07-02-2010, 11:47 PM
|
#32
|
|
2nd Team Getting Their First Start
Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: Wisconsin, eh
Posts: 1,639
|
Re: OTish - The Good 'ol, bad 'ol days
Quote:
Originally Posted by jmt57
Regarding the "bad old days": when an organization is being run as poorly as the Pats were at that time, what is the best way for fans to react?
On one hand there are some that are of the opinion that fans should be loyal through thick and thin, and always support the team regardless; they accuse others that don't of being fair weather fans, and band wagon fans.
Others counter that to continue showing up sends a message to ownership that they don't need to take the time, effort, and money to improve the team; that fans will buy the product regardless of the quality of play on the field.
The loyal fans would then counter that staying away from the stadium due to the inferior product could result in a worse fate: the team moves away, as what almost happened to the Pats.
So here's my question: is it ever okay to send a message to ownership that you are fed up with what they and the team are doing by not attending games? And if so, how bad must the team be, and for how long? Did the state of the Pats, both on and off the field in '90 and '92 make it okay for fans to stay away and not support the team by attending games? Or was four straight losing seasons too short a time for fans to bail, despite the off-field incidents and ineptitude of the ownership and management?
|
You know, these are very good points. Again, I have to bring up the stupid Packer fans, who talk about "blah blah every game at Lambeau Field is sold out for the last 60 years, back in 1991 the Pats were lucky to get 20,000 fans at a game." It could be argued that maybe we have better things to do with our time than watch our team get the crap beat out of it.  Unlike in 90% of Wisconsin.
Seriously though, when do you say it just ain't worth it to even go? It's one thing to be a total fairweather fan who only goes when the team is a perennial Super Bowl contender and winning most games by 42-10. I generally like to know that my team can at least put up a good show of it when I go to a game. Like when the wife and I went to the Pats-Chargers game in 2005 as part of our honeymoon, thinking that would be a good game. It was a lousy game, and not in the Pats' favor. Considering they were back-to-back league champs, they looked like they hardly belonged on the same field as the Bolts that day. If the Pats were playing like that most games, I don't think we would have been as eager to fit that game into our honeymoon plans.
Some years back I read an editorial, maybe in Sports Illustrated, saying that the Chicago Cubs were destined to be one of the worst franchises in base-ball because so much of their fan base just keeps showing up to games because they love Wrigley Field. The writer even went so far as to argue that the Cubs should get a new ballpark to force themselves to get better. That's a bit extreme, but I can see why it makes sense. If your fans are going to keep coming every year, and your main concern is profit, what's to motivate you to make the team any better? Look at the Bengals, fer cryin' out loud. As long as Mike Brown is making enough money every year, he could care less that his team is a perennial doormat.
__________________
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
I really need a new sig pic
Bringing you snarky commentary since 2008.
|
|
|