If your NFL team left town, what would you do?

[burgundy]

30 minutes ago, OnWis97 said:

Very few cities with NFL teams are not "(NFL Team) towns."

 

Pittsburgh?  Not even close.  Yeah, a Steelers town can embrace the Pirates and Penguins.  But most cities have one that matters most and, if the NFL is in town, that's usually it.

 

Hmmm.  What NFL teams are second fiddle? And I mean this in the long haul.  Right now the Cubs and Blackhawks may take center-stage in Chicago, but my gut says that the Bears are the team that really matters most there over time and not over-considering who's doing well "right now."  Of my head:

• Ironically, maybe the Patriots?  They were probably fourth fiddle before Bledsoe went down.  They were kind of a moribund franchise, they played in the exurbs, and New England is the part of America that probably is least "FOOTBALL!!!!"  Right now are they #1? I don't know, but when they move back to the NFL pack, they'll clearly be behind, the Red Sox and Celtics.
• New York?  Again, kind of a baseball town.  Yankees #1?
• Los Angeles?  It seemed to be getting along sans NFL and I don't know that the Rams have surpassed the Dodgers, Lakers, etc.
• St. Louis, when it had a team.  Baseball town; Cardinal town.

An argument could be made for the Tigers being the top team in Detroit.

[2001mark]

11 hours ago, OnWis97 said:

 

• New York?  Again, kind of a baseball town.  Yankees #1?
• Los Angeles?  It seemed to be getting along sans NFL and I don't know that the Rams have surpassed the Dodgers, Lakers, etc.
• St. Louis, when it had a team.  Baseball town; Cardinal town.

Is Miami still a Hurricanes town?  Atlanta Braves?  Detroit Red Wings?

 

I can't think of many candidates if any.  Chicago may be a semi football town what with the Cubs, Bulls, Blackhawks, + White Sox on the south side - a pretty balanced menu that.

[ninersdd]

Maybe its a little different since the Niners don't play there anymore, but SF is definitely a baseball town. What helps is that the Giants have been good and play on waterfront and everybody is pissed off at the Yorks.

[Sykotyk]

On 4/20/2017 at 1:09 AM, infrared41 said:

 

I'm sorry, but that's simply not true. The Steelers have been the undisputed top team in Pittsburgh since at least 1972. If memory serves, the Pirates couldn't get sell outs for the Bonds/Bonilla playoff games and yeah, the Pens won a couple Cups with Mario in the early 90's, but none of that even came close to threatening the Steelers spot at the top of the Pittsburgh sports hierarchy. 

 

Yes, Cleveland was definitely a Browns town before the move, but even I'll admit that we weren't as fanatical about our Browns as Pittsburgh fans were about their Steelers. The Pens and Pirates were winning so of course people came out. The same thing happened here in 1994 and 95 when the Indians got good. 

The Steelers are 'top dog' but a successful Pirates or Penguins team drew much more support away from the Steelers than the Cavs or Indians ever have. Even the newness of the Jake still didn't take away the fan interest of the Browns. I remember in 95, the sports sections still focused on what was happening with the Browns pre-season than what was happening with the Indians' magic number and ongoing games. The top of the fold story was regularly the Browns.

 

I lived in Pittsburgh for a few years in the early 2000s. They're much more a fickle bandwagon bunch than they let on.  Steelers lose two games in a row, and the next week looks like an upcoming bye. And this was with the Steelers being a notoriously slow-starter each season under Cowher. I don't know how many Browns @ Steelers games I went to where I found good seats easily for face value well before the games. If not just going on Ticketmaster and finding them.  A Thursday night game about a decade ago had 30,000, tops, in the stadium for a team with a winning record.

 

The thing is, Cleveland never feared that competition. Corporate money wanting newer amenities is why the Jake was siphoning money away from Municipal Stadium and why Modell was so quick to move after originally being against a new stadium (that he wouldn't control in the same manner as the Muni).  Corporate money didn't care whether they were seeing Browns or Indians or even Cavaliers. They wanted suites, wait service, catered foods, protected from the elements, televisions and air conditioning, etc. Shlubs like us buying regular tickets don't really matter much between corporate money and television money.

 

Go back and look at the stadium situations in the mid-90s. Pittsburgh had no intention to build new venues for any of their three teams. Three Rivers Stadium still had some life left in it (a wall collapsing at the Pitt Panthers game was the extent of that, and it wasn't a retaining wall despite hundreds of fans pushing against it), and the old Civic Arena saw an expansion that made the roof inoperable and the Penguins were barely skating by and were taken over by Lemieux Group because he was their largest debt in bankruptcy. And even he might have had to move eventually which led to Consol Energy/PPG Paints Arena.

 

It wasn't until Cleveland left that Pittsburgh realized there was nothing sacrosanct about your team in your city. It was always 'some other crappy team' that moved. One reason Rooney voted against the move. And one very big reason Allegheny County and the state of Pennsylvania scrambled to get the funding to build four new stadiums for its four outdoor teams. If the Browns could move, any of those four teams could move. That was the reality.

[HedleyLamarr]

On 4/19/2017 at 1:43 AM, Sykotyk said:

I don't think Belichick is nearly as successful as he's made out to be. It's more personnel decisions, and it starts with the most important position, Starting QB.

 

When Brady retires, I think Belichick retires. He's not going to have the time to rebuild/reload and if he flames without Brady, people will greatly question his coaching ability.

Belichick is essentially the GM.  He's calling all the shots.

 

Now Belichick did get lucky with getting Brady, but there's no argument that Belichick is the one that should get most of the credit.  Not only did they manage an 11-5 season with Matt Cassel, but they just went 3-1 with Garrapolo and Brissett last season.  He's had his coaching staff and front office raided by other teams over the last 15+ years, yet the Patriots keep chugging along at 12-4 and 7 (I think) Super Bowl appearances...while those that plucked these Patriots staffers haven't had much success (Falcons maybe the closest with Dimitroff and Pioli?).  Annual roster overhauling and personnel moves with the team not missing a beat, and always seemingly coming out on the winning side of trades.

 

His ego won't let him retire right when Brady does.  He's going to want to show everyone he can win without Brady.

[Viper]

Quote

If your NFL team left town, what would you do?

 

I'd eat my Green Bay Packers hat. 

[bosrs1]

On 4/20/2017 at 8:43 PM, ninersdd said:

Maybe its a little different since the Niners don't play there anymore, but SF is definitely a baseball town. What helps is that the Giants have been good and play on waterfront and everybody is pissed off at the Yorks.

 

Yep, you beat me to it. San Francisco (and the Bay Area) are a Giants town first and foremost, with the recently ascendant Warriors a close second. The Niners are at best third fiddle in their floundering York induced freefall, and the Raiders were an afterthought outside Oakland (even more so I'd wager now that the Raiders aren't even a Bay Area team anymore).

 

I'd also agree that New York (Yankees are #1), LA (toss up between the Dodgers and Lakers), Boston (Sox), arguably Chicago (take your pick from the menu), and Cincy all seem to be NFL towns that love another sport first.