Anyone else cheering for the O's to lose?

[BigDawg819]

Wait a second, don't bring the Stallions in to this. The owner of the Stallions left for no other reason than we got the Ravens. He made that perfectly clear. It was a pragmatic, and correct, decision, and there was absolutely no ill will there.

Yes there is no ill will, but I blame them for making me watch and understand CFL football....

[RShack]

Maybe you can then explain the steady decline in attendance which preceded the Nats arrival by seven years?

I don't think 2million+ attendance for a next-to-last-place team is fickle... I don't think that a decline in attendance over an extended period of losing is fickle, it's just natural behavior for a large-ish fan base...

Do you really think it's fickle?

[BigDawg819]

I don't think 2million+ attendance for a next-to-last-place team is fickle... I don't think that a decline in attendance over an extended period of losing is fickle, it's just natural behavior for a large-ish fan base...

Do you really think it's fickle?

Fickle - likely to change, esp. due to caprice, irresolution, or instability; casually changeable

That basically describes the typical Baltimore sports fan, when the team is winning its all good, when its losing the fans stray. Just wait until the Ravens hit a rough couple of years, you'll see the fans turn on them as well....

[TonySoprano]

I don't think 2million+ attendance for a next-to-last-place team is fickle... I don't think that a decline in attendance over an extended period of losing is fickle, it's just natural behavior for a large-ish fan base...

Do you really think it's fickle?

They came out in 1997 when the team was winning, 3.7 million strong. Last year's number was 42% below that. You acknowledge the place in the standings, but don't think it's fickle. If attendance was down 42% across the league then, perhaps, I would agree with you. But attendance isn't down, so yes, I do think it's fickle, and understandable as well. Going back to your original premise, if anything the fans "here" are less fickle, because they still care enough about the team to discuss it.

main Entry: fick·le

Pronunciation: 'fi-k&l

Function: adjective

Etymology: Middle English fikel deceitful, inconstant, from Old English ficol deceitful; akin to Old English befician to deceive, and probably to Old English fAh hostile -- more at FOE

: marked by lack of steadfastness, constancy, or stability : given to erratic changeableness

[The Wedge]

Are we discussing the semantics of fickle?

Personally, I don't think of fans not buying tickets to a perenially losing teams games as "fickle." Fickle to me would be a sharp decrease in attendance after a winning season when the team goes 4-6 opening up.

[BigDawg819]

Are we discussing the semantics of fickle?

Yes unfortunately we are because I made a post on a theory that defies the norm.

[The Wedge]

Yes unfortunately we are because I made a post on a theory that defies the norm.

Not so much that you defied "the norm" as that you made a broad blanket statement that didn't show an understanding of the historical events.

[BigDawg819]

Not so much that you defied "the norm" as that you made a broad blanket statement that didn't show an understanding of the historical events.

No I suggested a theory that inflames people's passions and they insist on discrediting said theory. Instead of trying to look at it objectively, because maybe then you would see that the theory holds merit.......

[rolliefingers]

Wait a second, don't bring the Stallions in to this.

Yeah, lay off me and my frien...oh, sorry.

[The Wedge]

No I suggested a theory that inflames people's passions and they insist on discrediting said theory. Instead of trying to look at it objectively, because maybe then you would see that the theory holds merit.......

Theoretically, yes, it holds merit, but not in historical context. The actual events don't match the theory in regards to the Colts leaving town. The Bullets leaving seemed to be more of a match, but from what I've read and heard, the town never really got behind the Bullets from the word go. The Skipjacks and Bayhawks also never built a solid enough fan base and probably suffered more from the city not caring enough about hockey or pro lacrosse.

[BigDawg819]

Theoretically, yes, it holds merit, but not in historical context. The actual events don't match the theory in regards to the Colts leaving town. The Bullets leaving seemed to be more of a match, but from what I've read and heard, the town never really got behind the Bullets from the word go. The Skipjacks and Bayhawks also never built a solid enough fan base and probably suffered more from the city not caring enough about hockey or pro lacrosse.

Again the basis of the theory is not solely on the Colts, despite what all the dissenters seem to think and harp on. They are merely a portion of the equation, I feel like a broken record, and believe it or not dwindling attendance is a concern for owners. That was one of numerous red flags that was cause for concern for Irsay.......

[RShack]

The Bullets leaving seemed to be more of a match, but from what I've read and heard, the town never really got behind the Bullets from the word go.

The Bullets had the misfortune to play downtown during an era in which many, many people did not want to go downtown under any circumstances. The inner harbor was a bunch of ratty piers and warehouses, and the only new thing downtown was Charles Center. Partially as a result of widespread public aversion to anything downtown, the Bullets never acquired a major fan base and therefore never had the chance to lose that fan base, simple because they never had it to begin with...

[The Wedge]

Again the basis of the theory is not solely on the Colts, despite what all the dissenters seem to think and harp on. They are merely a portion of the equation, I feel like a broken record, and believe it or not dwindling attendance is a concern for owners. That was one of numerous red flags that was cause for concern for Irsay.......

I clearly addressed other franchises you brought up.

And Irsay would have found a way to leave either way. He was going to move the team, period. I wouldn't be surprised if he didn't Rachel Phelps the team in order to do so. And when the city and state starting taking concise action to block the move, and amidst numerous proclamations that he wasn't going anywhere, he packed up the trucks and moved before the city could stop him.

[The Wedge]

The Bullets had the misfortune to play downtown during an era in which many, many people did not want to go downtown under any circumstances. The inner harbor was a bunch of ratty piers and warehouses, and the only new thing downtown was Charles Center. Partially as a result of widespread public aversion to anything downtown, the Bullets never acquired a major fan base and therefore never had the chance to lose that fan base, simple because they never had it to begin with...

Yeah, that's pretty much what I was alluding to, albeit worded a tad poorly.

[BigDawg819]

I clearly addressed other franchises you brought up.

And Irsay would have found a way to leave either way. He was going to move the team, period. I wouldn't be surprised if he didn't Rachel Phelps the team in order to do so. And when the city and state starting taking concise action to block the move, and amidst numerous proclamations that he wasn't going anywhere, he packed up the trucks and moved before the city could stop him.

I'm not going to keep beating this dead horse with you, its pointless. Trying to convince someone in Baltimore that maybe, just maybe Irsay isn't the devil is like trying to someone from Brooklyn that O'Malley isn't the devil.

You keep proclaiming that Irsay would have found a way regardless, are you now psychic? Since its come to hypotheticals I'll play along; Would he have left if attendance was strong and the fans and the city officials were behind a new stadium?