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.
..Just like the Phillies. Speaking of which, look at the 76ers attendance over the last few decades. Fluctuate more than the Celtics, even before 2008.
Well, I would expect a team that won 17 titles to have proper attendance numbers, no? Looks like the Sixers attendance was marginally different, and they have 3 titles.
Look at the Patriots sitting at the bottom of attendance in the early 1990s. Interesting.
So then, let's just say that the only real teams that sell out win or lose in Boston and Philadelphia are the Red Sox, Eagles and Flyers.
The overall point being that Philadelphia has a fraction of the success Boston has in sports, yet their attendance I would say is either marginally less, or better (at least 2 to 1 here).
Patriots, Celtics and Bruins all have fairweather tendencies, whereas in Philadelphia, it looks like it's just the Sixers and Phillies. Which is kind of reflective of each city, no? Philly is tough, and likes tough sports (football, hockey). Boston is, boring, which likes baseball.
I think you helped make my point stronger. Every city is prone to this type of fluctuation, which was my rebuttal to Grrrrreat.
A point that I'm reluctant to make, but that has been made in defense of Boston, is that it's significantly smaller than either Chicago or Philadelphia. As far as viewership goes as a % of population, that would probably be the best indicator to use outside of attendance/value of each team. But I'm lazy.
Let's be honest- I'm not sure people even knew who were the Patriots were in the early 90's. It's a fair knock, as the Bear/Eagles have always been a part of the cities fabric. And it wasn't until Bledsoe was drafted that people really showed loyalty or passion. But in the last three decades, things change. So for those that say "it's not a football town", I'd say you're dead wrong. It's a serious football town, one that has the second most valued franchise in the NFL. So I wouldn't include the Patriots in that list, but would have in 1994. Between the championship in '04 and in '15, the Pats stayed relevant, absolutely. But the popularity only grew, despite no SB victories in those 10 years. The teams popularity is here to stay.
Franchise values always fluctuate with success. Philadelphia teams were above Boston before the last little while, now Boston is ahead. Clearly we know why.
Boston has all of New England to draw from, so it's % viewership is arguably larger than both Philadelphia and Chicago.
Latter is a good point. Noted, although Philadelphia gets the draw from NJ/a majority of PA outside of Pitt, and the Illinois population itself is almost as big as New England. We'll call it a wash there I suppose.
I think you helped make my point stronger. Every city is prone to this type of fluctuation, which was my rebuttal to Grrrrreat.
A point that I'm reluctant to make, but that has been made in defense of Boston, is that it's significantly smaller than either Chicago or Philadelphia. As far as viewership goes as a % of population, that would probably be the best indicator to use outside of attendance/value of each team. But I'm lazy.
Let's be honest- I'm not sure people even knew who were the Patriots were in the early 90's. It's a fair knock, as the Bear/Eagles have always been a part of the cities fabric. And it wasn't until Bledsoe was drafted that people really showed loyalty or passion. But in the last three decades, things change. So for those that say "it's not a football town", I'd say you're dead wrong. It's a serious football town, one that has the second most valued franchise in the NFL. So I wouldn't include the Patriots in that list, but would have in 1994. Between the championship in '04 and in '15, the Pats stayed relevant, absolutely. But the popularity only grew, despite no SB victories in those 10 years. The teams popularity is here to stay.
Franchise values always fluctuate with success. Philadelphia teams were above Boston before the last little while, now Boston is ahead. Clearly we know why.
Boston has all of New England to draw from, so it's % viewership is arguably larger than both Philadelphia and Chicago.
Someone from Presque Isle isn't driving down the Boston ever, they draw from similar geographic areas. Whatever is truncated to the east for Philly by NY is the Atlantic Ocean for Boston
The other night will go down as the night Long and Cox killed the Minnesota Miracle Man and Nick Foles' Greased The Pole to the Super Bowl. Jigar Desai also is a legend now lol.
Love all 3 cities, and all 3 cities are GREAT sports towns. All have passionate fans. These 3 cities mirrors each other more than any other cities, in that they all have a large, down to earth neighborhood bar scenes where you can see large crowds of strangers having a good time and bonding over sports teams. Also, for the most part, transplants of all 3 cities tend instantly adopt the home team, and you'll see tons of people wearing their sports gear throughout the city. It's splitting hairs to say which is the best. I've lived in Chicago and Philly, and they are both great sports towns. Visiting Boston, I get the same vibe.
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.
