There aren't "only 5 teams that matter." Four teams have reached Finals since LeBron moved and that doesn't include LA, Boston, Chicago or NY.
I do not agree. I think the low attendance is because we've been in the lottery the last few years. If we become a playoff team again, the fans will come back. The Timbers have been around for a while man. Blaming the attendance on the Timbers is a copout, if the Blazers choose to go that route.
I think historically Portland has a decidedly un-fickle reputation league wide. The sell-out streak, which included less than stellar teams on the court, was pretty impressive. Any team is going to have down years over the course of 36 years, that's inevitable. That's a far cry from 'notoriously fickle'. People seem to be taking a wait and see approach this year, but if there's one thing I know to be true, it's that winning will fix everything. So we just have to win. There, I've solved the case.
It all boils down to having a good team. Once we're a perennial playoff team again, the fans will be back in the seats - regardless of Timbers/NHL. Most people just don't feel like paying good money to watch a mediocre team.
I'm with you on this 100%. If the Blazers didn't exist I would never care. Furthermore, if they moved, I'd stop caring.
Also, the Timbers have never gotten this far, ever. So I don't think its a copout as it's just plain fact that that is what is going on. It's not necessarily a bad thing, just a thing.
You also know what's interesting, even on game days and all that, it still doesn't get that much coverage. I hardly actually hear about it. It's popular, but in that weird niche way that only Portland could do. I like it.
It was kind of an inside joke over the years that the sellout streak was a bit of a sham. If you went to the games there were obviously good chunks of empty seats. The Blazers kept the streak going as long as they could, but it didn't last as long as they claimed. I also wonder if maybe part of it has to do with how expensive a game costs these days. Not just the cost of tickets, but also the food, drink, etc. Many people, myself included, prefer to watch the game from the comforts of home. Big flat screen TV's are much more prevalent now. HD quality broadcasts have made it almost like you're sitting in the arena, so if you're only paying for the atmosphere, I think the Blazers lose out to the Timbers. The atmosphere at a Timbers game is significantly better than any Blazers game, save the playoffs. With that said, I still think the seats fill up if the team wins more. Everyone wants to support a winner. Significantly less people support a loser.
I do wish the Blazers crowds were more like they were post lockout (the first one) and during the late 80's and early 90's. Going to a Blazer game when the crowd is into it and the team is into it (esp the latter) is a great thing. BUT I think having to do it 41 times a year can be draining. The Timbers play a TOTAL of 34 games. And they're sometimes a couple weeks apart. I think their crowds would be a little different if they had to play twice as many games in half the time (their season goes for like 8 months for fucks sake). If you stretched out 30 home games over 8 months, it'd be easier to think of the games a special event. It's kind of why the NFL can have such huge crowds for football. Having a week between games (and sometimes a couple weeks between home games) makes it a special "I didn't just come off of work" schedule. Not that the Timbers games are all Saturday or Sunday, just sayin'...different schedules, and different scenarios make for different strokes. Now, the world don't move to the beat of just one drum, what might be right for you, may not be right for some. A fan is born, he's a fan of teams. Then along come two, they got nothing but their jeans. But they got different strokes, and it takes different strokes move the world. Everybody's got a special kind of story and everybody finds a way to shine. It don't matter that you got not a lot, so what? They'll have theirs, and you'll have yours, and I'll have mine. And together we'll be fine.
There's a reason the average sports fan can't name you 5 MLS teams. But is familiar with all NBA teams.
exposure and longevity. The NBA has been around since 1946. It's been on one of the alphabets most of that time too. MLS, on the other hand, has been around since 1993. And in that time, it hasn't been on one of the alphabets.
In terms of talent, the NBA is the best in the world, but in terms of rules, reffing, and overall content, the NBA is a fucking joke. It's the worst pro league in the US.
I feel like I should know this, but what do you mean by alphabets? (ABC, CBS I am assuming) If that's the case, I'm sure they have been on NBC.
ABC, CBS and NBC are the "alphabets". While yes, MLS has been on NBC, it's not like how the NBA used to be on CBS as a Saturday or Sunday game or NBC as a Saturday or Sunday game. Actually, what day were those game on NBC and CBS? Since ABC shows like 1/3rd of the games that NBC did (which is one of reasons why the NBA on ABC blows fucking monkey shit), I've forgotten which day of the week the games were. Anyways, I don't think MLS was on NBC as much as the NBA was, or promoted as much as it was.
