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.
When I lived in Boston a few years ago, it was funny because Weei would pretty much talk all Pats and Sox.
The Celts had some fans, the Bruins and NHL were laughable.
In the "media" Boston had been portrayed as some sort of hockey mecca, yet in my experience, the Bruins and hockey were a distant fourth and an afterthought to the big three.
I am a big hockey fan and when going on Bruins boards they seem to pat themselves on the back for being "hockeytown" yet in my view, Boston is no different than 95% of all US towns, with hockey being a distant 4th.
My question, both the Celtics and Bruins are in the 2nd round.
1) Which team is the bigger story right now? Whose is getting talked about more at the watercooler, news paper, media?
2) Overall, which team is more popular?
I figured I would ask here because if I go on a Bruins or other board, the answers would be more bias.
I think it's the Bruins at the moment. Mostly due to lack of expectations a few weeks back. There were fans (and "experts") saying that this team would be swept right out of the playoffs, so they should just mail it in and drop a few spots in the rankings for better draft picks. They've exceeded everyone's expectations and STILL got a number 2 pick in the draft. No one expected them to do as well as they did in the first round so they're the bigger story right now.
The Celtics were expected to win the first round at least. They'll become a bigger story as they get deeper into the playoffs unless the Bruins keep up the pace. I'm no hockey fan (Sox #1 and Pats #2), but I'm told that the Sabres, although higher seeded, were a good match up for the Bruins. Next round won't be so easy for a team with scoring trouble.
For the record, when people call Boston a "hockey town" I think it's relative to other U.S. cities. While they're nowhere near as big as the Sox or Pats (or even Celtics), they have a strong core following. They've got better fans than any U.S. team outside of Detroit, Philly, Pittsburgh and maybe Chicago and St. Louis. You have to admit they have a more solid fan base than a lot of NHL franchises. I wouldn't call Boston a hockey town so much as I'd call it a Sports town and the Bruins are a big part of that, but certainly not the biggest.
Well...you left out (and I should ask you to edit) New York. I think New York hockey fans are extremly hardcore.
The Rangers have been lousy since they won the cup. They missed the playoffs EIGHT years in a row, yet MSG still had near capacity crowds.
Only since the Bruins started winning did they begin to draw...in fact while the Rangers were missing the playoffs from 97-04...the Bruins won 2 division titles, yet had thousands on unsold seats in the 03 playoff games.
I don't get why NY keeps getting snubbed as being a hockey hotbed, the Rangers always draw at home and on the road despite a medicore team.
When the Bruin had a much milder stretch of medicoracy from 93-07 (and even they didn't have it nearly as bad as the Rangers from 97-present) they had lousy attendance.
I would also say the Bruins just because they played mediocre for most of the season and expectations going into the playoffs weren't high. Also, the Celtics have been good for the last 3 years so the Bruins are the "new" thing. Overall, I would say hockey and basketball flip-flop between 3rd and 4th in the New England area. It really depends upon who is winning at the time and who gets the attention.
I would say the Red Sox are still #1, but not by as far. If you look at most of the country football is usually the #1 sport in areas, and the Patriots in the last 10 years have caught the Red Sox in terms of popularity and might even be more popular soon.
In my opinion this years Red Sox team is an extremely boring and uninteresting team. There really isn't anyone exciting to care for. I find the young Tampa Rays team to be a lot more exciting. I also find the NBA to be a terrible league and the Celtics losing their luster. Paul Pierce is a little baby and although I like Kevin Garnett, his constant trash-talking gets annoying. Add in Rasheed Wallace (another baby) and Kendrick Perkins who never thinks he ever commits a foul and thinks he is a better player than he is, and you have another team that has become lame. They do have a great and exciting young player with Rondo though. Really like any area, whatever teams are winning will usually do well.
Well...you left out (and I should ask you to edit) New York. I think New York hockey fans are extremly hardcore.
The Rangers have been lousy since they won the cup. They missed the playoffs EIGHT years in a row, yet MSG still had near capacity crowds.
Only since the Bruins started winning did they begin to draw...in fact while the Rangers were missing the playoffs from 97-04...the Bruins won 2 division titles, yet had thousands on unsold seats in the 03 playoff games.
I don't get why NY keeps getting snubbed as being a hockey hotbed, the Rangers always draw at home and on the road despite a medicore team.
I spent a lot of years in New York. There are hardcore hockey fans there, but you could live in that city for 10 years and not know hockey exists. Not surprising that they draw well, the metropolitan area has 20 million people.
Bruins fans have just about had it. For many years the team was mismanaged and inept. The few years they appear to be legitimate contenders, like last year, they fizzle early in the playoffs.
I'd say Boston and environs are a "hockey town" not so much because of Bruins mania, but because of strong college hockey programs (3 straight national titles on Comm Av.) and the fact that a lot of local kids play youth hockey. That is not something you can say in all the new sun belt NHL cities. Dallas, Tampa, Miami, Atlanta, Raleigh, Nashville, Phoenix, Anaheim.
Personally I lost some degree of interest in the NHL when they started dropping teams with absurd names and logos into places where people don't have a clue about hockey. I'd watch the Bruins and I'd say, "OK, I know the spoked B at the top of the screen is the Bruins, but what on earth is that other logo?"
Well...you left out (and I should ask you to edit) New York. I think New York hockey fans are extremly hardcore.
The Rangers have been lousy since they won the cup. They missed the playoffs EIGHT years in a row, yet MSG still had near capacity crowds.
Only since the Bruins started winning did they begin to draw...in fact while the Rangers were missing the playoffs from 97-04...the Bruins won 2 division titles, yet had thousands on unsold seats in the 03 playoff games.
I don't get why NY keeps getting snubbed as being a hockey hotbed, the Rangers always draw at home and on the road despite a medicore team.
When the Bruin had a much milder stretch of medicoracy from 93-07 (and even they didn't have it nearly as bad as the Rangers from 97-present) they had lousy attendance.
I did leave New York out, but not intentionally. Just didn't write the name there. Only the Rangers though. Still, the Rangers fans aren't easy to spot in New York. I'd say the Rangers, like the Bruins, are the 4th most important sport in town (Yankees, Mets, Jets, Giants, and Knicks all taking priority).The Islanders are essentially an AHL team playing in the NHL. I have a friend who works in the front office there so I generally get the ins and outs of it through him. They have far and away the lowest budget in the league and attendance is among the worse. The sad thing is that they were competitive this year.
Still, my point was that Boston fans are a HECK of a lot better than Carolina, Florida, Tampa, Nashville, Atlanta, Dallas, Phoenix, any of the California teams, etc. If you check average attendances, the Bruins are among the top 5 every year. My point was also that Boston is a SPORTS town and the Bruins are a big part of that. Their fan base is overshadowed by the other franchises (there are only a few cities that the hockey fans are the biggest group and those are in Canada), but it's passionate and visible. You also can't forget about college hockey... The Beanpot is a huge event and many of the teams in Boston or competitive on a national level (B.C. won it all this year and B.U. did a few years back).
The fact that I forgot to include Rangers fans doesn't negate the rest of my point.
I spent a lot of years in New York. There are hardcore hockey fans there, but you could live in that city for 10 years and not know hockey exists. Not surprising that they draw well, the metropolitan area has 20 million people.
Bruins fans have just about had it. For many years the team was mismanaged and inept. The few years they appear to be legitimate contenders, like last year, they fizzle early in the playoffs.
I'd say Boston and environs are a "hockey town" not so much because of Bruins mania, but because of strong college hockey programs (3 straight national titles on Comm Av.) and the fact that a lot of local kids play youth hockey. That is not something you can say in all the new sun belt NHL cities. Dallas, Tampa, Miami, Atlanta, Raleigh, Nashville, Phoenix, Anaheim.
Personally I lost some degree of interest in the NHL when they started dropping teams with absurd names and logos into places where people don't have a clue about hockey. I'd watch the Bruins and I'd say, "OK, I know the spoked B at the top of the screen is the Bruins, but what on earth is that other logo?"
Well I would say you are quite mistaken, if not biased, on several points, and need correction for the record.
1) I lived in the Boston area. When I lived there, it was really hard to imagine that Boston was a hockey town. The local radio never talked about hockey. Walking the streets, you'd spot more Yankee hats than Bruins fans. Hockey was dead, a complete afterthought. The TD Garden was empty, aside from road fans. It was hard to imagine their was an NHL team, let alone that this was one of the alledged best NHL towns...because the Bruins attendance, ratings were non existant.
If you wanted to talk hockey you were laughed it.
I recall reading that until last season, the Bruins STH was so low, it did not meet expansion levels.
2) Your comments about "Bruins fans had it" shows the general fickleness...and to be considered a top hockeytown, fan support has to be if not unconditional, certainly not fickle.
The Bruins were, for the most part, a strong contender from the late 60s until the mid 90s.
Yet as soon as the Bruins had a hiccup, the fanbase left.
From 93-2008, the Bruins mostly had bottom 1/2 to bottom 1/3 attendance both in total and by percent of capacity filled, reflecting that they really aren't a great hockeytown as made out to be, as the fans will quickly turn away when the team is not "hot"
3) The Rangers, on the other hand, have been medicore their entire history. They last won the division in 94. You complained about how the Bruins were medicore, yet the Bruins during their "worst" stretch missed the playoffs 5 times from 93-09, the Rangers missed the playoffs EIGHT times during that stretch, all of them consecutively.
The Bruins won 3 division titles, the Rangers won 4 in their whole history.
So for a Bruins fan to admit they "ditched" the team during that stretch makes it really hard to be considered a hard core fan.
Fact is, the Rangers have been medicore, and have had it a lot worse, yet while missing the playoffs EIGHT years in a row, they had near capacity crowds.
Meantime, the Bruins had thousands of empty seats during the regular season and even playoffs...I think that speaks enough the Boston is not nearly the NHL town and die hard fanbase.
4) Funny you mention the NY area having 20 million.
-This includes areas from as far out as New Haven and Trenton (which actually is Philly's base)
-Yes NY has more people, they also have a LOT more diversity. Boston is a very white market, NY is the most diverse place in the country. Their are many areas you could where soccer is more popular than baseball, where English is not spoken. This should not be held against NY as being less of a hockeytown.
-Additionally, there is SO much more to do in NY both in sports and out of sports. Heck the Rangers have 2 other NHL teams to compete against and 8 other pro teams. Wonder how much publicity the Bruins would get if they had another MLB and NFL team?
Summary:
Bottom line, it is laughable and ridicolous for Boston to be called a great hockeytown above New York.
It is even more funny to hear Bruins try to excuse their indifference from 93-09 by blaming the owner, when the Rangers had it FAR worse, and were still present as much as ever.
What's irritating as well is hearing Bruins fan try to minimize the Rangers and New York by saying "you have 20 million people" hey guess what, the Yankees and Mets don't sell out, but the medicore Rangers do. New York has a lot more sports competition and other things, along with a high hetergenous population which if anything makes it even more impressive that the Rangers have stayed relevant being medicore.
In a capsule...93-09...nobody cared about the Bruins. 97-09...the Rangers were worse, yet still sold out. That stat is all you need to know, Boston is not a great, hardcore fanbase, certainly not like New York, those stats are all you need.
1) You just started this thread to create an argument about Boston v. NY hockey?
2) you're going to play the race card to try to make holden's point about New York's metro being 5 times larger than Boston's? Really? You're talking about a metro of 20 Million vs 4 Million. There's really little else to discuss.
3) Rangers fans are just as hard to find around New York as Boston's are in Boston. Both teams have passionate core groups of fans. The NHL in general is a 4th tier sport in the U.S.
Who cares? There's still nothing wrong with calling Boston a "hockey town" (which is different than calling it a "Bruins or NHL town"). There is a very solid core fans here and there is the added feature of a good number of highly regarded college teams (In fact, the Beanpot tournament may be an even bigger draw than any Bruins game). It's a good place to be a fan of the sport of hockey in general because there are a number of ways you can get your "fix." No one has ever called Boston a "Bruins" town which would be inaccurate (just like calling New York a "Rangers town" would be off). NHL is the fourth-rate sport all over the U.S. Still, Boston has more hockey related events than most other places in the U.S. which makes it a hockey town in that regard. It's not all about the NHL.
Well I would say you are quite mistaken, if not biased, on several points, and need correction for the record.
Wow, thanks for the "correction for the record." I will go home and reflect upon my bias. You might want to do the same.
As LR says, I thought this was a question: who's bigger, Celtics or Bruins? Apparently it's a back door way to suggest that Rangers fandom is the be-all, end-all and Bruins fans are fair weather bums.
Quote:
Originally Posted by fogger
1) I lived in the Boston area. When I lived there, it was really hard to imagine that Boston was a hockey town. The local radio never talked about hockey. Walking the streets, you'd spot more Yankee hats than Bruins fans. Hockey was dead, a complete afterthought. The TD Garden was empty, aside from road fans. It was hard to imagine their was an NHL team, let alone that this was one of the alledged best NHL towns...because the Bruins attendance, ratings were non existant.
If you wanted to talk hockey you were laughed it.
I recall reading that until last season, the Bruins STH was so low, it did not meet expansion levels.
Hockey, as I stated before, does not equal NHL exclusively.
I have no idea where you lived in the Boston area, or how old you were at the time. I grew up between the Boston and New York areas. I played hockey in Massachusetts as a kid. There was youth hockey, and a rink or two, in virtually every town in the area. In the NYC metro, there were far fewer rinks and most of the people I knew, including a whole half of my extended family that's been in NY for 100 years, had never put on skates in their lives. I had to quit playing hockey because there was no local league within reasonable distance and my high school had no team.
Take a look at NHL, Olympic and top college rosters over the past 30-40 years. How many players raised in Mass.? How many raised in metro NYC?
Quote:
Originally Posted by fogger
2) Your comments about "Bruins fans had it" shows the general fickleness...and to be considered a top hockeytown, fan support has to be if not unconditional, certainly not fickle.
Personal opinion. Another definition of a top hockey town is one where people have actually played the game.
In some cities, MLB franchises have very poor attendance yet the town shuts down for the local college football team's games. People in Boston are Red Sox crazy and couldn't care less about college football. Likewise, many are fans of college hockey or their kid's high school team.
Quote:
Originally Posted by fogger
Fact is, the Rangers have been medicore, and have had it a lot worse, yet while missing the playoffs EIGHT years in a row, they had near capacity crowds. Meantime, the Bruins had thousands of empty seats during the regular season and even playoffs...I think that speaks enough the Boston is not nearly the NHL town and die hard fanbase.
Ranger fans are devoted masochists. So? Except perhaps for the Rangers, making the playoffs in the NHL is not that big a deal. Plenty of teams make the playoffs despite being quite mediocre, and don't have the chops to go very far.
And again, NHL does not equal hockey.
Quote:
Originally Posted by fogger
4) Funny you mention the NY area having 20 million.
-This includes areas from as far out as New Haven and Trenton (which actually is Philly's base)
-Yes NY has more people, they also have a LOT more diversity. Boston is a very white market, NY is the most diverse place in the country. Their are many areas you could where soccer is more popular than baseball, where English is not spoken. This should not be held against NY as being less of a hockeytown.
20 million to 4 million. Even accepting your assumption that only white people go to hockey games, metro NY has three times more white people than Greater Boston has people, period. And the Islanders don't draw these days.
Quote:
Originally Posted by fogger
Summary:
Bottom line, it is laughable and ridicolous for Boston to be called a great hockeytown above New York.
In a capsule...93-09...nobody cared about the Bruins. 97-09...the Rangers were worse, yet still sold out. That stat is all you need to know, Boston is not a great, hardcore fanbase, certainly not like New York, those stats are all you need.
Wow. You win. There is no passion on earth like that of a Rangers fan.
I echo what everyone has said about Boston being a hockey town. I would say Minnesota is the only state that rivals Mass as far as being into hockey goes.
Also it is worth noting that from the 20's through to the 70's it was argueable who was the most popular team in town, and yes that is including the Sox. There was a great article in the Globe a couple days ago about this. It's funny how the decline of the Bruins in popularity goes almost hand in hand with the rise of the Patriots. I'll say that when I was a kid during the Bourque/Neely era it was all about the B's.
And to answer the original question, the talk at my job is almost split evenly between the four sports, with the Bruins having a slight edge right now.
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.
