all Cub fans are of the bandwagon variety. Same goes for the Sox. In the 24 years since 1989 (excluding the strike year and the year after) the Sox attendance has been in a very tight range (2.13-2.57 million) despite teams that range from futility to World Series champions. Finally, the Bulls, who continued to sell out through years of being the laughing stock of the league in the post Jordan era.
Maybe you're hangin' out with the wrong people.
The bulls are not the laughing stock of the league! That's Charlotte. They had some rough years sure but they certainly aren't anymore.
Quote from: BagpipingBoxer on August 23, 2013, 11:02:19 AM
The bulls are not the laughing stock of the league! That's Charlotte. They had some rough years sure but they certainly aren't anymore.
Didn't say they still were. Said they still sold out the joint when they were.
Quote from: Pakuni on August 23, 2013, 10:22:23 AM
Well, you've got a pretty odd definition of "marginalizing" if you don't think that's what ESPN has done with the NHL since losing its rights.
Back when ESPN held the rights, it had a daily (five days/week) 30-minute show dedicated to the NHL. Over an eight month season, excluding commercials, that's something in the neighborhood of 3,600 minutes of coverage, in addition to Sportscenter highlights. Today, ESPN is giving the league 459 minutes. Even assuming that's all the league got on SC back in 2003 (it's not) the league is barely getting a 1/10th the coverage it did a decade ago.
And those wishing to make the argument that "it's because hockey's not popular," please note that the NHL set ratings records this year, both during the regular season and playoffs. When matched up with prime time baseball in the spring, the NHL drew more viewers, and by a solid margin among the 18-49 demo that is ESPN's wheelhouse. Viewership numbers are telling ESPN to give the NHL more coverage, not less.
One doesn't have to actively deride or mock a league to marginalize it. ESPN.com still has hockey writers who write positively about the sport, and employs anchors/analysts (Buccigross and Levy in particular) who aren't shy about their fandom. But they've clearly chosen to give the game significantly less coverage, a move that doesn't match viewership trends for the NHL (which are heading the other direction) and didn't just coincidentally begin when NBC bought the league's rights.
The logical conclusion is that because ESPN doesn't broadcast the NHL, it doesn't cover the NHL.
mar·gin·al·ize
transitive verb \ˈmärj-nə-ˌlīz, ˈmär-jə-nəl-ˌīz\
Definition of MARGINALIZE
: to relegate to an unimportant or powerless position within a society or group
Fair to say ESPN has relegated the NHL to an unimportant position within the group of sports?
If we applied Brew's thinking to the NHL situation, ESPN would not only cover the NHL less, but that coverage would consistently trash the NHL on account of them being on a competitive network.
But, as you readily admit, ESPN still gives the NHL positive coverage--just not as much as they used to. That probably gives us more evidence that Brew is off base when he claims that ESPN is going to start trashing the NBE.
As I've said, ESPN appears to be treating the league and its teams fairly. They haven't taken to trashing us as mid-majors in every article--as evidenced by those six recent articles.
Perhaps you should take this debate up with Brew, and point out to him that ESPN didn't take to trashing the NHL when the rights went from ESPN to NBC. And they probably won't do the same with the NBE either.
Quote from: The Equalizer on August 23, 2013, 12:33:27 PM
If we applied Brew's thinking to the NHL situation, ESPN would not only cover the NHL less, but that coverage would consistently trash the NHL on account of them being on a competitive network.
But, as you readily admit, ESPN still gives the NHL positive coverage--just not as much as they used to. That probably gives us more evidence that Brew is off base when he claims that ESPN is going to start trashing the NBE.
As I've said, ESPN appears to be treating the league and its teams fairly. They haven't taken to trashing us as mid-majors in every article--as evidenced by those six recent articles.
Perhaps you should take this debate up with Brew, and point out to him that ESPN didn't take to trashing the NHL when the rights went from ESPN to NBC. And they probably won't do the same with the NBE either.
Oh. You went from "marginalize" to "trash". Nice
Quote from: Lennys Tap on August 23, 2013, 11:51:40 AM
Didn't say they still were. Said they still sold out the joint when they were.
I see post Jordan era and to me it still means now since there is no player named Jordan on our roster
Quote from: jesmu84 on August 23, 2013, 01:00:06 PM
Oh. You went from "marginalize" to "trash". Nice
No, I really didn't.
Brew was arguing that ESPN was
not only marginalzing the NBE (per Pakuni's definition), but
also actively trying to hurt the new league by treating them as a mid-major and talk them down. "Trashing" is simply a shorter way of saying that latter part.
Quote from: BagpipingBoxer on August 23, 2013, 02:11:16 PM
I see post Jordan era and to me it still means now since there is no player named Jordan on our roster
Sorry. Should have said the Jerry Krause, post Jordan era. The point, though, was that fans still showed up when the team sucked. Thought that was obvious in the context of my post.
Quote from: Lennys Tap on August 23, 2013, 03:12:15 PM
Sorry. Should have said the Jerry Krause, post Jordan era. The point, though, was that fans still showed up when the team sucked. Thought that was obvious in the context of my post.
Got it now.
Quote from: Lennys Tap on August 23, 2013, 10:17:35 AM
Almost everyone in Chicago is a bandwagon fan? The Cubs won 66 games in 2006 and drew 3.123 million. They won 97 in 2008 and drew 3.3 million. Nearly a 50% increase in wins equaling a 6% attendance increase hardly suggests that almost all Cub fans are of the bandwagon variety. Same goes for the Sox. In the 24 years since 1989 (excluding the strike year and the year after) the Sox attendance has been in a very tight range (2.13-2.57 million) despite teams that range from futility to World Series champions. Finally, the Bulls, who continued to sell out through years of being the laughing stock of the league in the post Jordan era.
Maybe you're hangin' out with the wrong people.
Nah, the people were fine.
Cubs fans are in love with the
idea of being a Cubs fan. Anyone who has attended a game at Wrigley knows that 3/4 of the crowd is there to drink and tell their friends they're at Wrigley. I attended plenty, with the Bartman debacle being a highlight, and the story never strayed.
As for the Sox, during a six week run in 2005 they were the toast of the town. During nearly every other week of my seven year life in Chicago they were laughed at as the second class citizens of an already second city. Never did they have the attention other then their pocket of South Side but, as I said, most everyone will jump on a bandwagon when it's hip to be square.
Regarding the Bulls, you're dead wrong. I had season tickets for the four seasons of the vaunted "Baby Bulls" of Chandler/Curry and rarely would a sellout occur. In fact, I had more trouble
giving away tickets to a Bulls game then I did getting tickets for the Bartman game at Wrigley.
It's the same story with the Hawks which is a proud franchise. When I had my season tickets from 2002-2007, the team was awful and suddenly all those great fans that made Madison rock during the 90s were nowhere to be found. Crickets chirping. Course, it was nice for me in the tenth row since I could hear all the barking on the ice thanks to the roomy atmosphere.
I know Chicagoland produces an inordinate number of defiantly proud people and will be defended to the hilt but those were my experiences as someone who wasn't raised in the area and was able to see things without the tinted shades.
Quote from: Golden Avalanche on August 23, 2013, 06:11:32 PM
Nah, the people were fine.
Cubs fans are in love with the idea of being a Cubs fan. Anyone who has attended a game at Wrigley knows that 3/4 of the crowd is there to drink and tell their friends they're at Wrigley. I attended plenty, with the Bartman debacle being a highlight, and the story never strayed.
As for the Sox, during a six week run in 2005 they were the toast of the town. During nearly every other week of my seven year life in Chicago they were laughed at as the second class citizens of an already second city. Never did they have the attention other then their pocket of South Side but, as I said, most everyone will jump on a bandwagon when it's hip to be square.
Regarding the Bulls, you're dead wrong. I had season tickets for the four seasons of the vaunted "Baby Bulls" of Chandler/Curry and rarely would a sellout occur. In fact, I had more trouble giving away tickets to a Bulls game then I did getting tickets for the Bartman game at Wrigley.
It's the same story with the Hawks which is a proud franchise. When I had my season tickets from 2002-2007, the team was awful and suddenly all those great fans that made Madison rock during the 90s were nowhere to be found. Crickets chirping. Course, it was nice for me in the tenth row since I could hear all the barking on the ice thanks to the roomy atmosphere.
I know Chicagoland produces an inordinate number of defiantly proud people and will be defended to the hilt but those were my experiences as someone who wasn't raised in the area and was able to see things without the tinted shades.
Your assessment of sox fans sounds like it was done by someone who decided to move to lakeview or Lincoln park from a north or west suburb after college. "Pocket of the south side"? The south side dwarfs the north side and anywhere from south lawdale to Bridgeport to every south suburb it's all sox side. Yes nobody goes to the games because the park sucks its like a mall they should've just updated old comisky instead of the crappy park it is now.
Every other assessment I agree with.
Quote from: Golden Avalanche on August 23, 2013, 06:11:32 PM
Nah, the people were fine.
Cubs fans are in love with the idea of being a Cubs fan. Anyone who has attended a game at Wrigley knows that 3/4 of the crowd is there to drink and tell their friends they're at Wrigley. I attended plenty, with the Bartman debacle being a highlight, and the story never strayed.
You are correct that many of those attending games at Wrigley are there for the experience. It sounds like you were probably one of them. If that is the case then you don't understand that being a Cub fan has more to do with the bittersweet emotional investment made over a lifetime, and not some jerk recording Iphone video of Jim Belushi singing take me out to the ballgame.
Geez, I thought this thread was about jigs or spinners, and fatheads, crawlers, or leeches in August.
Quote from: Sheriff on August 23, 2013, 09:34:37 PM
You are correct that many of those attending games at Wrigley are there for the experience. It sounds like you were probably one of them. If that is the case then you don't understand that being a Cub fan has more to do with the bittersweet emotional investment made over a lifetime, and not some jerk recording Iphone video of Jim Belushi singing take me out to the ballgame.
Don't forget that time spent as a Cubs fan is credited to you in Purgatory.
Quote from: Golden Avalanche on August 23, 2013, 06:11:32 PM
Nah, the people were fine.
Cubs fans are in love with the idea of being a Cubs fan. Anyone who has attended a game at Wrigley knows that 3/4 of the crowd is there to drink and tell their friends they're at Wrigley. I attended plenty, with the Bartman debacle being a highlight, and the story never strayed.
As for the Sox, during a six week run in 2005 they were the toast of the town. During nearly every other week of my seven year life in Chicago they were laughed at as the second class citizens of an already second city. Never did they have the attention other then their pocket of South Side but, as I said, most everyone will jump on a bandwagon when it's hip to be square.
Regarding the Bulls, you're dead wrong. I had season tickets for the four seasons of the vaunted "Baby Bulls" of Chandler/Curry and rarely would a sellout occur. In fact, I had more trouble giving away tickets to a Bulls game then I did getting tickets for the Bartman game at Wrigley.
It's the same story with the Hawks which is a proud franchise. When I had my season tickets from 2002-2007, the team was awful and suddenly all those great fans that made Madison rock during the 90s were nowhere to be found. Crickets chirping. Course, it was nice for me in the tenth row since I could hear all the barking on the ice thanks to the roomy atmosphere.
I know Chicagoland produces an inordinate number of defiantly proud people and will be defended to the hilt but those were my experiences as someone who wasn't raised in the area and was able to see things without the tinted shades.
This post brought to you by "Fan Stereotypes 'r Us."