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.
Location: Cleveland bound with MPLS in the rear-view
5,509 posts, read 11,880,875 times
Reputation: 2501
Advertisements
People call Minneapolis isolated too, but it's a 6 hour drive to Chicago so I feel like we're close enough to a major city. It doesn't feel isolated unless you have to travel to see family that lives out of state a lot, like we do. If we were in Seattle or Denver, it would be a.) more expensive to see family, and b.) we'd see family less because it's not as convenient. If we lived in Chicago, we'd probably see family even more....
Denver's isolation from other cities of similar size is part of why it punches above its weight. It isn't competing with nearby cities, it's pretty much the hub for hundreds of miles in any direction.
Sad to say, but only a true idiot would truly think that seattle had a better sports scene than Denver.
Sure thing skippy.
Quote:
It would take to much time to link all the times Denver has been named BEST sports city in the Nation.
You mean like the time you took to prove Coors was higher rated than Safeco? Keep em coming Shecky.
Quote:
Denver has set attendance records in Baseball, longest sellout streak in the NHL (now over), and the Broncos have been selling out games (and a list to buy season tickets) for years!
That would of course explain why the Mariners outdrew the Rockies by 2 million fans the last 10 seasons?
The Seahawks have been sold out for years too. And Qwest is clearly the better stadium.
Invesco Field has been panned by many. Qwest is the loudest stadium in the league.
Quote:
Coors field ALWAYS ranks higher on best baseball stadium lists than safeco (look it up). I am done.
I did look it up. You are Done indeed. I mean seriously. I can't find a single source that rates Coors as better than Safeco. Try actually going there and then pop off skippy. The launching pad known as Coors just doesn't appear...
How ironic that the stadium now considered the loudest (and the NFL leading number of false starts every year proves it) is named after a Denver company.
And yet what does your team have? We have 2 rings. How many does seattle have? That is right! ZERO. How about National Championships in NCAA? Compare DU and CU against all the teams in Metro Seattle. Yep, Denver crushes you there as well. Give it up. Not that it matters, but you are also WRONG on Qwest. No longer a Denver company. That sucks like seattle rain.
Well, the trend is that the Rockies are rising and the Mariners are falling in terms of attendance, with the Rockies drawing higher attendance than the Mariners starting in 2008, 2009, and 2010. So while the numbers add up when you go back 10 years, they don't tell the whole story. The whole story is that the Mariners HAD been drawing higher attendance, but now they are not, and haven't been for a few years now.
You can navigate to any year of your choosing at the above link.
In terms of MLB franchises, the Rockies are very much the Mariners equal. The Rockies have 3 playoff appearances, the Mariners have 4, but the Mariners are nearly twice as old as the Rockies. Also, the Rockies have a World Series appearance, and while the result wasn't pretty, it is something that the Mariners have never accomplished.
Neither team is elite MLB, but in terms of franchise history and tradition, the Rockies have easily equaled the Mariners. In terms of current state of the two franchises, the Rockies are miles ahead. Their methods of scouting talent and developing it within its own system are without peer in MLB. And the Rockies have shown that they are willing to invest to keep this talent in Denver with the contracts to Tulowitzski and Gonzales.
As for the Seahawks and Qwest Field, I agree that it's a great venue. The Seahawks have a very under rated fan base which is known for being among the loudest in the league. Meanwhile the structural design of Invesco Field allows a lot of sound to escape and mitigates the equally raucous fans of the Denver Broncos. A bad economy, controversial coach, numerous scandals, and finally a dismal performance on the field contributed to the Broncos sell out streak ending this year, yet the team still drew attendance of 98.4%. Not as impressive as the Seahawks drawing 100% attendance, but Invesco also seats about 10,000 more per game, so the comparison in percentage of capacity can be misleading. This opens debate on if the Seahawks would equal the Broncos' attendance if Qwest Field held equal capacity as the Invesco Field. Since there is no way to definitively prove they can or cannot, I have no interest in debating the matter.
In terms of the quality of the actual franchises, I would give the Broncos an edge. It helps that the Broncos have two Super Bowl wins and have been one of the league's winningest teams since Bowlen took over in the early 1980s. As for the the current state, both teams have similar records in the past few seasons, with the Seahawks in surprise playoff appearance despite a 7-9 record. (FWIW, I was really pulling for the Hawks, too.) But a playoff berth at 7-9 is not a testament to the quality of a team so much as the dismal state of the division. Meanwhile the Broncos are coming off what is officially their worst season in franchise history and have made a lot of changes, not the least of which is bringing in John Elway to run football operations. And of course, with this lockout, who knows how long we'll have to wait before we see how effective these changes are!
NHL and NBA finish Seattle off in terms of Denver sports vs Seattle sports. Denver's got 'em, Seattle doesn't. Seattle had NBA, but Oklahoma City has it now. Losing a team is worse than never having one.
Only a handful of cities have a team from each of the "Big 4", and of these cities, the Denver area is the smallest one. The list gets even smaller when you include only teams within the designated market's city limits. New York City, Washington DC, Bay Area, Dallas, and Miami all fall out.
This goes back to what I said earlier, that Denver's geographic isolation helps it to punch above its weight in terms of regional influence. That Denver can support this is a testament to its quality as a premier sports city. Seattle is good too. Great fans and venues, but it is simply not on the same tier as Denver as a sports city.
Well, the trend is that the Rockies are rising and the Mariners are falling in terms of attendance, with the Rockies drawing higher attendance than the Mariners starting in 2008, 2009, and 2010 So while the numbers add up when you go back 10 years, they don't tell the whole story. The whole story is that the Mariners HAD been drawing higher attendance, but now they are not, and haven't been for a few years now.
You do understand cause and effect? The Mariner have been absolutely the worst team in baseball recently. When they win, people come to the par. It's really not brain surgery.
Quote:
In terms of MLB franchises, the Rockies are very much the Mariners equal
.
Oh now they're equal. I thought the Rockies were vastly superior?
Quote:
As for the Seahawks and Qwest Field, I agree that it's a great venue. The Seahawks have a very under rated fan base which is known for being among the loudest in the league. Meanwhile the structural design of Invesco Field allows a lot of sound to escape and mitigates the equally raucous fans of the Denver Broncos. A bad economy, controversial coach, numerous scandals, and finally a dismal performance on the field contributed to the Broncos sell out streak ending this year, yet the team still drew attendance of 98.4%. Not as impressive as the Seahawks drawing 100% attendance, but Invesco also seats about 10,000 more per game, so the comparison in percentage of capacity can be misleading.
Most teams go through good and bad years. The Hawks are no exception. But since Allen took over the team, he has thrown a pile of money into it. and since that time crowds have returned, a stadium has been built, and even a superbowl was played.
They are rebuilding, and some lean years are likely ahead. But the franchise is healthy,
Quote:
NHL and NBA finish Seattle off in terms of Denver sports vs Seattle sports. Denver's got 'em, Seattle doesn't. Seattle had NBA, but Oklahoma City has it now. Losing a team is worse than never having one.
If you peel back the layers of the onion on how this came about you'll discover the sham that is was. Witness ******** Stern's newfound "love" for Seattle and its 14th largest market. It's all smoke and mirrors. He paid back Bennett. no more, no less. They're both sleazy bastards, and so is Howard Schultz (Starbucks CEO and former Sonic's owner) Seattle supported the Sonics for 40 years.Including the year they moved. This was not about the community support.
Quote:
Only a handful of cities have a team from each of the "Big 4", and of these cities, the Denver area is the smallest one.
I suggest to you that Seattle dominance in the MLS world is easily the equal of the success of the Avalanche.
Quote:
This goes back to what I said earlier, that Denver's geographic isolation helps it to punch above its weight in terms of regional influence.
No team in the lower 48 suffers the impacts of isolation more than does Seattle. One need look no further than the travel schedules. Brutal.
Quote:
But it is simply not on the same tier as Denver as a sports city.
LOL Well on that we agree. But not for the same reasons.
"I suggest to you that Seattle dominance in the MLS world is easily the equal of the success of the Avalanche. "
Good grief!!!! What success in the MLS? They are a new team to the MLS. They have high attendance because they are new. So did the Rapids and most other new teams. I am sure that the sounders will continue to draw well, as seattle is a hotspot for soccer, but until you win something, you are still just a new team. The Rapids are the Champions. And have been a very successfuly MLS team since day 1!
Good grief!!!! What success in the MLS? They are a new team to the MLS.
Anyone who knows anything about soccer is laughing their ass off at your ignorant comments. I suggest you attend a Sounders, witness the March to the Pitch and then suggest this franchise is the same as any other in the MLS. You have no idea what you're talking about.
Ask any franchise how many times they have interviewed Seattle ownership to learn how they did it.
That won't stop you from contradicting yourself though will it?
First you say this...
Quote:
They have high attendance because they are new.
Then this...
Quote:
. I am sure that the sounders will continue to draw well, as seattle is a hotspot for soccer,
So which one is it?
Quote:
So did the Rapids and most other new team
Ummm no. Not like the sounders. No other team has done what they have done in the first two seasons. And it's not even close.
Quote:
but until you win something, you are still just a new team.
While not winning the MLS Championship, they have won the Open Cup 2 years running. No other team has done that. Wanna bet the Colorado owners would trade for the Seattle attendance?
Quote:
The Rapids are the Champions. And have been a very successfuly MLS team since day 1!
They are the champs. But Seattle has outdrawn them to an embarrassing degree.
2010 542,600 to 199,929
2009 464,144 to 184,963
1,006744 to 384892 or over 2 and 1/2 times the fans.
That is embarrassing.
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.
