Media Bias
JTan
kinds of bias in the Boston sports media covering the Patriots. I'm
not in the area, and don't watch much television, so I can't say
anything about TV media. Also,
I'm not really interested in figuring out if any of these guys are
"right or wrong" -- just where their biases lie.
As far as print goes:
Will McDonough, Globe: as people have previously commented, he was in
the tank for Parcells. When Parcells was breaking up with Kraft,
McDonough consistently came out hard-line for Parcells. These days,
that seems to carry over with McDonough continuing to criticize the
Kraft/Belichick administration.
Kevin Mannix, Herald: the anti-McDonough. During the breakup, he was
in the tank for Kraft. Writes sort of rebuttal pieces to McDonough.
A supporter of Kraft & Belichick.
Ron Borges, Globe: Unclear if he has bias for or against Belichick,
Parcells or Kraft. A strong supporter of Bledsoe & skeptical of
Brady. Irrelevantly, his articles often get caught up in "test of
manhood" stuff to the point of hilarity. Or maybe that's just me.
Local writers often collaborate with athletes to write career
retrospective books, which might be Borges angle with Bledsoe.
Nick Cafardo, Globe: Doesn't seem particularly biased in any direction
[or not that I've noticed yet]. Was pretty taken with Bledsoe's arm
strength, going off those Q&A pieces he wrote for Patriots.com. Not
certain he's really demonstrated any kind of bias, though.
Michael Felger, Herald: I'm guessing he's neutral like Cafardo, but
that's just because I don't have any strong associations with him the
way I do with Borges, McDonough & Mannix.
Shaughnessy, Globe; Callahan, Herald; Gee, Herald; Holley, Globe;
Ryan, Globe, Madden, Globe. None of these guys seem as strongly
affiliated with football. I can't think of any biases with any of
them.
Finally, anyone notice the way all the papers write the same article
each day. Like all of them will have a profile of Ted Johnson on
Tuesday, they'll all have a profile of Tebucky Jones on Wednesday,
etc.?
-JT
AllYou!
scum when BB was first hired with no regard for the facts, and then reversed
himself only when BB started winning. Personal attacks like that should not
be based upon Ws & Ls.
He also published a story about how the Kraft's had totally mis-treated Dick
Rhebein's widow, again without making any attempt to get at the truth.
Shaughnessy is another one who has a tremendous bias and thinks that its his
job to be vicious. He recently criticized the Pats for leaving the
Sullivans out of the super Bowl celebrations. When I sent a complaint to
him about how his ilk had ravaged the Sullivans, he wrote me back that he
would never have done that because Pat Sullivan is a personal friend of his.
While I may have been wrong in accusing him of being mean to the Sullivans,
what does it say about a journalist that his defense is based on his
personal friendships. By his own words, he proved that he's biased.
"JTan" <jt...@pdsdc.org> wrote in message
news:75a630ab.02042...@posting.google.com...
Beezer
news:ucqrfpr...@corp.supernews.com...
> I have no respect for Mannix. He's the guy who called BB duplicitous pond
> scum when BB was first hired with no regard for the facts, and then
reversed
> himself only when BB started winning. Personal attacks like that should
not
> be based upon Ws & Ls.
Interesting follow-up: For those of you that do not know, the term
"duplicitous pond scum" is a direct quote - not an exaggeration :) And
yes, he has sheepishly reversed that stance now that Coach Bill is the toast
of the olde towne.
> He also published a story about how the Kraft's had totally mis-treated
Dick
> Rhebein's widow, again without making any attempt to get at the truth.
That was reprehensible sensationalism. The Krafts went above and beyond the
call of duty regarding Rehbein's family. How many employers would continue
to pay the spouse of someone who died for such a long period of time?
> Shaughnessy is another one who has a tremendous bias and thinks that its
his
> job to be vicious.
Shaughnessey criticizes everything the local teams do, although his primary
focus is baseball. He criticized Clemens when he was here. Then he
criticizes the Sox for getting rid of Clemens. Ditto Mo Vaughn, Wade Boggs,
et cetera.
dscotts
> Nick Cafardo, Globe: Doesn't seem particularly biased in any direction
> [or not that I've noticed yet]. Was pretty taken with Bledsoe's arm
> strength, going off those Q&A pieces he wrote for Patriots.com. Not
> certain he's really demonstrated any kind of bias, though.
don't forget .... he's the great Glenn enabler, and as you say a bit of the
Bledsoe enabler there as well with better reason, but definitely more
rounded and usually not caught up in the negativity. I would say he usually
see the glass half full.....
Rich Carreiro
> Nick Cafardo, Globe: Doesn't seem particularly biased in any direction
> [or not that I've noticed yet]. Was pretty taken with Bledsoe's arm
Well, Cafardo is/was in the tank for Glenn.
--
Rich Carreiro rlc...@animato.arlington.ma.us
Robert Reich - $1million in income (most from speeches to corporations
and special interest groups), $2714 in charitable contributions.
[17 April _Boston Globe_].
Albob
"JTan" <jt...@pdsdc.org> wrote in message
news:75a630ab.02042...@posting.google.com...
> I was thinking it would be interesting to categorize the different
> kinds of bias in the Boston sports media covering the Patriots. I'm
> not in the area, and don't watch much television, so I can't say
> anything about TV media. Also,
>
> I'm not really interested in figuring out if any of these guys are
> "right or wrong" -- just where their biases lie.
>
> As far as print goes:
>
> Will McDonough, Globe: as people have previously commented, he was in
> the tank for Parcells. When Parcells was breaking up with Kraft,
> McDonough consistently came out hard-line for Parcells. These days,
> that seems to carry over with McDonough continuing to criticize the
> Kraft/Belichick administration.
>
> Kevin Mannix, Herald: the anti-McDonough. During the breakup, he was
> in the tank for Kraft. Writes sort of rebuttal pieces to McDonough.
> A supporter of Kraft & Belichick.
>
> Ron Borges, Globe: Unclear if he has bias for or against Belichick,
> Parcells or Kraft. A strong supporter of Bledsoe & skeptical of
> Brady. Irrelevantly, his articles often get caught up in "test of
> manhood" stuff to the point of hilarity. Or maybe that's just me.
> Local writers often collaborate with athletes to write career
> retrospective books, which might be Borges angle with Bledsoe.
>
I think Borges relies more on the opinions of other people around the
country than what boston fans think. His views reflect the views of an
outsider. On the radio you can tell he doesn't believe in Bill Belichick or
Tom Brady.
> Nick Cafardo, Globe: Doesn't seem particularly biased in any direction
> [or not that I've noticed yet]. Was pretty taken with Bledsoe's arm
> strength, going off those Q&A pieces he wrote for Patriots.com. Not
> certain he's really demonstrated any kind of bias, though.
>
Nick's a great writer, and his opinions on the radio reflect his opinions
and tone in his articles. He's a Terry Glenn guy and gets dumped on for
being one, and he's also a Bledsoe guy where he gets dumped on consideribly
less. Even though he has his preferences he's not biased about players or
teams.
> Michael Felger, Herald: I'm guessing he's neutral like Cafardo, but
> that's just because I don't have any strong associations with him the
> way I do with Borges, McDonough & Mannix.
>
Well Felgers articles are tame, and are in conjunction with a normal beat
writer, but his apperances on the radio make him out to be a giant asshole.
He talks like a columnist with an axe to grind. Felger's too "bottom
line/what have you've done for me lately" for a beat writer, so it makes his
reports and articles hard to swallow.
Roger Christie
> Are we talking about writing or radio apperences?
>
> > that's just because I don't have any strong associations with him the
> > way I do with Borges, McDonough & Mannix.
> >
>
> Well Felgers articles are tame, and are in conjunction with a normal beat
> writer, but his apperances on the radio make him out to be a giant asshole.
> He talks like a columnist with an axe to grind. Felger's too "bottom
> line/what have you've done for me lately" for a beat writer, so it makes his
> reports and articles hard to swallow.
>
Felger's chief problem is that he's dumber than concrete.
hytem
Few have played the game.
They do have more access to information than most.
TV is full of "analysts" these days.
The only ones worth listening to
are some of the ex-players and coaches.
"Roger Christie" <c...@mux.net> wrote in message
news:1ddde267.02043...@posting.google.com...
-philw
>
>
> "JTan" <jt...@pdsdc.org> wrote in message
> news:75a630ab.02042...@posting.google.com...
> >
> > Parcells or Kraft. A strong supporter of Bledsoe & skeptical of
> > Brady. Irrelevantly, his articles often get caught up in "test of
> > manhood" stuff to the point of hilarity. Or maybe that's just me.
> > Local writers often collaborate with athletes to write career
> > retrospective books, which might be Borges angle with Bledsoe.
> >
> I think Borges relies more on the opinions of other people around the
> country than what boston fans think. His views reflect the views of an
> outsider. On the radio you can tell he doesn't believe in Bill Belichick or
> Tom Brady.
I used to like Borges years ago. He went point criticizing Pete
Carroll when the Pats were on a 6-0 role, correctly saying the Emperor
had no clothes. He was right then. He used to confrunt and possibly
intimidate Carroll at press conferences. He tried that with an 0-2
Belichick last year and failed to intimidate BB when he was down, way
down. His constant schtick is that the glass is half full and that
basically, we sorta suck. He's got a negative chip which tragically
negates any value from dispassionate analysis.
-philw
Schaeffer
>
> Felger's chief problem is that he's dumber than concrete.
I would have to agree. I have never read, nor heard a single snip
of insight emitted from Felger. Any of Felger's ideas that have shown
promise can usually be traced to prior comments made by other writers.
Like most with the intellectual capacity of a small soap dish, he
exchanges perception, cognition, and intuition with plagiarism or
insults.
Will McDonough while definitely in the tank for Parcells, can still
be the first to turn up some interesting NFL tidbits before the
competition. Good ol' boy network don't ya know.
Mannix is a muckraker.
I met Gerry Callahan a number of times (going out drinkin') before
he started at the Lowell Sun. He was a bright enough guy, but a bit
arrogant, and I think this comes through in his writing. And, he does
tend to blowviate on the radio. This may be as much "an act" as
anything else.
Schaeffer
Snapper
Don't forget the Providence Journal guys. People railed against Tom
Curran when he wrote a piece (back when he was with the MetroWest
News, IIRC) that was decidedly anti-Bledsoe. Balancing that out is Jim
Donaldson, who's a Bledsoe apologist.
Kent Thaler
Snapper wrote:
>
> Don't forget the Providence Journal guys. People railed against Tom
> Curran when he wrote a piece (back when he was with the MetroWest
> News, IIRC) that was decidedly anti-Bledsoe. Balancing that out is Jim
> Donaldson, who's a Bledsoe apologist.
Actually Donaldson is just a commentator and not actually a beat writer
or full time football guy. If I had to really catagorize him it would
be provocateur. He blows with the prevailing winds a lot. I noticed
that Tom Curran is now on th Pats beat for the Projo what I can't find
out is whether Ed Duckworth has been taken off it or if he is just doing
other things until camp starts. I have argued here before that I think
Ed Duckworth might be the best of all the beat writers. He seems the
most intent on actually covering a story rather than opining on it.
Also there is Paul (PK) Kenyon. He covered the pats for 20 years for
the Projo before battling cancer last year. I am not sure what his
involvement on the beat is going to be but I usually found him to be
very good.
As for the Boston guys...I think I am the only one left still boycotting
the Globe...boy you all let me down on that one <g>. As for the Herald
guys...they have become almost a reactionary force to the Globe guys.
In reality neither paper provides adequate coverage of the pats...not
compared to what they do for the Sox.
Kent Thaler
Section 119
DPB
boycotting
> the Globe...boy you all let me down on that one <g>. As for the Herald
> guys...they have become almost a reactionary force to the Globe guys."
> Kent Thaler
Has anyone else noticed just how much the gap is widening between the
reporters from each paper ever since the Globe reporters were banned
from WEEI? Before the ban, I actually enjoyed the Big Show sometimes.
The entire lineup had one or 2 of the Globe guys on, with perhaps 1
guy from the Herald. Now with the Globe guys on either that TSN
station...(1510?) hosted by Sean and Will McDonough, or on ESPN
TV/radio, and the Herald all over WEEI and NESN, Fox NE, etc, they've
all seemingly drawn sides, particularly about the QB debate.
A good example - that recent article in the NYT about DB making snide
comments about Brady? Felger quoted it in his story the next day,
taking yet one of many cheap shots at DB, while Will McDonough talked
to the reporter (Thomas George). The source was not a Pats coach or
player, but an "official". He (WM) praised DB for being a complete
class act.
Shaunessy had a falling out with Kraft, (J or B, I don't know),
causing him to be the 1st reporter banned from an annual breakfast
hosted by the Krafts, evidently a major snub, at least in his mind.
Borges has always been a critic of any Pats team, in one way or
another. With Parcells, he was the only guy who pointed out that he
never said anything. He just gave out sound bites and quotes that
saved the reporters from working. I used to get so frustrated at BP's
news conferences. If he wasn't sending a message to a certain player
or reporter or owner:), he never answered a question at all. He'd do
the " shopping for the groceries" crap and the press ate it up.
Schaeffer
>
> In reality neither paper provides adequate coverage of the pats...not
> compared to what they do for the Sox.
Ain't that the truth. Maybe there's just the slightest chance that
when these print media folks study their revenues, they'll take note
of the NEP fan base purchasing power (see NFL Films) and loyalty and
then take this into account when delegating staff decisions.
Let's face it, when I was a kid, the baseball fields around my small
New England town were always busy with pickup games (when the
organized ones weren't being played). Over the last couple of
decades, I've seen that level of participation decay considerably
while the interest in football has steadily grown. Irregardless
whether soccer or video games are to blame, the simple fact is that
the NFL fanbase deserves better (year-round) coverage in the local
print media. And while I am a big Sox fan, the Olde Towne Team gets
enough coverage IMO.
Schaeffer
Jim vh
says...
> be provocateur. He blows with the prevailing winds a lot. I noticed
> that Tom Curran is now on th Pats beat for the Projo what I can't find
> out is whether Ed Duckworth has been taken off it or if he is just doing
> other things until camp starts. I have argued here before that I think
i think duckworth retired.
--
Jim vh
hytem
The Patriots get off easy.
"Kent Thaler" <kmth...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:3CCEF3FF...@aol.com...
Albob
I'm not a big Curran guy, his bledsoe piece was alright, but the majority of
his articles are just plain. He's a less bombastic Felger, only he makes
weird silly remarks in simple beat stories. Take today when he was
reporting about Victor Green, he managed to sneak in a jab at Drew Bledsoe
at the beginning, totally unrelated and unnecessary. Frankly I think Curran
is riding the high of his Drew Bledsoe piece he wrote for the Metrowest
Daily News. He's moved on to the ProJo(an upgrade) and he's been a frequent
guest host of the big show(because the big show is running out of guest
hosts). Donaldson hasn't written anything I've noticed.
Sean McAdam should replace Gordon Edes as the head redsox guy for the globe.
I think the coverage of the Patriots will improve as time goes on. The Red
Sox have decades of history while the Patriots went through a
renasannace(mispelled) in 1993. I mean sox fans can talk about any season
dating back to ted williams, yet if a hardcore patriots fan mentions John
Hannah or Mike Haynes the new Patriots fan(like me) would do a collective
huh?
The Superbowl win will definetely up the support and viewership of the
patriots, but its gonna take a long time for the Patriots to top the Red
Sox.
Case in Point, 32,000 people sat through a freezing rain to watch the Red
Sox lose to the Orioles.
lets see the Pats top that.
Albob
crunge
> patriots, but its gonna take a long time for the Patriots to top the Red
> Sox.
>
> Case in Point, 32,000 people sat through a freezing rain to watch the Red
> Sox lose to the Orioles.
>
> lets see the Pats top that.
You may have touched a nerve there, but regardless, you're probably
right. But the SB win has probably propelled the Pats into the #2
position, safely ahead of the Celtics and Bruins, who haven't done a
thing in years.
>
> Albob
KMTHALER
<<
You mean what they do TO the Sox.
The Patriots get off easy.
>>
I totally disagree. I think the Boston Media...atleast the 5 beat writers are
incrediably fair to the Sox. Your big gripe should be witht eh self proclaimed
armchair GM's like Shaughnessy, Ryan, Dolaldson, Callahan, Buckley and Cafardo
who are not on the beat but who fill column space opining on things they know
nothing about. I think McAdam, Katzner, Mazerotti, Eades and whoever the fifth
actual beat writer is...his name escapes me...are all excellent. They all are
pretty fair to the players and the team. They have a good grasp of
baseball...of course it differs with the majority of so called experts who
populate the Sox NG but that is a good thing becuae most of them do not
understand the game or they would fully understand why Sanchez is a far better
choice to play second every day than Offerman. m Personally I think McAdam is
the best of the bunch. Actually I would argue he is the best beat writer of
anyone on any sport in the Boston market.
Getting back to football for a second...I think the real problem with upgrading
coverage is not much happens every day. TOm Curran for all his faults has been
doing a pretty good job this year of atleast getting something into the paper
semi regularly this offseason. Last year Ed Duckworth was not heard from
January until the draft and then after 2 weeks we heard nothing until camp
opened. The Globe guys were a little better. I am not sure how the papers
could expand their coverage when no info comes out. It is a catch 22. Blame
some of that ont he coach.
Kent Thaler
Section 119
Commissioner all things UPUFF....email me for more details.
Albob
boston sport fans. The Superbowl moved the Pats to 1A. If the Sox stink
this year they could take over.
Albob
"crunge" <arat...@it.com> wrote in message news:3CCF9E...@it.com...
Schaeffer
http://search.boston.com/dailyglobe2/110/sports/Forecast_is_right_on_the_money+.shtml
exerpted from a column:
By Will McDonough, Globe Staff, 4/20/2002
Sox win again
Don't know about you, but this surprises me. The Red Sox are still the
most popular team in Boston, according to the latest ESPN poll, done
by TNS Intersearch. A year ago, the Boston teams ranked in popularity
with the local fans like this:
Red Sox - 28.2
Patriots - 12.6
Bruins - 7.8
Celtics - 6.1
Now, it reads this way:
Red Sox - 24.7
Patriots - 20.4
Bruins - 7.9
Celtics - 6.2
After the Patriots won the Super Bowl and became the toast of the
town, I thought they would be top dogs by far. Guess the Sox tradition
is hard to overcome.
Beezer
news:30fd62d6.02050...@posting.google.com...
>
> After the Patriots won the Super Bowl and became the toast of the
> town, I thought they would be top dogs by far. Guess the Sox tradition
> is hard to overcome.
Well, Boston is a baseball town, pure and simple, and has been for 35 years
now. I think the drama of the Sox' futility actually adds to their
popularity. I predict that if they ever do win a World Series, there will
be an spike in people being interested in them, but after that initial
spike, they will drop down.
KMTHALER
<<
Well, Boston is a baseball town, pure and simple, and has been for 35 years
now. I think the drama of the Sox' futility actually adds to their
popularity. I predict that if they ever do win a World Series, there will
be an spike in people being interested in them, but after that initial
spike, they will drop down.>>
35 years? Boston has been a baseball town since 1906 and Cy Young. The Bruins
were always the other team in the 40's, 50's and 60's. The Celtics and
Patriots did not exist on the radar until 1956 in the case of the Celtics and
1961 in the case of the Pats.
Boston will always be a baseball town as long as the ball park is downtown and
the season is 162 games. Baseball is part of the social fabric of the
community in the summer. Football is an event...baseball is a life style.
That is the real difference.
Beezer
news:20020502141152...@mb-dh.aol.com...
>
> 35 years? Boston has been a baseball town since 1906 and Cy Young. The
Bruins
> were always the other team in the 40's, 50's and 60's. The Celtics and
> Patriots did not exist on the radar until 1956 in the case of the Celtics
and
> 1961 in the case of the Pats.
Well, not having been around in the early 60's I can not personally attest
to this, but from what I understand baseball in Boston was a dead sport for
several years leading up to the Impossible Dream Team of 1967. 5,000 people
in attendance during the early 60's was not terribly uncommon.
> Boston will always be a baseball town as long as the ball park is downtown
and
> the season is 162 games. Baseball is part of the social fabric of the
> community in the summer. Football is an event...baseball is a life style.
> That is the real difference.
Unless baseball as a league gets its act together, that is going to change.
I would be surprised if there was no labor unrest sometime within this year
or next year.
KMTHALER
<<
Well, not having been around in the early 60's I can not personally attest
to this, but from what I understand baseball in Boston was a dead sport for
several years leading up to the Impossible Dream Team of 1967. 5,000 people
in attendance during the early 60's was not terribly uncommon.>>
- Yes but that is not the whole story. At the same time the Celtics won 11
championships in 13 years and were having problems drawing 3000 people a night
during the playoffs. The Bruins were also having problems drawing. It was an
odd time in Boston sports. Boston has always been a baseball town. My
grandfather always talked about his days at the ball park...the other sports
were afterthoughts to him...almost on a level below in terms of importance.
Many oldtimers talk this way.
> Boston will always be a baseball town as long as the ball park is downtown
and
> the season is 162 games. Baseball is part of the social fabric of the
> community in the summer. Football is an event...baseball is a life style.
> That is the real difference.
<<Unless baseball as a league gets its act together, that is going to change.
I would be surprised if there was no labor unrest sometime within this year
or next year.>>
- They said the same thing in 1994. Whereas I totally agree with you there
will be a work stoppage because both sides are intent on wreaking havok witht
eh financial aspect of the game...when they play the Sox will always be number
1 int he hearts and minds of fans...and if they are winning...it is not even
close.
PhilW1776
>Beezer wrote:
>Well, not having been around in the early 60's I can not personally attest
>to this, but from what I understand baseball in Boston was a dead sport for
>several years leading up to the Impossible Dream Team of 1967. 5,000 people
>in attendance during the early 60's was not terribly uncommon.>>
>
>- Yes but that is not the whole story. At the same time the Celtics won 11
>championships in 13 years and were having problems drawing 3000 people a
>night
>during the playoffs. The Bruins were also having problems drawing.
Kent, you are (again!) wrong here. Completely wrong. My Dad got me tix and I
went to those Celts playoff games in the 60s. Johnny Most was famous for his
13909 call. The games were packed to the rafters. Keyword being PLAYOFF
games. But yes, this IS a loser beesball town for some stupid reason.
-philw
Beezer
>
> - They said the same thing in 1994. Whereas I totally agree with you
there
> will be a work stoppage because both sides are intent on wreaking havok
witht
> eh financial aspect of the game...when they play the Sox will always be
number
> 1 int he hearts and minds of fans...and if they are winning...it is not
even
> close.
Well, "they" might have but I did not, so that does little to refute my
opinion. I am not disagreeing that Boston is a baseball town, and the Sox
are first in the minds of Bostonians, but I think as a league MLB overall is
going to suffer tremendously if there is another major work stoppage -
"major" being defined as another missed World Series or several months of no
games.
Paul Dalrymple
> >Beezer wrote:
> >Well, not having been around in the early 60's I can not personally
> >attest
> >to this, but from what I understand baseball in Boston was a dead sport
> >for
> >several years leading up to the Impossible Dream Team of 1967. 5,000
> >people
> >in attendance during the early 60's was not terribly uncommon.>>
> >
> >- Yes but that is not the whole story. At the same time the Celtics won
> >11
> >championships in 13 years and were having problems drawing 3000 people a
> >night
> >during the playoffs. The Bruins were also having problems drawing.
PhilW1776 replied:
> Kent, you are (again!) wrong here. Completely wrong. My Dad got me tix
> and I
> went to those Celts playoff games in the 60s. Johnny Most was famous for
> his
> 13909 call. The games were packed to the rafters. Keyword being PLAYOFF
> games. But yes, this IS a loser beesball town for some stupid reason.
One explanation/point I haven't seen mentioned: The Sox have little
competition from mid-June until Labor Day. (With the lousy play of the
Pats from about 1988-93, thru Sept.- and for the past 10 years, it
*started* sooner b/c of the B's & C's not going far in the playoffs)
Summer & baseball just go together- synonymous?
J Lark
I once thought that as well, and leaving Fenway would likely
deteriorate their attraction as well, but what it really comes down to
is that New England is a terrible football region. You'd have to go
to some completely sports-indifferent area of the country to find a
worse football town. Even then I'm not so sure. Los Angeles still
has UCLA and USC in the vicinity. Atlanta is split between Georgia
and Georgia Tech (some think the Falcons turned off half their
potential fans by choosing Georgia's colors without any of Tech's).
The only true Div IA football program in all of New England has been
Boston College, and they weren't a draw until Flutie showed up in the
early 80s. Boston, I'm fairly certain, has lost more professional
football teams than any other city in the nation. I can't even
remember them all, but there was the NFL Bulldogs, the AFL Bulldogs,
the AFL Bears, the Shamrocks (who actually won a championship, sort
of), the Braves (now the Washington Redskins). Boston managed to lose
its USFL team to Portland in the brief time that league existed. The
area's lost all of its (3?) Arena teams within a season. Providence
lost its NFL team, the Steamroller (no, not "Steamrollers," just the
one roller). And then there's the Patriots, who should have left this
area on at least 4 separate occassions and were thrice saved by the
irrational grace of Kraft.
Meanwhile, New England leads the country in professional soccer
attendence every damn year, despite fielding the MLS's equivalent of
the LA Clippers. That's embarassing. The local kids grow up playing
soccer, and the better athletes, particularly in the suburbs, stick
with it over football. Then they grow up and try to be Patriots fans,
and it's no wonder that they don't know what the hell they're talking
about when they discuss football. Not as bad as Padres fans who boo
sacrifice flies before the scoreboard changes, but still pretty bad.
The sad, shameful truth is that Dolphins fans are more knowledgeable
than Patriots fans (excluding the respective newsgroup crowds,
obviously). Not the New Yorkers though. They don't even have a
Boston College. The only thing that saves them from Padre-dom is that
they had a solid franchise in the Giants starting not too far removed
from the NFL's primordial days. Until they moved to Jersey.
It would take years of winning for Boston to become a football town,
and the way the modern NFL works that's just not going to happen. The
Red Sox aren't invulnerable though. They've got the new soccer to
deal with: lacrosse. The local kids with athletic talent don't play
football or baseball anymore. They play soccer and lacrosse. I
wouldn't be surprised if 20 years from now, they all grow up to be
Bruins fans, since all those games are variations on the same basic
concept.
Schaeffer
>
> "Boston, I'm fairly certain, has lost more professional
> football teams than any other city in the nation. I can't even
> remember them all, but there was the NFL Bulldogs, the AFL Bulldogs,
> the AFL Bears, the Shamrocks (who actually won a championship, sort
> of), the Braves (now the Washington Redskins). Boston managed to lose
> its USFL team to Portland in the brief time that league existed."
:) I was wearing one of my vintage Boston Breakers t-shirts at my
brother's BBQ last weekend!
And you're right in that I've had friends and family members spend
some time in Texas, and many of them would attend high school games on
Friday nights, because that's what you do down there. The level of
enthusiasm is worlds apart from New England.
BTW, the passage;
"After the Patriots won the Super Bowl and became the toast of the
town, I thought they would be top dogs by far. Guess the Sox tradition
is hard to overcome."
...that has been attributed to me (and responded to) in this thread
was part of Will McDonough's article. I guess that I didn't make
ownership clear enough.
I myself was not surprised to see that the (ahem) poll showed the
historically erstwhile BoSox with a healthy lead over the other "Big"
sports teams in the region. For me, Red Sox = Spring/Summer, school's
out, short skirts kinda fun. And, baseball is radio friendly. I can
enjoy a baseball tilt on the radio on a lazy summer day. Listening to
hockey, football, or basketball on the radio is not nearly as
satisfying (to me). I do often listen to Gil and Gino with the sound
down on the tube, as I used to with Johnny Most Celtics broadcasts,
but radio alone doesn't cut it. Perhaps it's due to my lack of
imagination, ...though, I doubt it. The draw and charm of Fenway in
downtown Boston doesn't hurt either. The seats may be awfully tight,
(unless you're in the bleachers, but even then, I swear, the inches of
rented "property" is less than a Pats ticket at (RIP) Foxboro would
have got ya), but they beat the aluminum benches at
Schaeffer/Sullivan/Foxborough all to heck. Looking out on the field
at Fenway is positively pastoral. Perhaps people's experiences at the
newly minted CMGI Field will have a tiny impact on those poll numbers.
Schaeffer
Greg Zook
"J Lark" <jelar...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:2a3d56ba.0205...@posting.google.com...
Actually, the Breakers went to New Orleans before Portland. Not that that
matters much. They failed to sell out a single game in any city. Portland
had a relatively tiny baseball park that they couldn't even fill with half
the seats being comps.
hytem
because of higher TV ratings.
The Patriots' success has had a big impact in Boston,
and will affect their future coverage.
The Super Bowl is now bigger than the World Series.
"KMTHALER" <kmth...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:20020502141152...@mb-dh.aol.com...