PDA

View Full Version : Cities where baseball is #1


Fenway
02-20-2009, 06:18 PM
This is my own best guess at the most popular team in the MLB markets

Boston Red Sox
NY Yankees
Toronto Maple Leafs
Baltimore Ravens
Tampa Bucs

Chicago Bears
Cleveland Browns
Detroit tough call I would say Tigers just a little ahead of Wings
Minnesota Vikings
Kansas City Chiefs

Seattle Seahawks
Oakland Raiders
Anaheim Angels by default (Ducks? um no)
Texas Cowboys

Philadelphia Eagles
Miami Dolphins
Atlanta Braves by a nose
Washington Redskins

Pittsburgh Steelers
Cincinnati Reds
St Louis Cardinals
Milwaukee Packers
Houston Texans

San Diego Chargers
Los Angeles Dodgers slightly ahead of Lakers
Denver Broncos
Phoenix Cubs :tongue:
San Francisco 49ers but Giants are close

Hitmen77
02-20-2009, 06:24 PM
Good list Fen.

For Atlanta, maybe it should be the Braves "by default". LOL on Phoenix!

Fenway
02-20-2009, 06:36 PM
Good list Fen.

For Atlanta, maybe it should be the Braves "by default". LOL on Phoenix!

Chicago when you combine both teams may well be a baseball town first but I know quite a few people who are lukewarm about baseball and ga ga over Da Bears.

LA may well be the Lakers as they get much higher TV ratings than the Dodgers. Southern California is not a great sports area.

Boston and New York are really the only markets where baseball rules 12 months a year.

Bucky F. Dent
02-20-2009, 06:57 PM
Good list, have to disagree with you on Detroit and Minneapolis though. Those are hockey towns first. Perhaps not Detroit, but definitely Minny.

DSpivack
02-20-2009, 07:11 PM
Good list, have to disagree with you on Detroit and Minneapolis though. Those are hockey towns first. Perhaps not Detroit, but definitely Minny.

Hockey, yes.
Wild, no.

LoveYourSuit
02-20-2009, 07:18 PM
I think the tide is turning the other way a bit here in Chicago.

The Bears are no longer who we thought they were.

The WS by the Sox, the 2003 Cub run in additioin to Lou taking them back to postseason 2yrs straight .... I might argue that baseballl here the last 4-6 is as popular in Chicago as the Bears.

Johnny Mostil
02-20-2009, 07:23 PM
Atlanta Braves by a nose


Over whom?

Or are the Braves a nose behind UGA?

Zisk77
02-20-2009, 07:30 PM
Good list Fen.

For Atlanta, maybe it should be the Braves "by default". LOL on Phoenix!


for Atlanta it should be georgia Bulldawgs:D:

Eddo144
02-20-2009, 07:31 PM
I'd also put the Red Wings ahead of the Tigers, but I'd keep the Vikings ahead of the Wild. Maybe the North Stars were #1 15 years ago, but the Wild are not now.

I'd also put the Lakers as LA's representative.

Here, it's definitely the Bears. Remember, we're all posting on a baseball message board, so we're likely to see more people who have soured on the Bears or just don't care. The Bears still dominate news coverage though.

A good rule of thumb is to assume the NFL team is #1 unless there are other circumstances in the city (Yankee/Red Sox dominance in baseball, Red Wing dominance in hockey, Arizona Cardinals being a traditionally poor franchise, etc).

DSpivack
02-20-2009, 07:40 PM
for Atlanta it should be georgia Bulldawgs:D:

Pfft, in Athens, maybe. Tell that to Tech fans!

Fans of Emory sports top them all.

BleacherBandit
02-20-2009, 07:53 PM
It's harder to do with cities that have more than one team in one sport. Here in Chicago, obviously fans of the Bears outnumber fans of the White Sox and Cubs fans, because the baseball crowd is split. But if we're talking about baseball fans: Cubs and White Sox combined, it's probably around the same area as the Bears. Remember that the Bears have dissapointed our city the last few years following the Super Bowl, and the Cubs are one of the most 'popular' sports franchises in the country, whether or not their fans are real baseball fans.

chisox117
02-20-2009, 08:00 PM
This is my own best guess at the most popular team in the MLB markets
Phoenix Cubs :tongue:


Wrong-o. Phoenix is a Suns town.

pmck003
02-20-2009, 08:06 PM
Hockey, yes.
Wild, no.

Having lived there I think the Vikings are more popular when good, but the Wild are more consistently popular. If it came to a vote to lose one or the other, I would bet on the Wild staying.

asindc
02-20-2009, 08:08 PM
Chicago when you combine both teams may well be a baseball town first but I know quite a few people who are lukewarm about baseball and ga ga over Da Bears.

LA may well be the Lakers as they get much higher TV ratings than the Dodgers. Southern California is not a great sports area.

Boston and New York are really the only markets where baseball rules 12 months a year.

I think it is definitely Lakers. All the transplants are Lakers fans, while the natives are split something like 65/35 Dodgers/LAAAAA.

Fenway
02-20-2009, 08:29 PM
Having lived there I think the Vikings are more popular when good, but the Wild are more consistently popular. If it came to a vote to lose one or the other, I would bet on the Wild staying.

The Vikings could very well sail off to Los Angeles. The owner is fed up everybody getting a stadium but him.

The 3 biggest hockey states are Minnesota, Massachusetts and Rhode Island (yes RI) High school and college hockey are huge in those locations.

Baseball is a poor third in Pittsburgh as the Pens are beloved.

Philly is Eagles 365/24/7 but the Phillies have become more popular with Citizens Bank Park. The Vet was just awful.

Baltimore is a football town but would love to embrace the O's again.

What has surprised me about Chicago is how the Hispanic population is lukewarm towards baseball compared to New York and Boston. The Red Sox have a strong Spanish radio network and NESN does every game in Spanish on SAP. Perhaps it is because Hispanic population in the east is non-Mexican (PR, Cuban and DR based)

Johnny Mostil
02-20-2009, 08:33 PM
Pfft, in Athens, maybe. Tell that to Tech fans!

Fans of Emory sports top them all.

I used to live and work in Midtown, just east of Tech. In a good year, I'd agree with you. Even in a bad year, and even given the number of Emory students I recall who were Tech fans, I'd say the Jackets were still more popular than the Braves.

DSpivack
02-20-2009, 08:56 PM
I used to live and work in Midtown, just east of Tech. In a good year, I'd agree with you. Even in a bad year, and even given the number of Emory students I recall who were Tech fans, I'd say the Jackets were still more popular than the Braves.

The Emory-Tech thing I definitely saw, but never understood. I just laughed at stupid Tech-UGA arguments from afar.

As far as actual Atlanta natives, though [the few I actually met], the Braves were #1 to them.

Frater Perdurabo
02-20-2009, 09:18 PM
What has surprised me about Chicago is how the Hispanic population is lukewarm towards baseball compared to New York and Boston. The Red Sox have a strong Spanish radio network and NESN does every game in Spanish on SAP. Perhaps it is because Hispanic population in the east is non-Mexican (PR, Cuban and DR based)

The Hispanic/Latino population in Chicago is a huge market that I hope the Sox work hard to cultivate.

Johnny Mostil
02-20-2009, 09:28 PM
The Emory-Tech thing I definitely saw, but never understood. I just laughed at stupid Tech-UGA arguments from afar.

As far as actual Atlanta natives, though [the few I actually met], the Braves were #1 to them.

Interesting. The few natives I met were often into the Tech/UGA thing, and the teams, many having gone to one school or the other, while the transplants seemed to be baffled by it.

But, yeah, Tech/UGA arguments were at least as dumb as any Sox/Cubs argument.

longtimesoxguy
02-20-2009, 09:32 PM
I'm not sure about Chicago. Baseball is pretty big. I think more important than the Bears. Ask people what would thy rather have a superbowl or world series?

doublem23
02-20-2009, 09:35 PM
I'm not sure about Chicago. Baseball is pretty big. I think more important than the Bears. Ask people what would thy rather have a superbowl or world series?

Yes, but there are 2 teams. That said the "second team" had quite the turnout when it hosted a World Series parade.

doublem23
02-20-2009, 09:37 PM
Boston and New York are really the only markets where baseball rules 12 months a year.

Sorry, Fens, as much as I dislike the Cardinals, it's hard to to diss their fans. The St. Louis metro area has about 2.8 million people.

Last year, the Cardinals drew 3.4 million.

St. Louis is the world's best baseball town.

I want Mags back
02-20-2009, 09:40 PM
I'm not sure about Chicago. Baseball is pretty big. I think more important than the Bears. Ask people what would thy rather have a superbowl or world series?

Yes, but there are 2 teams. That said the "second team" had quite the turnout when it hosted a World Series parade.

So baseball is collectively #1, and the Bears #2.
After all, the thread title is "Cities where BASEBALL is number 1" and not "Cities where a 1 baseball team is number 1"

Fenway
02-20-2009, 09:41 PM
The Hispanic/Latino population in Chicago is a huge market that I hope the Sox work hard to cultivate.

Having Spanish play by play on SAP is a no brainer. NESN even does CC in Spanish along with English. The Red Sox built a nice Spanish network with good AM signals in Boston, Lawrence, Manchester, Worcester, Springfield, Providence and Hartford. Luis Tiant does color for many games and I would guess he is a great listen. (NESN uses the radio feed on SAP)


I am baffled why Chicago (either team) doesn't go all out to cultivate the market. Mexicans listen to baseball in California, Texas and Denver. Why not Chicago00000q

BleacherBandit
02-20-2009, 09:45 PM
I'd like to think that Chicago is a sports town in general, better than most cities.

DSpivack
02-20-2009, 09:45 PM
Interesting. The few natives I met were often into the Tech/UGA thing, and the teams, many having gone to one school or the other, while the transplants seemed to be baffled by it.

But, yeah, Tech/UGA arguments were at least as dumb as any Sox/Cubs argument.

Yeah, most of the 'natives' I met were either in school [and thus at neither Tech nor UGA] or working [in a restaurant in Midtown].

Yes, but there are 2 teams. That said the "second team" had quite the turnout when it hosted a World Series parade.

Growing up in the 90s, even with those awful Wannstedt teams, I thought football bigger than baseball in Chicago. This decade, I'm not so sure.

doublem23
02-20-2009, 10:01 PM
So baseball is collectively #1, and the Bears #2.
After all, the thread title is "Cities where BASEBALL is number 1" and not "Cities where a 1 baseball team is number 1"

I still really don't know... What constitutes #1. If it's diehard, knowledgeable fans then yeah, I think baseball in Chicago is collectively #1, but if you include passive, quasifans then I still think the Bears own Chicago. They are immensely popular.

BleacherBandit
02-20-2009, 10:16 PM
I still really don't know... What constitutes #1. If it's diehard, knowledgeable fans then yeah, I think baseball in Chicago is collectively #1, but if you include passive, quasifans then I still think the Bears own Chicago. They are immensely popular.

I wonder how a football team could have more fans if they only play 8 games at home, where no 'common' fan could get tickets to go see. It only seems logical that baseball would be the largest recepient of 'quasifans'.

HomeFish
02-20-2009, 10:25 PM
The Vikings could very well sail off to Los Angeles.

Hehe. This joke never gets old.

Also, as far as reaching out to the Hispanic market goes, does Ozzie's son still have that radio show?

DSpivack
02-20-2009, 10:29 PM
I wonder how a football team could have more fans if they only play 8 games at home, where no 'common' fan could get tickets to go see. It only seems logical that baseball would be the largest recepient of 'quasifans'.

This makes zero sense. Football is easily the most popular sport in the country.

BleacherBandit
02-20-2009, 10:33 PM
This makes zero sense. Football is easily the most popular sport in the country.

I'm not denying that. I'm just questioning why football is the most popular sport America. With baseball, it's more affordable to go see games, and in some cities, possible to go see games as opposed to football games.

DSpivack
02-20-2009, 10:34 PM
I'm not denying that. I'm just questioning why football is the most popular sport America. With baseball, it's more affordable to go see games, and in some cities, possible to go see games as opposed to football games.

For one game, sure. But it's not like baseball is cheap, plus the appeal of baseball to me is to be at the park, whereas football has gained popularity with it's explosion on TV.

UofCSoxFan
02-20-2009, 10:46 PM
One could strongly argue that the Dallas Cowboys, or hell even the Bears are the most popular team in Phoenix.

Johnny Mostil
02-20-2009, 11:12 PM
For one game, sure. But it's not like baseball is cheap, plus the appeal of baseball to me is to be at the park, whereas football has gained popularity with it's explosion on TV.

Yup. Football just translates better to TV than baseball. And on TV, more than any other place, is where the casual fan engages any sport.

Eddo144
02-20-2009, 11:16 PM
I'm not denying that. I'm just questioning why football is the most popular sport America. With baseball, it's more affordable to go see games, and in some cities, possible to go see games as opposed to football games.
I think the low number of games is why football is king, actually. A single football game means so much more than a single baseball game. Additionally, the playoffs are one-and-done, not best-of-seven (or five).

Another factor is that football games happen only once a week, so there is a seven-day buildup for each game.

Just like the NCAA Tournament is more popular than the NBA playoffs.

Ziggy S
02-20-2009, 11:46 PM
Growing up in the 90s, even with those awful Wannstedt teams, I thought football bigger than baseball in Chicago. This decade, I'm not so sure.

The Bulls were bigger than all three of those teams combined in that decade thanks to a certain dynasty.

Nellie_Fox
02-21-2009, 03:11 AM
The Vikings could very well sail off to Los Angeles. The owner is fed up everybody getting a stadium but him.And play where in Los Angeles? Do you think they're going to build a new stadium for the Vikings when the state is going bankrupt? Besides, LA has proved twice that they won't support an NFL team. Why did the Rams leave? Why did the Raiders go back to Oakland?

The Vikings may move (there's absolutely no way they are going to get a taxpayer funded stadium when the state budget is hundreds of millions in the hole) but if it's to LA, then Wilf is an idiot.

guillen4life13
02-21-2009, 03:29 AM
I think it all depends on the type of success a team has had in a certain city.

For example, in Chicago, we may not be sure what's the most popular sport. I'd still argue basketball. The Bulls still have huge crowds and are a marquee NBA franchise. Pre-Obama, you'd travel anywhere and say you're from Chicago, people would generally mention the Bulls/Jordan before anything else. Even now. You look across the NBA and elite Chicagoans are all over. Rose, Garnett, Walker, Finley, Maggette, and I could go on. I don't think there's any other sport that has such heavy elite Chicago representation. This city breeds basketball. This fact coupled with the dynasty, IMHO, make basketball the most representative sport of Chicago.

To me, football and baseball are tied for second in Chicago. Baseball has lots of fans especially when you consider both teams combined, but you tend to mainly see male baseball fans, whereas basketball and football tend to have a higher number of female fans.

Nellie_Fox
02-21-2009, 03:34 AM
...in Chicago, we may not be sure what's the most popular sport. I'd still argue basketball. The Bulls still have huge crowds and are a marquee NBA franchise.And I'd argue that it's easier to fill a 22,000 seat United Center for 41 home games than it is to fill a 40,000 seat baseball park for 81 home games.

Viva Medias B's
02-21-2009, 09:21 AM
In the Lakers-Dodgers dichotomy in L.A., where does USC football fit in?

DSpivack
02-21-2009, 11:40 AM
In the Lakers-Dodgers dichotomy in L.A., where does USC football fit in?

Second behind UCLA basketball?

Jim Shorts
02-21-2009, 11:56 AM
doublem23 is right about StL. Baseball Cardinal fans know the game, sell them all out, and are classy fans. StL tops the #1 baseball town list.

Here's my take on Chicago...it's a Bears town and everything else is second depending on who's winning.

Sports radio is really the only barometer to judge this fairly. Chicago can be in the midst of a pennant race and if the Bears are mentioned on the radio, the callers line up like cattle

Fenway
02-21-2009, 12:27 PM
And play where in Los Angeles? Do you think they're going to build a new stadium for the Vikings when the state is going bankrupt? Besides, LA has proved twice that they won't support an NFL team. Why did the Rams leave? Why did the Raiders go back to Oakland?

The Vikings may move (there's absolutely no way they are going to get a taxpayer funded stadium when the state budget is hundreds of millions in the hole) but if it's to LA, then Wilf is an idiot.

The Rams left because their fanbase at the Coliseum would not travel 40 miles to Anaheim. The Raiders went back to Oakland because Alameda County gave Al Davis everything he wanted.

Now there seems to be plans to renovate the Rose Bowl and 2 NFL are sniffing around, the Vikings and San Diego. I don't understand how the Vikings didn't get invited to be part of the Gophers new stadium but whatever.

Buffalo seems destined for Toronto so if LA really wants the NFL they are going to offer a nice package. My gut says San Diego will be the team to move.

chisox123
02-21-2009, 05:40 PM
I think the tide is turning the other way a bit here in Chicago.

The Bears are no longer who we thought they were.

The Bears are who we thought they were! And we let 'em off the hook.

doublem23
02-21-2009, 10:06 PM
I think it all depends on the type of success a team has had in a certain city.

For example, in Chicago, we may not be sure what's the most popular sport. I'd still argue basketball. The Bulls still have huge crowds and are a marquee NBA franchise. Pre-Obama, you'd travel anywhere and say you're from Chicago, people would generally mention the Bulls/Jordan before anything else. Even now. You look across the NBA and elite Chicagoans are all over. Rose, Garnett, Walker, Finley, Maggette, and I could go on. I don't think there's any other sport that has such heavy elite Chicago representation. This city breeds basketball. This fact coupled with the dynasty, IMHO, make basketball the most representative sport of Chicago.

To me, football and baseball are tied for second in Chicago. Baseball has lots of fans especially when you consider both teams combined, but you tend to mainly see male baseball fans, whereas basketball and football tend to have a higher number of female fans.

Football and baseball are definitely more popular in Chicago than basketball. Hell, you could even argue right now the Hawks are bigger than the Bulls. The Bulls had their run and I'm not saying people have abandoned them (Chicago is so large and sports-centric that even less popular teams still draw well... Hell, the Wolves have a TV deal), but they're not the #1 draw like they used to be.

captainclutch24
02-21-2009, 10:37 PM
Southern California is not a great sports area.



SO. CAL is a great sports area, especially for baseball. Football is also huge here, but alliances are spread out because of so many transplants here.

If you want to rank so cal sports fans and so cal only teams

1. Lakers
2. Dodgers
3. Chargers
4. Angels
5. Padres
6. Ducks
7. Kings
8. Clippers

There are still a ton of Raiders fans and rams fans here too.

DSpivack
02-21-2009, 11:02 PM
SO. CAL is a great sports area, especially for baseball. Football is also huge here, but alliances are spread out because of so many transplants here.

If you want to rank so cal sports fans and so cal only teams

1. Lakers
2. Dodgers
3. Chargers
4. Angels
5. Padres
6. Ducks
7. Kings
8. Clippers

There are still a ton of Raiders fans and rams fans here too.

It might be a good place to be a sports fan, but Angelenos aren't as passionate about sports as are people in other cities.

areilly
02-21-2009, 11:04 PM
Detroit tough call I would say Tigers just a little ahead of Wings


I gotta say this is not even close.

1. Wings

Distant 2nd: Michigan or MSU, depending on where said Detroiter was born
Close 3rd: Pistons
4th by inches: Tigers

Not ranked: Lions.

Save McCuddy's
02-22-2009, 12:35 AM
I'd say Minneapolis would look like this:

1) Gopher Hockey
2) High School Hockey
3) Vikings

A little bird told me that Baltimore is more Oriole than Raven.

Hitmen77
02-22-2009, 12:39 AM
Here's my take on Chicago...it's a Bears town and everything else is second depending on who's winning.


I agree that the Bears are #1 in this town. Top reasons of course are a) baseball loyalties are split and b) football in more popular in this country than baseball.

That being said, I don't believe Chicago is so solidly Bears as some people say it is. When I was a kid (pre-Super Bowl XX), it seemed like I was as likely to hear people say they were Cowboys, Steelers, or Dolphins fans as they were Bears fans.

The Bears definitely dominated in the years after winning the Super Bowl. But after that faded, we seem to be back to a point where there are a many people in Chicago who root for a team other than the Bears. Packers fans seem to be everywhere. I doubt there are that many Wisconsin transplants here to account for all the Packer gear I see around. Fans of other teams are plentiful here too.

I'd still put the Bears at #1, but I question whether the Bears would be on top if Chicago was a one team baseball town.

DSpivack
02-22-2009, 01:21 AM
I agree that the Bears are #1 in this town. Top reasons of course are a) baseball loyalties are split and b) football in more popular in this country than baseball.

That being said, I don't believe Chicago is so solidly Bears as some people say it is. When I was a kid (pre-Super Bowl XX), it seemed like I was as likely to hear people say they were Cowboys, Steelers, or Dolphins fans as they were Bears fans.

The Bears definitely dominated in the years after winning the Super Bowl. But after that faded, we seem to be back to a point where there are a many people in Chicago who root for a team other than the Bears. Packers fans seem to be everywhere. I doubt there are that many Wisconsin transplants here to account for all the Packer gear I see around. Fans of other teams are plentiful here too.

I'd still put the Bears at #1, but I question whether the Bears would be on top if Chicago was a one team baseball town.

It's a Bears town more than a Sox or Cubs town, that's obvious.

But I don't know that Chicago is a bigger football than baseball town.

AZChiSoxFan
02-23-2009, 11:18 AM
This is my own best guess at the most popular team in the MLB markets

Boston Red Sox
NY Yankees
Toronto Maple Leafs
Baltimore Ravens
Tampa Bucs

Chicago Bears
Cleveland Browns
Detroit tough call I would say Tigers just a little ahead of Wings
Minnesota Vikings
Kansas City Chiefs

Seattle Seahawks
Oakland Raiders
Anaheim Angels by default (Ducks? um no)
Texas Cowboys

Philadelphia Eagles
Miami Dolphins
Atlanta Braves by a nose
Washington Redskins

Pittsburgh Steelers
Cincinnati Reds
St Louis Cardinals
Milwaukee Packers
Houston Texans

San Diego Chargers
Los Angeles Dodgers slightly ahead of Lakers
Denver Broncos
Phoenix Cubs :tongue:
San Francisco 49ers but Giants are close

Fens, A while back, you posted pics from a game at Fenway in which they had on display all four major teams from Boston, each with the trophy from their respective leagues. I thought you indicated in that post that the Bruins got the loudest cheers and you commented that you thought they were truly the favorite team in Boston.

The 2008-2009 season notwithstanding, the Suns are the most popular team in Phx if for no other reason than the fact that they have been here so much longer than the other 3.

AZChiSoxFan
02-23-2009, 11:34 AM
doublem23 is right about StL. Baseball Cardinal fans know the game, sell them all out, and are classy fans. StL tops the #1 baseball town list.



I know this statement is made over and over (and over and over) but I'm sorry, I have to disagree. My experiences at the previous Busch stadium told me otherwise.

SoxfaninLA
02-23-2009, 12:15 PM
Chicago when you combine both teams may well be a baseball town first but I know quite a few people who are lukewarm about baseball and ga ga over Da Bears.

LA may well be the Lakers as they get much higher TV ratings than the Dodgers. Southern California is not a great sports area.

Boston and New York are really the only markets where baseball rules 12 months a year.

Lakers are no doubt the number one team in town here, the Lakers are talked about year round and have virtually no competition from the woeful Clippers. Second I would say is probably USC football, but that is more of a frontrunner thing than anything. If they hit some tough time again as a program the Dodgers will be solid number two.

asindc
02-23-2009, 02:13 PM
I gotta say this is not even close.

1. Wings

Distant 2nd: Michigan or MSU, depending on where said Detroiter was born
Close 3rd: Pistons
4th by inches: Tigers

Not ranked: Lions.

UM football is King in Michigan, period. Believe me, went to HS and college there, my mother lives there, many of my best friends live there. The UM/MSU split is about 65/35, with most of the MSU fans being alums or related to alums. UofM has the rest.

Wings is solidly number 3, very close behind Pistons. Tigers are right there as well. But if you include the colleges, no doubt UofM is top dog.

TheVulture
02-23-2009, 02:24 PM
There was a survey of major sports cities a couple years ago that found that New York, Boston, Phoenix and Seattle were the only cities where baseball was the most popular.

PKalltheway
02-23-2009, 02:39 PM
I know this statement is made over and over (and over and over) but I'm sorry, I have to disagree. My experiences at the previous Busch stadium told me otherwise.
What makes you say this? I'm really curious. I've never had any problems with Cardinals fans when I've come across them.

AZChiSoxFan
02-23-2009, 03:29 PM
What makes you say this? I'm really curious. I've never had any problems with Cardinals fans when I've come across them.

It's not that they were really bad or anything, I guess I just had high expectations for them, since I have always heard how great they are. I went there for a 4th of July weekend series in 1999, when they hosted the D-backs. I was sporting d-backs gear but I am by no means one of those obnoxious fans. In fact, at game 5 of the 2005 ALCS I had two very obnoxious Angels fans behind me making comments directed at me the entire game and I never once responded. I was of course wearing my Sox gear that night, but I didn't even cheer outwardly during the game. Anyway, back to the topic. The D-backs were having a nice season that year and had a good team. The cards weren't very good that year and walking out of the stadium after the Cards won the first game we attended I got some snide comments from these classy, knowledgeable fans. Again, no big deal normally. It's just that I have been told ad nauseum that their fans aren't like that. Second issue: It was 4th of July weekend. I got my tickets months in advance because in the best baseball city in America, games on 4th of July weekend will of course be sold out. I went to three games that weekend and the stadium was at best half full for each game. Third issue: in the third game that weekend, Randy Johnson pitched for the D-backs. The lady who sat next to my wife, who was a self-proclaimed "huge baseball fan", asked my wife
"so who is this guy pitching for your team? Is he any good?" Later on, my wife asks this lady how many stadiums she's been to (since she's a "huge baseball fan" and lives within a days drive of at least five other stadiums). She answers "well, just this one" with a look on her face and a tone in her voice that says "why on Earth would I have been to any other ones."

Again, I FULLY GET that these are very minor issues based on a very small sample size. It's just that after building up an image based on years of hearing about their incredilbe fans, I guess I expected too much.

Oh, I have also never been able to reconcile their legendary status with their treatment of Don Denkinger. Seriously, you guys think one bad call cost you that WS? Try hitting better than a buck-eighty or whatever it was they hit in that series. Finally, the way Ozzie Smith went on and on about the blowers in the dome in the '87 WS made me sick. I guess those two incidents also made me think of them and their fans as just a bunch of whiners.

seventyseven
02-23-2009, 03:34 PM
Cincinnati Reds


I think the Bengals draw a stronger following than the Reds.

And Ohio State football beats both combined.

GAsoxfan
02-23-2009, 05:50 PM
Atlanta is a tough one because there are so many transplants, but among natives, UGA is #1 by a mile. I know they're not in Atlanta, but they're the most popular team in the state.

PKalltheway
02-23-2009, 07:10 PM
I think the Bengals draw a stronger following than the Reds.

And Ohio State football beats both combined.
I won't argue with you about Ohio State, but I'm not too sure about the Bengals. The Bengals have a REALLY fair-weather fan base. I remember about 10 years ago or so when you would practically get ridiculed for wearing Bengals gear around town. Also, people here loooove tradition, and the Reds have a lot of it. Opening Day here is practically a holiday. There are many people I know that aren't from here that have adopted the Reds as their baseball team, but refuse to adopt the Bengals as their football team.

PKalltheway
02-23-2009, 07:15 PM
It's not that they were really bad or anything, I guess I just had high expectations for them, since I have always heard how great they are. I went there for a 4th of July weekend series in 1999, when they hosted the D-backs. I was sporting d-backs gear but I am by no means one of those obnoxious fans. In fact, at game 5 of the 2005 ALCS I had two very obnoxious Angels fans behind me making comments directed at me the entire game and I never once responded. I was of course wearing my Sox gear that night, but I didn't even cheer outwardly during the game. Anyway, back to the topic. The D-backs were having a nice season that year and had a good team. The cards weren't very good that year and walking out of the stadium after the Cards won the first game we attended I got some snide comments from these classy, knowledgeable fans. Again, no big deal normally. It's just that I have been told ad nauseum that their fans aren't like that. Second issue: It was 4th of July weekend. I got my tickets months in advance because in the best baseball city in America, games on 4th of July weekend will of course be sold out. I went to three games that weekend and the stadium was at best half full for each game. Third issue: in the third game that weekend, Randy Johnson pitched for the D-backs. The lady who sat next to my wife, who was a self-proclaimed "huge baseball fan", asked my wife
"so who is this guy pitching for your team? Is he any good?" Later on, my wife asks this lady how many stadiums she's been to (since she's a "huge baseball fan" and lives within a days drive of at least five other stadiums). She answers "well, just this one" with a look on her face and a tone in her voice that says "why on Earth would I have been to any other ones."

Again, I FULLY GET that these are very minor issues based on a very small sample size. It's just that after building up an image based on years of hearing about their incredilbe fans, I guess I expected too much.

Oh, I have also never been able to reconcile their legendary status with their treatment of Don Denkinger. Seriously, you guys think one bad call cost you that WS? Try hitting better than a buck-eighty or whatever it was they hit in that series. Finally, the way Ozzie Smith went on and on about the blowers in the dome in the '87 WS made me sick. I guess those two incidents also made me think of them and their fans as just a bunch of whiners.

Haha, understood. I was just curious! I don't particularly care for the Cardinals themselves, their fans have never given me trouble. In fact, the only time I ever see a Cards fan get riled up is whenever somebody mentions the Cubs. :tongue:

johnr1note
02-23-2009, 11:04 PM
.

What has surprised me about Chicago is how the Hispanic population is lukewarm towards baseball compared to New York and Boston. The Red Sox have a strong Spanish radio network and NESN does every game in Spanish on SAP. Perhaps it is because Hispanic population in the east is non-Mexican (PR, Cuban and DR based)

But the White Sox have always been fairly popular in the Hispanic community. The Sox do broadcast a limited number of games in Spanish. Do any other Chicago teams do this, in any sport?

Fenway
02-24-2009, 12:09 AM
But the White Sox have always been fairly popular in the Hispanic community. The Sox do broadcast a limited number of games in Spanish. Do any other Chicago teams do this, in any sport?

Fire has radio in Spanish and Polish (but not English)

In Chicagoland you probably have over a million Spanish speaking citizens

I would give Ozzie a Spanish pre-game show, maybe have Minnie do color for some games and play on the Sox Hispanic history.

Do what NESN does by broadcasting Spanish radio on SAP for all games. It just seems to me to be an incredibly untapped market.

Mohoney
02-26-2009, 10:26 PM
I'm just questioning why football is the most popular sport America.

I think it might be because it's so much easier to closely follow football with only 16 games. Being a baseball fan is a much larger investment, what with 10x the amount of games.

ma-gaga
02-26-2009, 11:21 PM
Minnesota is a Vikings state.

The other teams are nice, and Gopher hockey rules! (Mankato State Mavericks?!?) , but first and foremost EVERYONE follows the Vikings. The level of fanaticism isn't even close.

:cool:

Nellie_Fox
02-27-2009, 12:46 AM
Minnesota is a Vikings state.

The other teams are nice, and Gopher hockey rules! (Mankato State Mavericks?!?) , but first and foremost EVERYONE follows the Vikings. The level of fanaticism isn't even close.

:cool:The school hasn't been named Mankato State for ten years now. Get with the program.

I_Liked_Manuel
02-27-2009, 01:01 AM
I think Detroit's more of a Lions town than anything, that franchise just sucks right now. The Tigers are more popular in Detroit than the Wings - Wing fans don't pay attention until the 2nd or 3rd round of the playoffs.

Baltimore's an Oriole town. I'd argue that Baltimore is more of a Redskin town than it is a Raven town.

FloridaTigers
02-27-2009, 03:01 AM
As a native Miami'an, I can say the Miami Dolphins are far and away the most popular sports team in the city, and probably state (Gators come very close in 2nd though). Miami is a football city first, and honestly, there aren't as many University of Miami fans as one may think.

asindc
02-27-2009, 09:04 AM
I think Detroit's more of a Lions town than anything, that franchise just sucks right now. The Tigers are more popular in Detroit than the Wings - Wing fans don't pay attention until the 2nd or 3rd round of the playoffs.

Baltimore's an Oriole town. I'd argue that Baltimore is more of a Redskin town than it is a Raven town.

You might argue that, but you would be flat wrong. The former Colts fans never gravitated over to the 'Skins, and ever since the Ravens won the SB, they have owned the town, football wise. I would agree that the O's are still top dog in Baltimore, however. If anything, there are many DC-area residents who still root for the O's over the Nats.

Unless you have lived in this area, it is difficult to understand the antipathy Baltimoreans feel towards Washington residents and institutions. Not the Capital Hill, poliitics side of things, but on the local level. This definitely translates to sports.

Southsider101
02-27-2009, 11:56 AM
Minnesota is a Vikings state.

The other teams are nice, and Gopher hockey rules! (Mankato State Mavericks?!?) , but first and foremost EVERYONE follows the Vikings. The level of fanaticism isn't even close.

:cool:

The Viking's following is not the same as it was ten years ago. Their popularity has been eroded by Bret Farve's tenure with the Packers and the fact that the Wild and Twins have been well run, winning clubs. Not to mention the fact that the Vikings have fumbled a number of attempts to get a new stadium built which has not been popular with the taxpayers. Add to that: poor draft choices (Adrian Peterson is an exception) and a history of one and out or not making the play-offs in recent years. With the Twins moving into a new ball park next year, the Viking's popularity could sag even more. Point is, the Twin Cities is a very different sporting market place than it was 12-15 years ago when EVERYONE talked Viking's football at the watercooler on Monday mornings in the fall.

ma-gaga
03-01-2009, 11:07 PM
The Viking's following is not the same as it was ten years ago. Their popularity has been eroded by Bret Farve's tenure with the Packers and the fact that the Wild and Twins have been well run, winning clubs. Not to mention the fact that the Vikings have fumbled a number of attempts to get a new stadium built which has not been popular with the taxpayers. Add to that: poor draft choices (Adrian Peterson is an exception) and a history of one and out or not making the play-offs in recent years. With the Twins moving into a new ball park next year, the Viking's popularity could sag even more. Point is, the Twin Cities is a very different sporting market place than it was 12-15 years ago when EVERYONE talked Viking's football at the watercooler on Monday mornings in the fall.

Maybe I listen too much to KFAN, because I completely disagree. Mike Morris gets a 2.5 hour show with the only constant talk being football. Paul Allen has his own 3 hour show, where he spends 50% of his time on the Purple. They constantly have on Mark Rosen, and I've heard him specifically state that the Vikings are #1. Twins are #2, and a big dropoff to the numbers 3 and 4 sports. I'm not talking about 12-15 years ago, I'm talking about 2-3 weeks ago.

Vikings are the big ticket here. I agree that the state may lose them if Zigmund finds a willing L.A. partner, but somehow I highly doubt it happens.


Mankato, Mankato State, Minnesota State University Mankato... sheesh.