Kovalchuk Retired Effective Immediately?

[Matteau#32]

It depends on the sport, just like any other sports town. It's the best basketball town in the country, and one of the best baseball towns. It's a so so football town, and a crappy hockey town. I guarantee you won't find any town that supports all 4 sports at a high level

I disagree, sort of.  It is very band-wagon when it comes to basketball.  When the Knicks are good, they are the hottest ticket in town.  When they are bad, you can get tickets on stubhub for $7.  I know because a co-worker did it all the time in the years they were bad.  Not sure how you call it a so-so football town.  Giants had a waiting list of over 30 years before the PSLs.  I was on it, they got through the list but when they called me (I had been on since 1989, I was only offered club seats.  Would have cost me $23K the first season for a pair of tickets between the PSL and game tickets.  As for baseball, seems like a great town because of the Yankees success.  If you have a chance, go to baseball-reference.com, and look at the attendance numbers when the Mets and Yanks were not contenders.  Not exactly impressive.  I wouldn't call it a crappy hockey-town.  The best hockey town in this country is Philly, at least when it comes to the NHL.  Bruins are a big deal in Boston, but they were nothing for a few years when they struggled.  I witnessed it when I went to a Rangers game in Boston.  Pittsburgh is even worse.  Went there 8 straight years for a game.  Including the years between Lemieux's 2nd or 9th retirement and Crosby.  If you just drove around, you wouldn't even of known the Pens were still playing in Pittsbugh.  People didnt care about the Blackhawks in Chicago for a long time.  Minnesota is a great hockey market, not sure about how great of an NHL market.  Hard to judge Detroit as they have had a solid team for a very long time.  Have a friend from Detroit.  Her dad told me in the late 70s early 80s, nobody cared about Wings.  Philadelphia has the passion always, at least from what I have seen.  Plus, here we have 3 teams in the NHL and 9 pro teams among the 4 sports.  While I do not think the NY metro area will ever be anything close to any of the Canadian markets, it can hold its own with the other big American markets in terms of hockey.  Although, I agree about what you say about no market supporting all 4 leagues at a high level.  I will contend NY-metro comes the closest.  

[Triumph]

Seattle is a rotten sports town? Lol. You better have a really good Corsi to back that up otherwise you will look even more foolish. Safeco used to be packed when they were good, and their sports media is very good. The pats also stunk in the 90s so of course they were ignored. ..But that was 15 yes ago anyway. The discussion is about the media and interest level in these cities.

 

Awesome, they support a whole 2.5 sports.

 

Safeco was also packed when the ballpark was new, which is what tends to happen with new ballparks.

 

Matteau:  it's worth noting that Philadelphia has basically never been bad, hockey-wise.  Slight bump in the early 90s but other than that they have been good all the time.

Edited July 12, 2013 by Triumph

[Matteau#32]

Then its not a great sports town. Its not even the best basketball town in the NBA. A great sports town isnt just being a good baseball city. There are plenty of great sports town (where 4 sports are covered/supported well): Philly, Boston, DC, Chicago, Seattle to name a few.

Philly- Eagles and Flyers, yes.  Phillies are a new phenomenon. I remember when I was going to Atlantic City to play poker on a regular basis.  From 98-2006 all I saw was Eagles and Flyers stuff.  2007, everyone had brand new phillies gear.  As for the Sixers?  When was the last time they sold out?

 

Boston: Pre-2001, Pats were invisible and have been there when the Celtics and Bruins were insignificant.  I went to Boston for Rangers-Bruins in 2007.  Got to the hotel, concierge said the Celtics had a game if I was interested.  Don't follow basketball and asked him if it was easy to get tickets.  He said, "Get tickets?  If you have sneakers with you and you show up they might let you play."

 

DC-Pre-Ovechkin it was Redskins 24/7 365 days a year.  Nobody else mattered.

 

Chicago-  Bulls had a dead period after Jordan and the Blackhawks had a dead period.

 

Seattle-They lost their BBall team and never had a hockey team.

 

Point is, very hard for a market to support all 4 sports and when a team struggles, fans in most markets are pretty quick to disappear.  ESPECIALLY, when they have other teams in the market who are contending.

Edited July 12, 2013 by Matteau#32

[Matteau#32]

Seattle is a rotten sports town? Lol. You better have a really good Corsi to back that up otherwise you will look even more foolish. Safeco used to be packed when they were good, and their sports media is very good. The pats also stunk in the 90s so of course they were ignored. ..But that was 15 yes ago anyway. The discussion is about the media and interest level in these cities.

when they were good....

 

Any market can be good when the team is winning.  How do you judge the "media" and interest level from city to city?  I listen to WFAN all the time, certainly don't judge the NY market on what I hear on the station.  Francesa has a passion for baseball, same for Joe and Evan.  Therefore, going to talk about it all year round.  NY is a good sports town, much better than Seattle, Boston, DC.  Only cities than can compare to NY are Chicago and Philly.

[Matteau#32]

 

Matteau:  it's worth noting that Philadelphia has basically never been bad, hockey-wise.  Slight bump in the early 90s but other than that they have been good all the time.

Good point.  

[devlman]

Matthau, those arguments all focus on attendance and cyclical drops due to performance. Every team goes thru down periods, so attendance isn't the main focus here. If it were solely on attendance then the ny rangers would be an extremely popular and well-covered club in ny (which it is not). You can put the circus in MSG on a full time basis and it would sell out. The main focus is on the media in these towns and the coverage those clubs receive. It's more a question of knowledgable sports fans and media. The average ny sports writer is like mike Francesca-only good on one or two sports.

[Matteau#32]

Philly's a crap basketball town, and a so so baseball town. Boston didn't care about football until Brady. DC drove 2 baseball teams out of town before the Nats, have never supported the Wizards with any great enthusiasm, and have just started supporting the Caps with Ovie. Chicago is pretty good, I'll give you that one. Seattle lost their NBA team (I know the owners and arena were an issue, but that would NEVER happen in NY), and Safeco is empty half the time. I'm not saying the NY media is great, but the idea that it's not a big time sports town is asinine, despite how bad a hockey town it is.

 

And look at ticket sales before you say it's not the best basketball town: the Knicks are the toughest tickets in the country, the Nets are a sold draw despite being second fiddle, visiting teams and press all comment on the atmosphere at the Garden, etc. 

 

While I'm not overly impressed with NY football fans, at least compared to some place like Dallas, the Giants are one of the toughest tickets to get in the country, and the Jets have a die hard core, despite years of ineptitude and overpriced tickets to boot.

 

You can ream the media all you want (I certainly have), but making sweeping assertions about an entire city's sports culture based on the media's poor coverage of one sport is just stupid.

Agreed.  If the Nets are good, they will do very well in Brooklyn.  NY is more of a basketball town than a Knicks town, imo.  I see it in the people I know into basketball.  They claim they are Knicks fans, but when they were bad, they were more interested in other teams/games. 

 

A lot of NEW Giants fans since 2007.  And, it is not a good thing.  I have had seasons since 2005 and went to games since the 90s with a friend who has seasons.  Definitely saw a change in the fans attending games after Super Bowl XLII.  You are right about the Jets fans.  The new stadium and PSLs really hit them hard.  Look at stubhub, you can get tickets to just about every game for less than face value.  Never thought I would see that.

[mouse]

Look, don't get yourself so easily offended where throwing out names is the basis of your reply. I live here. What I said was absolutely true. I dont want to hijack the thread with a dissertation on sports culture in New York. People that live here know what I mean. There are plenty of cities that are better sports cities than NY, which is a vastly overrated sports city. And btw, your counter points on the other cities arent true.

I don't know how responding to your cities 1 at a time is "throwing out names." I also live here. I've also been to games in different sports in most of the cities you've named. And as your best argument is to say nah nah nah nah nah your argument isn't true, I see no need to respond to you anymore. But thanks for playing.

[devlman]

I don't know how responding to your cities 1 at a time is "throwing out names." I also live here. I've also been to games in different sports in most of the cities you've named. And as your best argument is to say nah nah nah nah nah your argument isn't true, I see no need to respond to you anymore. But thanks for playing.

Thanks for playing lol..as if you just went out on some high note, hit it out of the park! Hahaha!

My argument was about sports media. You wanted to talk attendance. I didn't, and still don't, feel like going into a dissertation about it with you. If you disagree with whatever point I didn't make then that's your choice.

[mouse]

I disagree, sort of.  It is very band-wagon when it comes to basketball.  When the Knicks are good, they are the hottest ticket in town.  When they are bad, you can get tickets on stubhub for $7.  I know because a co-worker did it all the time in the years they were bad.  Not sure how you call it a so-so football town.  Giants had a waiting list of over 30 years before the PSLs.  I was on it, they got through the list but when they called me (I had been on since 1989, I was only offered club seats.  Would have cost me $23K the first season for a pair of tickets between the PSL and game tickets.  As for baseball, seems like a great town because of the Yankees success.  If you have a chance, go to baseball-reference.com, and look at the attendance numbers when the Mets and Yanks were not contenders.  Not exactly impressive.   

Every town is somewhat bandwagon, but if you leave New York, you can get into games for around $20 on stubhub even when the team is good. There are a couple of exceptions (Golden State and San Antonio come to mind), but even when the Knicks were terrible, they did a decent job putting butts in seats. When they're good, MSG is one of the best basketball venues in the country. When you factor in playground culture, and general knowledge and appreciation for the sport, you have the best basketball fanbase anywhere, regardless of how the Knicks are playing. 

 

The Giants are weird. They sell a ton of tickets, but IMO (and I'm a die hard Giants fan), the fans aren't as passionate as fans from the south (not Florida for some reason), the midwest, or even Philly. I went to college outside of Cleveland, and while their fans are pretty lame in basketball and baseball (and Lebron was there when I was), their football fans are more enthusiastic and knowledgable than Giants fans, even if they aren't selling out games.

 

The Yankee Mets point is interesting, and I'm not necessarily disputing it, but I've been to a game in more than half of major league cities, and the most knowledgable, passionate fans are in NY, Boston, and San Francisco. No place else I've been comes close. I'm a Yankees fan, but I have nothing but respect for Mets' fans. Even though they don't usually come close to selling out, their fans know when to cheer, when to boo, and they're dialed into the game more than just about any fan base (again, with the exception of the Yankees, Red Sox, and Giants, though the bandwagoners and Yankees and Sox games can be really annoying). I used attendance to prove a point, so I dug this whole, but I think when you're evaluating a fan base, attendance is only part of the equation and, at least in baseball, New York has some of the best fans, no matter how many make it to the ballpark.

[Daniel]

The really awful years for Yankees attendence wise in the 80s and early 90s had as much to do with how much more dangerous NYC, and especially the Bronx, was back then. As bad as Yankees attendance has been this year, it doesnt compare to the late 80s (when they weren't that awful on the field). It wasn't a matter if tickets being too expensive, it was a very real fear that you would be harassed or assaulted once you got there.

[mouse]

Thanks for playing lol..as if you just went out on some high note, hit it out of the park! Hahaha!

My argument was about sports media. You wanted to talk attendance. I didn't, and still don't, feel like going into a dissertation about it with you. If you disagree with whatever point I didn't make then that's your choice.

You didn't say NY has crappy sports media. If you had, I'd have agreed with you. The only writer I respect is Lupica, and only half the time, and, aside from Kay and LaGrecca, the radio people are completely insufferable. You said New York isn't a great sports town. You disregarded any points I made about that because you apparently feel that the only thing that makes a sports town great is the media. If you want to have a discussion, at least read the things you said.

[Mitico12]

If I was Lou Lamoriello, I would have pulled an Eduard Khil as soon as Kovy called me to announce his retirement (see video).

 

And btw, not all Russians are dirt bags (I still love Eduard Khil).

 

[Matteau#32]

Matthau, those arguments all focus on attendance and cyclical drops due to performance. Every team goes thru down periods, so attendance isn't the main focus here. If it were solely on attendance then the ny rangers would be an extremely popular and well-covered club in ny (which it is not). You can put the circus in MSG on a full time basis and it would sell out. The main focus is on the media in these towns and the coverage those clubs receive. It's more a question of knowledgable sports fans and media. The average ny sports writer is like mike Francesca-only good on one or two sports.

i don't get your point.  I'd rather have different writers who specialize in their sport.  Like I said, we have NINE teams in this area.  No other city has that.  Closest was LA had 7 before losing the football teams.  If we had 4 like just about everyone else each team would be covered a lot more.

[devlman]

You didn't say NY has crappy sports media. If you had, I'd have agreed with you. The only writer I respect is Lupica, and only half the time, and, aside from Kay and LaGrecca, the radio people are completely insufferable. You said New York isn't a great sports town. You disregarded any points I made about that because you apparently feel that the only thing that makes a sports town great is the media. If you want to have a discussion, at least read the things you said.

I said ny wasn't a great sports town in the context of media. However, even without that context it's still, at best, barely a three-sport town. That doesn't qualify it as being a great sports town in my book. And again, it's not attendance I am looking at. It's the percentage of fan interest and the media coverage in the city. If an indoor rugby team played at the garden they'd probably sell out every game, but that wouldn't make ny a rugby town. NY gets a rep as this great town just on sheer numbers alone. But look at tv ratings shares. When Boston plays in a cup final, something like a quarter of all New England watches! NY doesn't get close to that kind of share. The Yankees and Giants are as close as they come. I can see the Knicks being up there if they ever got really good. But hockey? Not a chance. Kovy retires and barely a word. If lundqvist retired there'd be an article and then forgotten the next day. However, if someone on the lowly mets goes 1-for-4, then look out for wall to wall coverage! That's what you see in one-sport towns. Go up to cities like Boston or Chicago and every big story across all sports in their market gets covered.

[devlman]

i don't get your point. I'd rather have different writers who specialize in their sport. Like I said, we have NINE teams in this area. No other city has that. Closest was LA had 7 before losing the football teams. If we had 4 like just about everyone else each team would be covered a lot more.

Right, except those 9 writers are given a coverage weight that varies greatly across the board from hockey to baseball. Hockey coverage is as bad as it gets. Great sports town? The vast majority of people in this market couldn't even tell you who or what a lundqvist or kovalchuk is. The market just isn't very knowledgable. A lot of that is because of the coverage. You don't get that lopsided coverage in Boston or Chicago or many other places. Edited July 12, 2013 by devlman

[mouse]

I said ny wasn't a great sports town in the context of media. However, even without that context it's still, at best, barely a three-sport town. That doesn't qualify it as being a great sports town in my book. And again, it's not attendance I am looking at. It's the percentage of fan interest and the media coverage in the city. If an indoor rugby team played at the garden they'd probably sell out every game, but that wouldn't make ny a rugby town. NY gets a rep as this great town just on sheer numbers alone. But look at tv ratings shares. When Boston plays in a cup final, something like a quarter of all New England watches! NY doesn't get close to that kind of share. The Yankees and Giants are as close as they come. I can see the Knicks being up there if they ever got really good. But hockey? Not a chance. Kovy retires and barely a word. If lundqvist retired there'd be an article and then forgotten the next day. However, if someone on the lowly mets goes 1-for-4, then look out for wall to wall coverage! That's what you see in one-sport towns. Go up to cities like Boston or Chicago and every big story across all sports in their market gets covered.

As Matteau said, no other city has 9 sports. Our newspapers aren't any longer. Something's gonna get cut. Talk to sports fans on the street Just wear a jersey for a week or so after something big happened) rather than reading the paper, you'll get a much better idea of fan support. The paper may not have bothered to cover Kovalchuk leaving, but I've had a ton of conversations about it because I'm wearing my Elias jersey today. As for percentage watching games, NY is full of transplants. A lot of people who live here now came from some place else and support other teams, so they're not all going to watch a local game, the way someone in Boston or Chicago is. 

 

I don't want to harp on this, but despite years of ineptitude, the Knicks have one of the most supportive, enthusiastic groups of fans in the game. NY basketball fans are also as knowledgable as any, no matter how the Knicks are doing. 

[Matteau#32]

Every town is somewhat bandwagon, but if you leave New York, you can get into games for around $20 on stubhub even when the team is good. There are a couple of exceptions (Golden State and San Antonio come to mind), but even when the Knicks were terrible, they did a decent job putting butts in seats. When they're good, MSG is one of the best basketball venues in the country. When you factor in playground culture, and general knowledge and appreciation for the sport, you have the best basketball fanbase anywhere, regardless of how the Knicks are playing. 

 

The Giants are weird. They sell a ton of tickets, but IMO (and I'm a die hard Giants fan), the fans aren't as passionate as fans from the south (not Florida for some reason), the midwest, or even Philly. I went to college outside of Cleveland, and while their fans are pretty lame in basketball and baseball (and Lebron was there when I was), their football fans are more enthusiastic and knowledgable than Giants fans, even if they aren't selling out games.

 

The Yankee Mets point is interesting, and I'm not necessarily disputing it, but I've been to a game in more than half of major league cities, and the most knowledgable, passionate fans are in NY, Boston, and San Francisco. No place else I've been comes close. I'm a Yankees fan, but I have nothing but respect for Mets' fans. Even though they don't usually come close to selling out, their fans know when to cheer, when to boo, and they're dialed into the game more than just about any fan base (again, with the exception of the Yankees, Red Sox, and Giants, though the bandwagoners and Yankees and Sox games can be really annoying). I used attendance to prove a point, so I dug this whole, but I think when you're evaluating a fan base, attendance is only part of the equation and, at least in baseball, New York has some of the best fans, no matter how many make it to the ballpark.

Giants fans at the game are definitely not as loud as other places, not even close. I have been to games in 13 different cities.   Although that is changing.  With the new fan, it is getting louder, so maybe I have to take back my previous statement about the changes not being a good thing.  However, the passion is still there.  John Madden used to always say he thought Giants fans were amongst the smartest.  Knew when to make noise and knew when it wasn't necessary.  Although lately, seems like there are a lot of fans trying to make noise when the Giants are on offense then get confused when I tell them now is not the time.  It is quite painful.  

 

My friend worked for the Browns their first two years back in the league.  Went out there 4 times for games.  Great Football town.  Passionate.  But, it is a lot like Pittsburgh and the steelers.  The Browns are the team 365 days a year.  Also a great town for HS football and Ohio St football is huge.  

[mouse]

Right, except those 9 writers are given a coverage weight that varies greatly across the board from hockey to baseball. Hockey coverage is as bad as it gets. Great sports town? The vast majority of people in this market couldn't even tell you who or what a lundqvist or kovalchuk is. The market just isn't very knowledgable. A lot of that is because of the coverage. You don't get that lopsided coverage in Boston or Chicago or many other places.

And by that logic, you should be more impressed by how many people DO know and care about hockey. 

 

By the way, I think NY is a crap hockey town. I also think Boston is a mediocre football town, and was crap before Brady and Belichick forced their fans to pay attention, I think Philly is criminally overrated as a baseball town (especially having been to a game there), Seattle is a 2 and a half sport town, as someone here said before, and so on. The only cities I've been to that are legitimate 4 sport towns are Chicago and, surprisingly, Toronto. As far as 3 sport towns go, I'd say NY is one of the best. Despite the fact that the sports media tends to put volume over substance.

 

My friend worked for the Browns their first two years back in the league.  Went out there 4 times for games.  Great Football town.  Passionate.  But, it is a lot like Pittsburgh and the steelers.  The Browns are the team 365 days a year.  Also a great town for HS football and Ohio St football is huge.  

 

Yeah, I factored that in when I said NY wasn't a great football town. Football isn't a religion here the way it is a little west or a little south.

 

Conversely, the 365 day a year thing is why I defend NY as a sports town. We support 3 out of 4 sports with passion and knowledge. Cleveland and Pittsburgh have chosen to treat 2 of their 3 teams with indifference. I would argue that very few cities support as many teams as well as New Yorkers do. 

Edited July 12, 2013 by mouse

[Matteau#32]

Right, except those 9 writers are given a coverage weight that varies greatly across the board from hockey to baseball. Hockey coverage is as bad as it gets. Great sports town? The vast majority of people in this market couldn't even tell you who or what a lundqvist or kovalchuk is. The market just isn't very knowledgable. A lot of that is because of the coverage. You don't get that lopsided coverage in Boston or Chicago or many other places.

Do you make a habit of quizzing locals about sports?  How are you able to judge the knowledge level of the city?  I can't tell you the starting point guard for the Knicks or Nets, if you ask me the name of their center, the last I remember is Patrick Ewing.  Same for my wife and several of my friends.  If you used us a barometer than you would think NY is the worst basketball town in the World.  We spend our spare time posting on sports message boards, so obviously we are passionate about our teams and follow them very closely.  Majority of sports fans in the country are not like us.

[Matteau#32]

And by that logic, you should be more impressed by how many people DO know and care about hockey. 

 

By the way, I think NY is a crap hockey town. I also think Boston is a mediocre football town, and was crap before Brady and Belichick forced their fans to pay attention, I think Philly is criminally overrated as a baseball town (especially having been to a game there), Seattle is a 2 and a half sport town, as someone here said before, and so on. The only cities I've been to that are legitimate 4 sport towns are Chicago and, surprisingly, Toronto. As far as 3 sport towns go, I'd say NY is one of the best. Despite the fact that the sports media tends to put volume over substance.

 

Yeah, I factored that in when I said NY wasn't a great football town. Football isn't a religion here the way it is a little west or a little south.

Not sure how you can bash NY as a hockey town.  You have 1 team that has been selling out forever, even through a stretch of 7 years without play-offs and then you have 2 more teams in the market,  Now, think about what it would be like if we had one team, like they do in Chicago.  You can't tell me that the Isles and Devils fans wouldn't be Rangers fans. If the Isles and Devils never existed, they wouldn't have fans who would hate the Rangers.   I just don't see how you can judge a town based on the media.  

[Matteau#32]

Right, except those 9 writers are given a coverage weight that varies greatly across the board from hockey to baseball. Hockey coverage is as bad as it gets. Great sports town? The vast majority of people in this market couldn't even tell you who or what a lundqvist or kovalchuk is. The market just isn't very knowledgable. A lot of that is because of the coverage. You don't get that lopsided coverage in Boston or Chicago or many other places.

Boston has FOUR TEAMS.  Chicago has FIVE. Boston and Chicago have each been in the Finals twice in the past 5 years and have 3 cups between them.  

[mouse]

Not sure how you can bash NY as a hockey town.  You have 1 team that has been selling out forever, even through a stretch of 7 years without play-offs and then you have 2 more teams in the market,  Now, think about what it would be like if we had one team, like they do in Chicago.  You can't tell me that the Isles and Devils fans wouldn't be Rangers fans. If the Isles and Devils never existed, they wouldn't have fans who would hate the Rangers.   I just don't see how you can judge a town based on the media.  

I'm not disrespecting you (or most of my fellow Devils fans for that matter), but compared to places like Chicago, Detroit, and obviously Canada, our fans tend to be more loud than knowledgeable. I also think the Rangers sell out streak has a lot more to do with the number of rich people here than real hockey love. Don't get me wrong, I think there are a ton of great fans for all 3 teams (though the worst Rags fans seem to make the most noise), but I think there are a lot of people here who know nothing, and many of them still go to games, which makes the attendance weird to track (in a way it isn't for the other 3 major sports, at least not to the same degree. Maybe I'm also spoiled, because I think the average NY hockey fan suffers in comparison to the average NY baseball or basketball fan.

[Matteau#32]

Not sure how you can judge the knowledge level of a fan base unless you have spent a significant amount of time living in that market.   I have been to many arenas, and have met idiots in every one of them.  Also met people who know their stuff.  And yes, most Rangers fans are idiots and I wouldn't let most into my house.  I think the worst of all 3 fan bases tend to come out during Rangers-Devs or Rangers-Isles games at the Rock or Nassau.  This year, went to Rangers-Isles at the Coliseum in April.  Rangers won 1-0 in OT.  As I am leaving, Rangers fans are screaming, celebrating, like you expect.  Saw two fights walking to my car.  The best was an Isles fan walking in front of me.  He was just saying to every Rangers fan who walked by, "Let me know when you win 4 in a row."  My wife and I just looked at each other shook our heads and laughed.  

I disagree about the passion.  Hockey may not have the quantity of fans as baseball, but I definitely think the hockey fan base (across the 3 teams as a whole) is a lot more passionate than the baseball fan base.  Think baseball has A LOT more casual fans than die-hards.  Seems like you are frustrated that hockey doesn't have the numbers of the other 3 or the media attention, and you are letting your frustration jade your view of the market.

Edited July 12, 2013 by Matteau#32

[Aznjsn]

I totally agree with Chicago being a great supporter of their hockey team. Everywhere you go there is blackhawk pride. I wish we had something like that here.