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.
You're cherry-picking the last 15 years of success. The Bruins, Celtics and Patriots "recent" success masks their poor attendance and fairweather tendencies prior.
Per capita value? Like when the Sixers and Flyers had higher value than the Celtics and Bruins?
Boston doesn't look very good without their championships. Below Chicago and Philadelphia.
Boston teams are valued the highest per capita by a mile. 1/3 of the population of Philly, 1/4 the population of Chicago. That's a pretty glaring statistic.
And the 76ers attendance probably looks very similar to the Celtics attendance in down years. The Red Sox/Pats success has nothing to do with the Celtics success.
But, how about the Phillies vs Red Sox. Phillies attendance has been at like 40% in down years. Have you ever seen the Red Sox below 75%? No chance.
Also, the Bulls did have one of the greatest US sports dynasties and icons as well which makes a Bulls game somewhat of an event in and of itself.
That's true, however, that dynasty was a really long time ago and lots of people both in the United States and the world at-large have been born after 1998 (Jordan's last championship with Chicago). A lot of those same people by this point would either have faint recollection or no recollection of Michael Jordan ever playing. Almost every trace of that 1990s dynasty is now completely gone. There is also 1.5 Billion more human beings on Earth now than the last time Jordan won a championship ring (1998).
The other thing about it is that Chicago's success was unilaterally affiliated with Michael Jordan. Remember, prior to drafting him in 1983, the Chicago Bulls were an also-ran of a franchise that had never accomplished anything of significance in their history. They were, back then, what the Charlotte Hornets are today, a pretty pathetic excuse of an organization that simply exists but has no meaningful accomplishments going for it to its name. They went on to draft Jordan and he wins plenty of MVPs in the 1980s and 1990s, then Scottie Pippen, whom the Bulls drafted, develops and they go on to win 6 championships in the 1990s. Two three-peats with championships in 1991-1992-1993 followed up by championships in 1996-1997-1998, the latter three-peat with Dennis Rodman in tow (acquired via trade in the 1995 off-season from the Spurs). Jordan is now recognized, by most, as the G.O.A.T. (Greatest of All-Time).
After the Jordan era ended in Chicago, the Bulls reverted back to being the same POS organization that they were prior to drafting Jordan. They once again became an also-ran and in the last 20 years their only significant achievement to date has been a Derrick Rose MVP in 2011 and losing 4-1 to LeBron James and the Miami Heat in a noncompetitive Eastern Conference Finals in 2011. This is attributed to the Bulls having a weak management structure and ownership structure where they weren't effectively able to rebuild in a successful enough manner, simply put, it was the Bulls once again being the same old Bulls that they were before they drafted Jordan.
Contrast that with a true legacy franchise like the Los Angeles Lakers or the Boston Celtics, which have both demonstrated the viability of their entire franchise with several eras of pure domination. Their success transcends eras and generations, as does their popularity. The Bulls don't have that luxury. The Bulls owe all their thanks and all their gratitude to a singular man, Michael Jordan, for giving them what they have now. The other 2 franchises have built dynasties with different players, eras, coaches numerous times. For instance, there were the Wilt Chamberlain Lakers, the Jerry West and Elgin Baylor Lakers, the Magic-Kareem-Worthy Showtime Lakers, the Shaq & Kobe Lakers, then the Kobe-Gasol-Bynum Lakers. So many different eras, something the Bulls have never had going for them. The Bulls owe all they have, singularly, to the man they drafted in 1983. He essentially built "Chicago basketball's" identity in the NBA. They never did anything before him and they haven't done much at all after him. Derrick Rose, who is a hometown native of Chicago and the #1 pick in the 2008 NBA Draft and was picked by the Bulls went on to win the MVP in 2011 while navigating the Bulls to a 60-22 record, the best in the NBA that season. He is the only person that has ever won the NBA MVP but might not make the cut into the Basketball Hall of Fame after he retires (which practically everyone gets into). That speaks volumes but fans still support the Bulls.
I guess what I am saying is that it is somewhat surprising to see the Bulls being this successful in drawing attendance to their games given the current state of their team. However, not all too surprising at the same time too. Chicago has done this before, numerous times, like I mentioned the Chicago Cubs were losers for a span of 108 years straight, the longest such span in all of professional sports and were amongst the tops in attendance in almost that entire span. You could say the same about the moribund Chicago Bears of the NFL too. There's not much in the sports world that is worse than watching a bonafide POS product take the court, the way the Bulls do now. At the end of the day, you are wasting a few hours of your life that you'll never get back watching trash perform in a trashy manner. They have no identity, they don't play with any defined style, no scheme, no collective team identity, no nothing. Their headcoach is arguably the worst in all of basketball. Their front office is among the most inept in all of basketball along with the Knicks and Kings. Their ownership group is frugal and cheap, trying to win championships on a bargain bin dump of a roster. The Bulls are also failures at attracting free agents. No one in their prime and considered among the top players in the NBA ever wants to play for the Bulls. They accumulate talent through the draft where players don't get a say on where they play or not. Their best free agent acquisition of all time is Pau Gasol. No, not the dominant Pau Gasol from the peak Lakers years of 2008-2012 but a washed up and marginalized, injury prone, and less effective Pau Gasol in his twilight years in the league. He wasn't even their target that summer, Carmelo Anthony was, but like all other major free agents that Chicago inquires about, he simply said "no thanks, I'm staying with the Knicks." The even more (at the time) dysfunctional, the even more (at the time) POS, and even more (at the time) moribund Knicks!
Yet despite all of those setbacks, they are still #1 in attendance. They are #30 out of 30 teams in the NBA with regards to their performance, they are the worst team in the NBA by record and by point differential and all the other cons I mentioned above also apply. Yet still #1 in attendance. People actually shell out their personal money to watch literal trash take the court. That's an excessive mark of fandom.
Compare that to a city that is in a similar situation as Chicago, which is Atlanta. The Atlanta Hawks have the second longest playoff streak in the NBA, at 10 years, right behind the San Antonio Spurs' soon to be 21 years but that comes to an end this season as they are the second worst team in the NBA thus far after the Bulls. During the off-season/summer, they purged the roster of all talent by letting their free agents walk and trading other valuable guys away to the point where their roster is stripped of nearly all talent. They are the second worst team in the NBA by record and performance and like Chicago, they also have little to no immediate future other than serving the role as one of the true dregs of the NBA. The type of team that 29 other teams gets to step on and beat and add to their win totals. However, the difference between Chicago and Atlanta is that Atlanta's attendance matches its performance, they are dead last in attendance. They actually average 6,000 less home game fans in attendance than Chicago does, and the Hawks are marginally a better team than the Bulls. That of course is explained by Atlanta being a lousy sports market for fanatics, even when they were good they would struggle to fill the seats.
Last edited by Trafalgar Law; 12-10-2017 at 01:28 PM..
That's true, however, that dynasty was a really long time ago and lots of people both in the United States and the world at-large have been born after 1998 (Jordan's last championship with Chicago). A lot of those same people by this point would either have faint recollection or no recollection of Michael Jordan ever playing. Almost every trace of that 1990s dynasty is now completely gone. There is also 1.5 Billion more human beings on Earth now than the last time Jordan won a championship ring (1998).
The other thing about it is that Chicago's success was unilaterally affiliated with Michael Jordan. Remember, prior to drafting him in 1983, the Chicago Bulls were an also-ran of a franchise that had never accomplished anything of significance in their history. They were, back then, what the Charlotte Hornets are today, a pretty pathetic excuse of an organization that simply exists but has no meaningful accomplishments going for it to its name. They went on to draft Jordan and he wins plenty of MVPs in the 1980s and 1990s, then Scottie Pippen, whom the Bulls drafted, develops and they go on to win 6 championships in the 1990s. Two three-peats with championships in 1991-1992-1993 followed up by championships in 1996-1997-1998, the latter three-peat with Dennis Rodman in tow (acquired via trade in the 1995 off-season from the Spurs). Jordan is now recognized, by most, as the G.O.A.T. (Greatest of All-Time).
After the Jordan era ended in Chicago, the Bulls reverted back to being the same POS organization that they were prior to drafting Jordan. They once again became an also-ran and in the last 20 years their only significant achievement to date has been a Derrick Rose MVP in 2011 and losing 4-1 to LeBron James and the Miami Heat in a noncompetitive Eastern Conference Finals in 2011. This is attributed to the Bulls having a weak management structure and ownership structure where they weren't effectively able to rebuild in a successful enough manner, simply put, it was the Bulls once again being the same old Bulls that they were before they drafted Jordan.
Contrast that with a true legacy franchise like the Los Angeles Lakers or the Boston Celtics, which have both demonstrated the viability of their entire franchise with several eras of pure domination. Their success transcends eras and generations, as does their popularity. The Bulls don't have that luxury. The Bulls owe all their thanks and all their gratitude to a singular man, Michael Jordan, for giving them what they have now. The other 2 franchises have built dynasties with different players, eras, coaches numerous times. For instance, there were the Wilt Chamberlain Lakers, the Jerry West and Elgin Baylor Lakers, the Magic-Kareem-Worthy Showtime Lakers, the Shaq & Kobe Lakers, then the Kobe-Gasol-Bynum Lakers. So many different eras, something the Bulls have never had going for them. The Bulls owe all they have, singularly, to the man they drafted in 1983. He essentially built "Chicago basketball's" identity in the NBA. They never did anything before him and they haven't done much at all after him. Derrick Rose, who is a hometown native of Chicago and the #1 pick in the 2008 NBA Draft and was picked by the Bulls went on to win the MVP in 2011 while navigating the Bulls to a 60-22 record, the best in the NBA that season. He is the only person that has ever won the NBA MVP but might not make the cut into the Basketball Hall of Fame after he retires (which practically everyone gets into). That speaks volumes but fans still support the Bulls.
I guess what I am saying is that it is somewhat surprising to see the Bulls being this successful in drawing attendance to their games given the current state of their team. However, not all too surprising at the same time too. Chicago has done this before, numerous times, like I mentioned the Chicago Cubs were losers for a span of 108 years straight, the longest such span in all of professional sports and were amongst the tops in attendance in almost that entire span. You could say the same about the moribund Chicago Bears of the NFL too. There's not much in the sports world that is worse than watching a bonafide POS product take the court, the way the Bulls do now. At the end of the day, you are wasting a few hours of your life that you'll never get back watching trash perform in a trashy manner. They have no identity, they don't play with any defined style, no scheme, no collective team identity, no nothing. Their headcoach is arguably the worst in all of basketball. Their front office is among the most inept in all of basketball along with the Knicks and Kings. Their ownership group is frugal and cheap, trying to win championships on a bargain bin dump of a roster. The Bulls are also failures at attracting free agents. No one in their prime and considered among the top players in the NBA ever wants to play for the Bulls. They accumulate talent through the draft where players don't get a say on where they play or not. Their best free agent acquisition of all time is Pau Gasol. No, not the dominant Pau Gasol from the peak Lakers years of 2008-2012 but a washed up and marginalized, injury prone, and less effective Pau Gasol in his twilight years in the league. He wasn't even their target that summer, Carmelo Anthony was, but like all other major free agents that Chicago inquires about, he simply said "no thanks, I'm staying with the Knicks." The even more (at the time) dysfunctional, the even more (at the time) POS, and even more (at the time) moribund Knicks!
Yet despite all of those setbacks, they are still #1 in attendance. They are #30 out of 30 teams in the NBA with regards to their performance, they are the worst team in the NBA by record and by point differential and all the other cons I mentioned above also apply. Yet still #1 in attendance. People actually shell out their personal money to watch literal trash take the court. That's an excessive mark of fandom.
Compare that to a city that is in a similar situation as Chicago, which is Atlanta. The Atlanta Hawks have the second longest playoff streak in the NBA, at 10 years, right behind the San Antonio Spurs' soon to be 21 years but that comes to an end this season as they are the second worst team in the NBA thus far after the Bulls. During the off-season/summer, they purged the roster of all talent by letting their free agents walk and trading other valuable guys away to the point where their roster is stripped of nearly all talent. They are the second worst team in the NBA by record and performance and like Chicago, they also have little to no immediate future other than serving the role as one of the true dregs of the NBA. The type of team that 29 other teams gets to step on and beat and add to their win totals. However, the difference between Chicago and Atlanta is that Atlanta's attendance matches its performance, they are dead last in attendance. They actually average 6,000 less home game fans in attendance than Chicago does, and the Hawks are marginally a better team than the Bulls. That of course is explained by Atlanta being a lousy sports market for fanatics, even when they were good they would struggle to fill the seats.
Yeah I agree, it's very impressive that they're right at the top of the league in attendance considering their situation this year.
Boston teams are valued the highest per capita by a mile. 1/3 of the population of Philly, 1/4 the population of Chicago. That's a pretty glaring statistic.
Philadelphia has one championship in the last 34 years. Boston has 9. Not very hard to cherry-pick your success.
You're right about Philly. Boston actually has 10 in just the last 17 years tho (since 2000), which is insane. In the 34-year span during which Philly has won just one championship (Philly 2008), their four teams have made 21 conference championships and 10 league championships, with just the one aforementioned victory. For a market the size of Philadelphia with the extended history of their sports franchises, their lack of success is simply unprecedented. I don't think you could find a remotely comparative example in North American sports.
Are we going to pretend like these numbers aren't pretty wild?
Boston 4.6 Million
Philadelphia 6.1 Million
Chicago 9.5
There's not a single Philadelphia team that's valued higher.
NOW, I understand that success has a massive implication on the popularity of a team. Global brand plays a bigger part in valuation than local fandom. But, the Celtics and Bruins have been widely middle of the pack over the last two decades. So how do we explain that?
The Red Sox speak for themselves. Best fans in baseball with the exception of maybe St. Louis.
And the Patriots. Well, let's just call a spade a spade. It was never a football town until Bledsoe was drafted. The Pats attendance was always middle of the road. But it's become a religion, and though I'm not going to give Pats fans credit on this one, just know that a Patriots Sunday shuts down the neighborhoods of Boston.
Anyways, I think there's a discussion to be had on Philadelphia and Boston. But, like I stated earlier, I am from Chicago originally, spent my formative years in Boston, and have since lived in both. I'm telling you - eye test- It's not even a conversation on which city is more of a sports town. Chicago has much broader shoulders as a city, and there's just a lot more going on. You never feel the impact of a Bears game on Sunday like you do in Boston. You never even know when the Bulls are playing. It was never the big conversation piece at work. It's the exact opposite in Boston.
Hell, even sports talk radio should provide a real glimpse into this conversation. Check out Inc. Magazines list. Feel like you'll see Felger and Mazz, Toucher and Rich, Cataldi and The Morning Team before Waddle and Silvy.
Are we going to pretend like these numbers aren't pretty wild?
Boston 4.6 Million
Philadelphia 6.1 Million
Chicago 9.5
There's not a single Philadelphia team that's valued higher.
NOW, I understand that success has a massive implication on the popularity of a team. Global brand plays a bigger part in valuation than local fandom. But, the Celtics and Bruins have been widely middle of the pack over the last two decades. So how do we explain that?
The Red Sox speak for themselves. Best fans in baseball with the exception of maybe St. Louis.
And the Patriots. Well, let's just call a spade a spade. It was never a football town until Bledsoe was drafted. The Pats attendance was always middle of the road. But it's become a religion, and though I'm not going to give Pats fans credit on this one, just know that a Patriots Sunday shuts down the neighborhoods of Boston.
Anyways, I think there's a discussion to be had on Philadelphia and Boston. But, like I stated earlier, I am from Chicago originally, spent my formative years in Boston, and have since lived in both. I'm telling you - eye test- It's not even a conversation on which city is more of a sports town. Chicago has much broader shoulders as a city, and there's just a lot more going on. You never feel the impact of a Bears game on Sunday like you do in Boston. You never even know when the Bulls are playing. It was never the big conversation piece at work. It's the exact opposite in Boston.
If there is one sport that Boston lags other cities in its Football. Football is a 3 day affair in most of the country. Friday is for HS, Saturday is College, and Sunday is Pro, in Boston it's Sunday afternoon and that's it. Football is not all consuming like in the rest of the country.
If there is one sport that Boston lags other cities in its Football. Football is a 3 day affair in most of the country. Friday is for HS, Saturday is College, and Sunday is Pro, in Boston it's Sunday afternoon and that's it. Football is not all consuming like in the rest of the country.
Totally agree. It's the Patriots- that's it that's all.
On the flip side, you could say the same about almost any other hockey market in the US. Hockey in Massachusetts, outside of MN and MI, is as big as it gets. High school hockey, college hockey.. It's massive.
You certainly won't see that in Chicago. Philadelphia is somewhere in the middle.
Totally agree. It's the Patriots- that's it that's all.
On the flip side, you could say the same about almost any other hockey market in the US. Hockey in Massachusetts, outside of MN and MI, is as big as it gets. High school hockey, college hockey.. It's massive.
You certainly won't see that in Chicago. Philadelphia is somewhere in the middle.
I've lived in PA and I've lived in MA and college football is MASSIVE. College hockey competes with College Basketball in terms of interest in places with moderate CBB interest, like the mid-Atlantic.
Chicago has 2 major league baseball teams. Cubs and White Sox (seems forgotten here) with Wrigley Field as a Top tourist attraction and tours too. Major league Soccer.... Chicago has the - Chicago Fire. It is also getting a new soccer stadium for a NEW United Soccer League and stadium near downtown, with a yet unnamed team for 2020.
I did read Boston's mayor is seeking a MLS team and stadium now for Boston. .
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.
. 1/2 the size of Chicago.
