File :-(, x, )
Anonymous
As a Sonicsfag that has been through some shitty years, I still see many fans at sporting events I go to here. Last weekend the Mariners which are the worst team in the MLB sold Safeco Field out.
So my quest is: what were Boston sports like in 1996? Were the teams as successful as they are now? And if not did they have lots of fans?
Yours truly, 18-1
>> Anonymous
We never had this many fans. The Sox sucked during the 90's and the others teams won't much better.

Fucking bandwagon faggots.
>> Anonymous
     File :-(, x)
We look like this in the 90's
>> Anonymous
>Were the teams as successful as they are now?

No.

>And if not did they have lots of fans?

Hierarchy then was SAWKS, then Celts, then a gap, then the Pats and the Bruins.

As for the SAWKS, you can check out the attendance figures here:

http://www.ballparksofbaseball.com/1990-99attendance.htm
http://www.ballparksofbaseball.com/2000-03attendance.htm

As you can see it's been steady, usually around 2.5 million a year, increasing to 3 million recently with the seating additions and WS wins.

Seattle over the same time period has ranged from 1.1 million to 3.5 million just after Safeco opened and the team was still competitive. Now it seems to be down to the 2.5 million level, which is outstanding for a dogshit team.
>> Anonymous
sox fans are pretty loyal. although there are more bandwagoner/fairweatherfaggots now b/c they're winning

however, the C's and pats were the jokes of pro sports in the 90s. even boston columnists have said that the garden's fans aren't like the old ones.

summary: bandwagoners ruin everything. even more when a team makes the playoffs and rich non-rowdy faggots who dont cheer buy tickets
>> Anonymous
>>177426
Here. I didn't mention the Bruins but that's only because I don't want the bandwagoners to find out about them. But they had mild success in the 90's.
>> Anonymous
>>177436
if there weren't bandwagoners, a team would never win.

seriously, if a team capped out at a certain number of fans, why bother bringing in players to win trophies? you don't get any more fans, and therefore no more money.

that's why american sports need a relegation/promotion system.
>> Anonymous
>>177443
The man right! GO EVERY TEAM IN SPORT!
>> Anonymous
>>177443

That is possibly the worst argument I've ever heard for anything.
>> Anonymous
>>177443
semi-agree

bandwagoning really hurts smaller teams and non-rich, working-class fans (the true backbone of any fanbase). you need the bandwagoners for merchandising, etc..but it just kills the homecrowd experience

hardcore fans go to majority of games (regardless of record)
team starts winning
team becomes more popular
ticket prices go up
casual fans attend games
hardcore crowds are 'bought out' (for lack of a better term
home games aren't as fun
team begins to slump
rinse, repeat
>> Anonymous
Here are the Boston Celtics attendance numbers:

http://www.basketballreference.com/teams/teamatt.htm?tm=bos&lg=n

As you can see, also steady through the championship years and beyond.

Haven't found a decent retrospective for the Pats or Bruins yet, but I'd expect them to fluctuate a little more.
>> Anonymous
Tampafag here..

Lets take the Rays...

Last year they averaged about 13,000 a game.

This past series vs the Cubs those three games averaged about 38,000 tickets sold.
>> Anonymous
>>177444
>>177445
>>177447

Not that fag, I'm the guy posting the attendance figures, but lets extend that logic elsewhere:

Fucking bandwagon Subway eaters. I was eating at Subway way before Jared made it popular. All these trendfags are killing the Subway experience.
>> Anonymous
>>177423

In the 90's Boston won 0 title and play in 1 Finals. (Super Bowl XXXI)

In the 00's Boston won 6 title and play in 7.

That how successful they been. As for the fans, they always had a lot of fan.
>> Anonymous
>>177445
sorry, how is that the worst argument you ever heard?

owner x buys a baseball team. he makes x amount of dollars in his first year of owning the team, and the team finishes last. the next year, they win it all. they make the same amount of money because no one bandwagons to the team, and the seats don't fill up. why would he bother to change anything?

i'm not defending bandwagon fans, i really hate them. as a padres fan, i've seen them come and leave several times over. but i realize that they are the reason that owners go for the prize. in most cities, stadiums won't fill up for a mediocre team.
>> Anonymous
>>177454in most cities, stadiums won't fill up for a mediocre team.

If they do, owners just keep the team mediocre and rake in the cash.

See: Detroit Lions, Boston Bruins, Arizona Cardinals, LA Clippers
>> Anonymous
>>177457
exactly, with teams like the padres, they do need to win to cash in. they are set to lose quite a bit of money this year, as their record drops, so do their attendances. i think they have dropped at least 5,000 a game.

most teams need to work for their profit. the bandwagon fan is the team's bonus.
>> Anonymous
as a yankee fan living in New England in the 90s I can vouch for soxfags sticking with their team even though we were wrecking them every year