Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
congratulations. so a FEW years in the last 20 years, the LOS ANGELES clippers beat the boston celtics in attendance. now all of a sudden, it's a bragging point. that's like a team bragging about beating another team 5 times at the most, while the other team beat them like 15 times. congratulations. and i wonder what ticket prices between the two. nothing like sympathy fans. that's what clippers fans are.
they were 32 out of 32 last year in attendance. not apathetic, huh?
oh, so now it's YOU making up excuses. "green bay's a bad example blah blah blah." so what if it's their only team? SO WHAT? that little tiny city sold twice as many tickets than people who live in that city. that is ridiculous any way you look at it, whether it's their only team or not. i don't understand what you're trying to imply with "that's their only team and the fans are owners."
and not a lot going on in green bay? haha. so your excuse for the raiders pathetic fans being more pathetic than green bay is that there's more going on in la or oakland or wherever they feel like being than green bay? so raiders fans pathetic excuse for not supporting their team on game day is that there's more going on (on a sunday evening when mostly everything is closed or closes early?) where they play than in green bay? real football fans don't let ANYTHING get in the way of their sunday games no matter where they live. lol you're doing exactly what you're claiming everybody else is doing; making up your own excuses now.
-Just as I said, any facts that don't paint the 'sports mad' East cities in a positive light are quickly explained away. Poor Celtics weren't able to outdraw the Clippers because tickets were too expensive, haha. Keep 'em coming.
-I'm not making excuses. The Packers probably have the best fans in the league, nobody really compares, including the Raiders.
Best: Chicago (#1 in attendance in both hockey and basketball) Bulls are one of the premier NBA franchises as are the Blackhawks in the NHL.
Bears have the most hall of famers all time to go along with 9 total championships (1 superbowl) Soldier Field is the smallest stadium in football and is always sold out. Two baseball teams with the Cubbies and Sox. The Cubs while not winning a world serie in over 100 years have one of the strongest fanbases in the country... consistently a top 10 attendance team (top 5 when good) while being in a small stadium.
Worst: LA, quite simple, 2nd biggest city without a team in the most popular sport in America.
Not sure if this logic totally works. ESPN evaluated the Philly market and decided not to pull the trigger as Comcast Sportsnet dominates the market with a local 24/7 sports network geared at the Philly Sports, they felt they couldn't compete locally. Their radio offering (espn sports) is the third rated sports radio station in the market.
Makes sense. But I feel an ESPN Philadelphia could still work. Maybe them and the Bay are the only areas where it can work outside the ones that exist now.
Best: Chicago (#1 in attendance in both hockey and basketball) Bulls are one of the premier NBA franchises as are the Blackhawks in the NHL.
Bears have the most hall of famers all time to go along with 9 total championships (1 superbowl) Soldier Field is the smallest stadium in football and is always sold out. Two baseball teams with the Cubbies and Sox. The Cubs while not winning a world serie in over 100 years have one of the strongest fanbases in the country... consistently a top 10 attendance team (top 5 when good) while being in a small stadium.
Worst: LA, quite simple, 2nd biggest city without a team in the most popular sport in America.
worst honorable mention: any city in Florida.
Please. The Blackhawks are one of the biggest bandwagon stories ever. Their attendance figures were terrible for years, then they improve, go on their Stanley Cup run, and suddenly they're selling out every game.
LA lost its teams because the stadiums they played in were woefully out-of-date and city officials refused to build new ones. Not because LA can't sustain a team. If that were the case, we wouldn't have two of every other franchise.
Well lets see, you just put one team(the Blackhawks) there. The Bulls are always near the top for attendance as well as the Cubs. The Bears and the White Sox draw pretty big crowds too. Nice try
Alot of blackhawks fans are just jumping the bandwagon. Ever since they been in they got to the playoffs a couple years ago seems like everyone likes them. The blackhawks, to tell you the truth, were not as popular as the Bears, The 2 baseball teams and the Bulls. So this might explain the sudden increase in attendance. Chicago still is one of the best sports cities in the country.
# BULLS WHITESOX & BEARS
mas23
The Blackhawks didn't televise games until 07-08 I think
bad ownership and then it changed and they were back
Not sure if this logic totally works. ESPN evaluated the Philly market and decided not to pull the trigger as Comcast Sportsnet dominates the market with a local 24/7 sports network geared at the Philly Sports, they felt they couldn't compete locally. Their radio offering (espn sports) is the third rated sports radio station in the market.
Correct me if I'm wrong though but ESPN radio in philadelphia just plays nationally syndicated programing right? Doing that there's no way they could come close to competing with WIP. Although I imagine that there's nothing they could do to beat WIP in the ratings short of convincing Eskin to start a show there.
As far as to whether or not Philly would support an ESPN Philadelphia web site... i don't know, i kind of doubt it. I always got my sports news from the inquirer and the daily news... now i continue to read their work online. Comcast sports net has a site that probably currently offers more than whatever ESPN Philadelphia would be, and I never even go there. I already get my news on philly.com, why would I get the same news from two different sources? A third site on ESPN would just bet total overkill.
I'm pretty sure philadelphians already have their preferences, why would they suddenly switch to espn?
Although, it's not like Boston, NYC, Chicago, etc didn't have long established sports reporting, although I can't speak to the quality of their online counterparts.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Best and worst
