Pathetic Globe self-administers reassurance

Wildo7 said:

I agree with that, but I think the survey is a fairly decent way to tell. I just don't understand how people can complain about bandwagoners in one breath and then get angry when the Pats aren't the most popular team. And I don't see it as a slight against the Pats that the other team in town, that's been around for a hundred years and has also had a tremendous amount of success in the past few years, is still slightly more popular. The fact that it's even close speaks volumes about how special the Pats are v. the Sox. Not to mention that the most successful team in Boston history is behind them in 3rd.

Click to expand...

Red Sox fans are extremely protective of the notion that Boston is a "baseball" town. Whenever there is a poll or survey they rally together so they could win the vote. I've seen it first hand. I also remember a poll the Globe ran at one point and initially the Pats were way ahead and then sites like the Boston Dirt Dogs had Sox fans stage a "rally" to show that Boston is really a "baseball" town and it's their town as it always was. It's hogwash, the only relevant way to measure anything is to gauge if people put their money where their mouth is, that's why tv rating and merchandise sales are more relevant. As I said it's irrelevant to me what type of city Boston is judged to be because the Pats have always and will always be #1 in my book, but these are my observations.

Agree totally. I was wondering what the heck the Globe was doing running that piece two days after the Celts win the championship. Boston may be more of a baseball town than a football or basketball town, but I bet the Pats gain in popularity versus the Red Sox the farther you move away from Fenway.

I have no problem with the Globe, or the Sox, though baseball has gotten more tedious as commerical breaks have gotten longer and specialization has crept in. However, I read this on the Globe's site today and wondered if this would EVER happen at a Pats game in OT. (Rhetorical question, BTW, I know the answer.)

Not the usual Boston-like crowd here today. At least a third has left the ballpark in a 3-3 game in the 12th inning.

Click to expand...

BradfordPatsFan said:

I have no problem with the Globe, or the Sox, though baseball has gotten more tedious as commerical breaks have gotten longer and specialization has crept in. However, I read this on the Globe's site today and wondered if this would EVER happen at a Pats game in OT. (Rhetorical question, BTW, I know the answer.)

Click to expand...

Apples and oranges IMHO. You really can't compare regular season baseball (or basketball and hockey) games to football.

Wildo7 said:

I believe the first Chargers game last year is what people are referring to when hey talk about the Pats upstaging Red Sox/Yankees, but I find it hard to believe a Pats preseason game ever beat out a late August Sox/Yanks game.

Apples to Apples, a spring training baseball game is totally different than a preseason football game.

Click to expand...

I'll bring up the same fact that I've reiterated a few times. It was around 10 years ago (I think 1998) that the Red Sox were playing the final *playoff* game against the Yankees in a winner-take-all game. Because of rain postponements during the series, the game got pushed from Sunday to Monday.

On Monday night football, we had two winless NFC teams (one of them was 0-5, the other was 0-5 or 0-6) matched up against each other (Dallas vs. Washington if I remember correctly). Which do you think won the Boston ratings war?

If you guessed the local baseball team, you guessed wrong.

This is why I don't believe the oft-repeated stories about how much of a "baseball town" this is. Personally, I watched the football game because I couldn't stand to see the Red Sox lose to the Yankees again. Unfortunately, they did.

PromisedLand said:

"I'm good enough, I'm smart enough, and gosh darn it, people like me."

Good grief, Globe. Are you getting a little worried? Could you be a little more insecure? A little more transparently self-serving? I don't think so.

Wow. The Globe has sunk to a new low.

Click to expand...

New England has always held the Red Sox dear - win or lose. The Patriots and Celtics are in style only when they win. The Celtics were largely a forgotten joke for decades until 2008. The Patriots became relevant only recently.

TruthSeeker said:

I'll bring up the same fact that I've reiterated a few times. It was around 10 years ago (I think 1998) that the Red Sox were playing the final *playoff* game against the Yankees in a winner-take-all game. Because of rain postponements during the series, the game got pushed from Sunday to Monday.

On Monday night football, we had two winless NFC teams (one of them was 0-5, the other was 0-5 or 0-6) matched up against each other (Dallas vs. Washington if I remember correctly). Which do you think won the Boston ratings war?

If you guessed the local baseball team, you guessed wrong.

This is why I don't believe the oft-repeated stories about how much of a "baseball town" this is. Personally, I watched the football game because I couldn't stand to see the Red Sox lose to the Yankees again. Unfortunately, they did.

Click to expand...

That is amazing. However, some of you facts are likely confused. In 1998, the Sox lost to Cleveland in four games in the ALDS.

The only "winner take all" games the Sox and Yanks have had in the last 30 years were the Bucky Dent game, 1978, and the two game 7's in 2003 and 2004.

The 1999 ALCS game 5 (of 7) was on a Monday night, as it typically is. The Yankees won that game, and the series. Perhaps that is what you are thinking about?

What I wonder about is why bother with the article at all? If 8 straight championships couldn't put the C's over the top how can one possibly expect 1 straight championship to do it?

I completely agree that the Globe article is pathetic and i also believe the argument going on for the past 3 pages is also pathetic. I always though it was a 4 team city. So more people watched a pats game than a sox/yanks game, there's a freakin surprise. The fans have seen what 100+ baseball games and finally they get to watch a football game.

BradfordPatsFan said:

That is amazing. However, some of you facts are likely confused. In 1998, the Sox lost to Cleveland in four games in the ALDS.

The only "winner take all" games the Sox and Yanks have had in the last 30 years were the Bucky Dent game, 1978, and the two game 7's in 2003 and 2004.

The 1999 ALCS game 5 (of 7) was on a Monday night, as it typically is. The Yankees won that game, and the series. Perhaps that is what you are thinking about?

Click to expand...

I stand corrected. I'll try to do better with the facts next time. I remember looking at the TV ratings that week in the paper (in the SporTView column) and being amazed.

BradfordPatsFan said:

That is amazing. However, some of you facts are likely confused. In 1998, the Sox lost to Cleveland in four games in the ALDS.

The only "winner take all" games the Sox and Yanks have had in the last 30 years were the Bucky Dent game, 1978, and the two game 7's in 2003 and 2004.

The 1999 ALCS game 5 (of 7) was on a Monday night, as it typically is. The Yankees won that game, and the series. Perhaps that is what you are thinking about?

Click to expand...

In looking further, it was the winless Dallas Cowboys vs. the winless New York Giants on 10/18/99 up against the potentially clinching Yankees/Red Sox game in Boston. I knew I'd get some of the facts wrong; I'm surprised I was off as much as I was. But the main point was accurate; the football game got the higher Boston rating according to the Boston Globe sporTView column.

TruthSeeker said:

In looking further, it was the winless Dallas Cowboys vs. the winless New York Giants on 10/18/99 up against the potentially clinching Yankees/Red Sox game in Boston. I knew I'd get some of the facts wrong; I'm surprised I was off as much as I was. But the main point was accurate; the football game got the higher Boston rating according to the Boston Globe sporTView column.

Click to expand...

Glenn Ordway made the point that at its highest rating, the NBA Finals this year in the Boston market, earned about an average rating for a Sunday, 1:00 Pats game. Football is appointment viewing, whether or not people want to admit it.

BradfordPatsFan said:

Glenn Ordway made the point that at its highest rating, the NBA Finals this year in the Boston market, earned about an average rating for a Sunday, 1:00 Pats game. Football is appointment viewing, whether or not people want to admit it.

Click to expand...

Although the fact that the games were not decided until midnight or later in the Eastern time zone on a night before a work day might have something to do with that. I know it was tough for me to stay and watch the end of most of the playoff games - thank goodness for DVRs! (And damn the NBA and their TV money greed!) Most NFL games are either in the afternoon or late afternoon, with even MNF starting at 8:30 now. All the playoff games start by 8:30, and the SB starts around 6:30.