HFBoards

Go Back   HFBoards > NHL Eastern Conference > Metropolitan Division > New York Rangers
Mobile Hockey's Future Become a Sponsor Site Rules Support Forum vBookie Page 2
Notices

Is NYC more Rangers or Knicks?

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old
03-08-2011, 12:15 PM
  #126
Balej20*
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: New York
Country: United States
Posts: 11,045
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by patnyrnyg View Post
First off, not sure that is true. Secondly if it is, that was 54 years of waiting. If the Jets ever win a Super Bowl, their parade would blow away any of the previous parades. Wouldn't mean they were more popular than the Giants or Yankees.
I bring facts to the table, you bring speculation. It doesn't work.

Balej20* is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
03-08-2011, 12:22 PM
  #127
patnyrnyg
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Posts: 4,687
vCash: 500
Well, what is your source for the facts you brought to the table. I remember watching the parade (LIRR was on strike, so I couldn't go) and them saying they didn't expect this crowd to be nearly as big as what they had for the 86 Mets, which was the last championship parade before that. Remember, in 86 Koch would not give the Giants a parade and in 90 it never came up.

patnyrnyg is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
03-08-2011, 12:23 PM
  #128
Ruotsalainen29
Zhoo-Zhitsu!
 
Ruotsalainen29's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: NJ
Country: United States
Posts: 790
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Balej20 View Post
I bring facts to the table, you bring speculation. It doesn't work.
Not even remotely close. I was at the Rangers parade in '94 and many of the Yankees parades. The estimate for the Rangers parade was 1.5 million. The estimate for the 2009 Yankees parade was about 3 million. You could actually walk down the side streets for the Rangers parade. You had to be in a spot on Broadway by 5 AM to even get close in 2009.

Ruotsalainen29 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
03-08-2011, 12:29 PM
  #129
patnyrnyg
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Posts: 4,687
vCash: 500
Here is an article talking about the amount of paper cleaned up by the NYC Sanitation Department.

http://cityroom.blogs.nytimes.com/20...-they-used-to/

Seems like a lot less was thrown for the Rangers than any of the other championship parades. 578 tons for the 69 Mets vs 20.5 tons for the Rangers? Not sure how that equates in terms of people, but if you have sources, feel free to post.

patnyrnyg is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
03-08-2011, 12:46 PM
  #130
Ruotsalainen29
Zhoo-Zhitsu!
 
Ruotsalainen29's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: NJ
Country: United States
Posts: 790
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by patnyrnyg View Post
Here is an article talking about the amount of paper cleaned up by the NYC Sanitation Department.

http://cityroom.blogs.nytimes.com/20...-they-used-to/

Seems like a lot less was thrown for the Rangers than any of the other championship parades. 578 tons for the 69 Mets vs 20.5 tons for the Rangers? Not sure how that equates in terms of people, but if you have sources, feel free to post.

This link states 1996 and 1998 Yanks parades were estimated at 3.5 million people

http://www.usatoday.com/sports/baseb...lay/wsfs52.htm


This link from the Rangers site says that the '94 parade was "over 1 million".

http://rangers.nhl.com/club/news.htm?id=493985

Ruotsalainen29 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
03-08-2011, 01:02 PM
  #131
WhipNash27
Quattro!!
 
WhipNash27's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Westchester, NY
Country: United States
Posts: 15,532
vCash: 500
Maybe the Rangers parade was the biggest at the time?

WhipNash27 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
03-08-2011, 01:03 PM
  #132
Kane One
Global Moderator
🚨🚨🚨🚨🚨🚨🚨🚨
 
Kane One's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: Brooklyn, New NY
Country: United States
Posts: 28,252
vCash: 1500
The Knicks are definitely more popular. Who cares though? Just because the Knicks are more popular, doesn't mean they have better fans. That also doesn't mean they have more fans. Most of the Knicks "fans" just hopped onto their bandwagon because they got Carmelo and Amare Stoudemire. I much rather have the same amount of fans we do now, who are more loyal and just plain better than the whole bandwagon from the Knicks.

__________________
Kane One is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
03-08-2011, 01:04 PM
  #133
NYRFAN218
Mac Truck
 
NYRFAN218's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: Brooklyn, NY
Country: United States
Posts: 12,052
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by DubiSnacks17 View Post
Maybe the Rangers parade was the biggest at the time?
Maybe but I know for a fact that the 09 Yankee parade beat the NYR parade and it looks like the 96 and 98 Yankee parades did as well. No idea what the Giant parade in 08 did.

NYRFAN218 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
03-08-2011, 02:13 PM
  #134
BroadwayBlues
oxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxo
 
BroadwayBlues's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: New York City
Country: United States
Posts: 8,039
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by patnyrnyg View Post
You do not have to be a dynasty to get front-runners. When they are good, they are the hottest ticket in town. When they are bad, most abandon them and start to watch the better teams. Then, they get some better players and everyone is back to loving the Knicks. It is the definition of band-wagon.
You can say this for ALL teams. At least in NY. Including the Rangers.
Sorry but MSG is not sold out for every Ranger game. Maybe the tickets are sold? But there are plenty of Ranger games where you can see the seat color.

With the ticket prices in NY for all the teams, you can't expect fans to pay to see a poor product.
MSG, YS and CF, aren't going to be sold out when the product is bad. Doesn't mean the fan bases aren't die hard.

Only football (for the most part) sells out when the product isn't good.



Maybe not you but others saying there are bandwagon Knick fans. I get the idea you're mistaken, how now boisterous Knick fans are. Ones that want to talk about about the team and it's potential, fans that have been depressed for 10 years and wasn't interested in talking about them, with bandwagon.

That's not a bandwagon fan.

Bandwagon is someone who's NEVER been a fan of the team and now that the team is good they're fans.

BroadwayBlues is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
03-08-2011, 02:37 PM
  #135
NYRFAN218
Mac Truck
 
NYRFAN218's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: Brooklyn, NY
Country: United States
Posts: 12,052
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by BroadwayBlues View Post
You can say this for ALL teams. At least in NY. Including the Rangers.
Sorry but MSG is not sold out for every Ranger game. Maybe the tickets are sold? But there are plenty of Ranger games where you can see the seat color.

With the ticket prices in NY for all the teams, you can't expect fans to pay to see a poor product.
MSG, YS and CF, aren't going to be sold out when the product is bad. Doesn't mean the fan bases aren't die hard.

Only football (for the most part) sells out when the product isn't good.



Maybe not you but others saying there are bandwagon Knick fans. I get the idea you're mistaken, how now boisterous Knick fans are. Ones that want to talk about about the team and it's potential, fans that have been depressed for 10 years and wasn't interested in talking about them, with bandwagon.

That's not a bandwagon fan.

Bandwagon is someone who's NEVER been a fan of the team and now that the team is good they're fans.
And those bandwagon fans exist today. It's the same people that only come out every October for the Yankees. I can't say I knew one person that claimed they were a Knick fan before this year. Now every direction I look, people either have a Melo, Amar'e, or Fields shirt.

Don't get me wrong, there are diehard Knick fans. There are diehards for every team in this area. And I also get that everyone is excited for this team which is why they're a hot ticket. Hell, I'm interested in the Knicks and I don't consider myself a fan. It just seems that there are an extraordinary amount of people that are Knick fans all of a sudden meanwhile these people couldn't tell you who Isiah Thomas is or name the last time the Knicks won a title. It's these same people that had Melo pictures in Knick #15 jerseys before he became a Knick. Diehard Knick fans I see.

NYRFAN218 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
03-08-2011, 02:41 PM
  #136
FutureGM97
Registered User
 
FutureGM97's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Connecticut, USA
Country: United States
Posts: 6,832
vCash: 500
Send a message via AIM to FutureGM97
As much as we all love the Rangers, hockey will always take a back seat to basketball and baseball in this town. If the Knicks ever win another championship in the next few years, their parade will be ridiculous.

FutureGM97 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
03-08-2011, 03:10 PM
  #137
Darrelle Lundqvist
Swagelin
 
Darrelle Lundqvist's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Location: NJ
Country: United States
Posts: 1,781
vCash: 500
This year I thought that since the Knicks became competitive, the city was leaning towards them, and after the whole Melo ordeal this is clearly a Knicks city.

Darrelle Lundqvist is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
03-08-2011, 03:43 PM
  #138
BroadwayBlues
oxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxo
 
BroadwayBlues's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: New York City
Country: United States
Posts: 8,039
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by NYRFAN218 View Post
And those bandwagon fans exist today. It's the same people that only come out every October for the Yankees. I can't say I knew one person that claimed they were a Knick fan before this year. Now every direction I look, people either have a Melo, Amar'e, or Fields shirt.

Don't get me wrong, there are diehard Knick fans. There are diehards for every team in this area. And I also get that everyone is excited for this team which is why they're a hot ticket. Hell, I'm interested in the Knicks and I don't consider myself a fan. It just seems that there are an extraordinary amount of people that are Knick fans all of a sudden meanwhile these people couldn't tell you who Isiah Thomas is or name the last time the Knicks won a title. It's these same people that had Melo pictures in Knick #15 jerseys before he became a Knick. Diehard Knick fans I see.

I haven't seen or heard them. Maybe they were casual NBA fans that didn't have a team but decided to become Knick a fan now? That would be my best guess.

The Knicks have always had a large fan base. It's the one team that most New Yorkers who like basketball, all root for. No one cares about the Nets. They're literally irrelevant. Every other team/sport there's a split.

I think what some are mistaken as bandwagon/front-runner is actually the evolution of a team coming from bad to good, therefore the fans becoming more talkative, out and about.


This shows on talk radio. Guys like Joe Benigo, Steven A Smith, Brandon Tierney and Jodi McDonald, have always been Knick fans. They haven't talked about the Knicks much in previous years because there was nothing to really talk about. Unless you had the energy to continuously discuss Isiah Thomas, Scott Laydan and how Dolan needs to sell the team.

I would compare this situation to the Pirates. The Pirates haven't won in decades. Pittsburgh is actually a great baseball town. But it hasn't been one in awhile.
There are Pirate fans out there though. They're in hiding. If they all of a sudden acquired Albert Pujols, added a couple of good ML established pitchers, and were on the cusp of being title contenders, but now PNC is a hot ticket when it wasn't before and the Pirates are now getting discussed on talk radio.....
Does that mean the Pirates have bandwagon fans? No, it means the fan base knows now that the team has an respectable product on the field, so they will come out and see that product.

If you build it they will come....


I'm sure right now on the streets of Pittsburgh you can't find any Pirates gear. Maybe a couple here and there.
I bet it's all Crosby, Malkin, Rothlisberger, Polamalu...

BroadwayBlues is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
03-08-2011, 04:15 PM
  #139
BlueshirtBlitz
Rich Nash
 
BlueshirtBlitz's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: New York
Posts: 18,869
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by BroadwayBlues View Post
Are you confusing actual Knick fans that didn't go to games (with outrageous ticket prices, who would blame them) when the team was atrocious, as front-runners?
If so that's kind of dumb. All those Knick fans that was in Phillips Arena aren't bandwagon fans. Instead they're transplanted New Yorkers. Even when the Knicks were bad I've seen plenty of Knick fans in that arena. And in other arenas. Like Miami.

Basketball is a bandwagon sport because it's more popular than hockey. If hockey was popular in the U.S, it would be the same.
Also take into account that since basketball is a star driven sport. I think fans just like to wear the popular player's jersey. Kobe, Lebron, Wade. So in essence, those fans become "fans" of that team. Which they may not really be fans of but they root for that popular player.
When Lebron was on the Cavs, there was a ridiculous amount of "Cav fans" at MSG. What I suspected at the time was they weren't really Cav fans but Lebron fans.
Looks like I was right because they were no where to found last Friday at MSG. lol

I also don't see any evidence that Laker and Celtic fans in NY are now Knick fans.
The Knicks haven't won anything. Last I checked, those teams are still good and title contenders. So why would their "fans" become Knick fans now?
No, I'M a Knicks fan who didn't watch the Knicks or go to the games because Isiah took a **** on the franchise. I know plenty of people who suddenly bandwagon the Knicks, after years of dealing with them talking about how great the Celtics and Lakers were and how "there team" was going to win it all.

I had to deal with it after Superbowl 42 as well. Suddenly Giants fans were popping up and, I **** you not, I had to defend my love of Mike Strahan from people who would argue "he's old and average at best." Bandwagoners everywhere.

I know it's just personal experiences, but the "fans" became Knicks fans because they were never actually fans in the first place. I agree that a lot of it becomes being a fan of a player, but you don't think that's just as frontrunning when you neglect years of following that player and start following the Knicks as "your" team? I personally do.

I just don't think the same kind of flip-flopping between fanbases would happen in Hockey even if it was the number 1 sport. I don't know a single Penguins fan in NY because of Crysby. The farthest that goes in my experience is chicks who follow teams like the Nucks because of Kesler, or the Caps because of Ovy. I know tons of people in my school who are so-called Celtics or Lakers fans.

BlueshirtBlitz is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
03-09-2011, 01:15 AM
  #140
SRTtoZ
Registered User
 
SRTtoZ's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: New York, NY
Country: United States
Posts: 5,304
vCash: 500
Right now the way things are, I am more of a Knicks person than a Rangers person...But I love both badly. But its no secret that basketball is a more popular sport in America, especially when you play at the Garden. I mean cmon...outside MSG what do we have? Fricken VERSUS.

SRTtoZ is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
03-09-2011, 01:29 AM
  #141
GregNYR19
agitator
 
GregNYR19's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: Fair Lawn, NJ
Country: United States
Posts: 1,059
vCash: 500
Send a message via AIM to GregNYR19
im selfish and i dont care i see the garden as an ice rink. manhattan has 2 teams, rangers and knicks. the yankees are in the bronx and the mets are in queens. the isles, well long island and soon the nets will be in brooklyn. the giants/jets are in NJ. geographically obviously. im a huge hockey fan so i could care less because a lot of the people around here are casual fans and are idiots anyway. the garden is pretty full every night for rangers games anyway.

nyc will always be more knicks because basketball is easier to follow AND the idea of hockey being "foreign". thats just the way it goes. i root for the underdog and hockey is the underdog. i dont want casual fans to tarnish it anyway.

GregNYR19 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
03-09-2011, 01:48 AM
  #142
mucker*
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: Let's Be Safe!
Posts: 3,082
vCash: 500
Oh I'd like to comment to on the Knicks having fans in Atlanta.

The NBA is much different than the NHL.
You need a few stars and you are set in the NBA, not so in the NHL.
The Knicks right now have two superstars.
They also have a monopoly on all of NYC NBA fans.

This is where the Knicks have it much easier than the Rangers.
Us Ranger fans, well we have a much more divided NHL base.
See, the NBA is an urban game, with an urban fanbase.
Well in NYC, there is ONE team,

The NHL is known to be base that springs from the suburbs in any market.
Problem for us Ranger fans? Long Island and New Jersey are major suburbs with big hockey grassroots. However, people there are very much divided between the Rangers/Isles and Rangers/Devils.
Thus us Ranger fans DO NOT HAVE THE UNITY for NHL fans in the region like the Knicks do.
In baseball, the guy in Queens roots for the Mets, the one in the Bronx the Yankees. However, they both root for the Knicks because there is no other team.

In hockey, well I'm guessing since the Queens and Bronx are ESL...hockey isn't that popular, and this is the case in pretty much every "urban" inner-city area in the USA.
No, hockey is built in the suburbs of Westchester/Long Island/New Jersey, and there you have it.
Our NHL fanbase is much more diluted than the local NBA fanbase due to the fact that we face TWO local teams as competition in traditional hockey areas (the suburbs), where the Knicks can market without competition in the goldmine of NBA fans...the urban inner city.

That said, I will make there claims:
1) I bet if you take out the inner city, and compare Westchester/Long Island/New Jersey and Connecticut, and ask which is more popular...the NBA/NHL...Rangers/Knicks...I am willing to bet the Rangers/NHL will BEAT the Knicks/NBA or it will be neck-and-neck.

2) The Knicks have a true superstar in Amare and Carmelo. The Rangers do not have a true superstar.
Hank and Gaborik are stars, not superstars.
I bet if we had two superstars, we'd be up there.

3) I recall the 90s...we were more popular than the Knicks.
Just like in Chicago, the Blackhawks have overtaken the Bulls.
If the Rangers were a true contender with stars, we'd take over this town.

mucker* is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
03-09-2011, 02:01 AM
  #143
mucker*
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: Let's Be Safe!
Posts: 3,082
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by 94Obsession View Post
Bottomline is this: this will ALWAYS be a Basketball town first and a Knicks town first. Even though I don't think there's not much of a big difference between the Rangers and Knicks fanbases. But thats my opinion, and it doesn't make it fact. If the Rangers were just great for years to come or even just competitive, or even just ::gasp:: win another Stanley Cup in our lifetime, it could be a Rangers town once again. Facts are facts, it's a Knicks town first, for now, until the Rangers do something great once again.

Hockey and the Rangers was on the verge of overtaking Basketball here or overall in 1994, but Gary Bettman decided to lock the players out and that was that.

This guy has been nothing but an absolute plague on the sport of Hockey, and has done so much harm to the sport, that I don't even know or think that people even realize just how much harm he's done.

So overall it's a Knicks town.

EDIT: Also there's no reason why Hockey can't compete with the NBA. Get a new commissioner that knows what he's doing, and maybe it will.
1) Hockey overtook the NBA/Knicks in the 90s. We had an enormous fanbase that was national even when we started stinking.
When we had Gretzky we were everywhere.

2) NYC is not a Knicks town. It's a baseball town. Then a football town. No city in America would choose basketball over football, NONE.
You just can't be a respectful sports town and like a gimmick league such as the NBA over the NFL.

Quote:
Originally Posted by gravytrain6t View Post
I don't hear anyone talking Knicks basketball out in Suffolk County. It's either football or Rangers/Isles hockey this time of year.
With far less traffic, I remember (growing up) kids playing just as much hockey in the streets than basketball.
And that's where it all boils down to. It's hard to grow up and enjoy playing hockey because (especially in the city) there's not enough room to play outdoors. With basketball, you only need 2 people (with just 1 ball and hoop) to have a game. For parents, the hockey equipment can get expensive, not to mention the fact they're at a higher risk of injury. Besides (kids) possibly having a chance to play the game in gym, I don't know of too many schools who offer JV and Varsity Ice Hockey on Long Island or any of the 5 boroughs.
Exactly. The NBA draws from the urban inner city, where the Knicks, for now, hold a monopoly.
However, hockey draws from the suburbs in the USA, which we have a divide with the Devils/Isles.
Go out to the suburbs, NHL > NBA.
Question should be, is the NY Tri-State are Knicks or Rangers beyond the inner city.


Last edited by mucker*: 03-09-2011 at 02:06 AM.
mucker* is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
03-09-2011, 02:06 AM
  #144
mucker*
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: Let's Be Safe!
Posts: 3,082
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by nyrmetros View Post
local tv ratings tell all.
No actually, they don't.
NY Rangers v NY Knicks ratings are artifically lower.
Why?
Several reasons.

1) The Rangers automatically get put on MSG Plus, MSG2 when they conflict with the Knicks. This makes it harder if not impossible for some viewers to see or know where Ranger games are (and some Cable servers do not carry these networks), lowering our ratings.
Also, many times we are confused on what channel the game is on.
Consider, if the Knicks are playing, we are on MSG Plus, unless the Knicks and Devils or Isles are playing, then we are on MSG2, confused?

2) The Rangers play the Devils 6 times and the Isles 6 times, this means that the Ranger fan sometimes is forced or can watch their team on multiple feeds, lowering ratings.
The Knicks have only one local team, the Nets, who they play 4 times.

3) The Knicks have only one local team, the Nets, who are very unpopular.
The Rangers compete with the Devils and Islanders.
Therefore, hockey in NY can not be just Rangers v Knicks.
You must combine Rangers, Devils, and Islanders and compare to Knicks/Nets, and you get a better (not perfect) ratings comparison.

mucker* is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
03-09-2011, 02:12 AM
  #145
mucker*
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: Let's Be Safe!
Posts: 3,082
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Stugots View Post
Facebook example:

when the Knicks landed Melo, every single person's status was like "OMG KNICKS GOT MELO OMGOMGOMG!"

If the Rangers land Richards this summer, I doubt I'd see anyone make it their status except for 3 or 4 of my friends and my brother who are all hardcore Ranger fans.
Brad Richards is a star, not a superstar.
This is the difference. The NBA is more like golf than being a team sport, because 1 player makes a huge difference.

The Rangers have two stars, Hank and Gaborik.
The Rangers have no superstars.

Remember how popular the Rangers were when they had Messier, and then Gretzky?
They owned NY, or at least held serve with the Knicks.

Now in the NHL, I'm guessing there might be 10 true superstars.
If the Rangers were trying to get 1 of those superstars, just imagine how big a deal it would be.
When the Knicks were going after the Eddie Currys of the world, they were no big deal...which is what Scott Gomez and Wade Redden were.

Just think what would happen if Steve Stamkos were to be rumored to become a Ranger?

Quote:
Originally Posted by BroadwayBlues View Post
You can say this for ALL teams. At least in NY. Including the Rangers.
Sorry but MSG is not sold out for every Ranger game. Maybe the tickets are sold? But there are plenty of Ranger games where you can see the seat color.
MSG is sold out nightly for Ranger games.
We had some empties at the start of the year, but from December onward it has been sold out, and for real.
I see hardly any empty seats, much less than recent years when we quietly had 150 game streak.

mucker* is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
03-09-2011, 02:16 AM
  #146
mucker*
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: Let's Be Safe!
Posts: 3,082
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by BroadwayBlues View Post
To piggy back off my a large part of basketball being popular because fans want to root for the star player etc...

Case in point: The Lakers are far far far far more popular than the Celtics. Am I right?
I mean I don't see nearly, hardly any Celtic fans in the opposing teams arena. Unless it's an arena close to Boston. MSG for ex. but even MSG isn't littered with Celtic fans the way it's littered with Laker fans whenever it's Lakers/Knicks.
When the Lakers are on the road like in Memphis, Texas, Minnesota, Charlotte, New Orleans. Their fans literally take over the building. Can't say the same about the Celtics.

Now why do the Lakers have seemingly so many more fans than the Celtics? Both franchises have won recently and have just about the same number of championships.
Could it be that they have the most popular player in the sport if not one of the top three best?
On the other hand the Celtics don't. Allen is great but he's not Kobe, Pierce is very good but he's not Lebron. Garnett is great but he's not Wade.

My my point? Many NBA fans tend to root for players. So it may seem that teams have bandwagon fans. When in actuality they're rooting for a specific player.
If Kobe was traded right now to the T'wolves, they would become popular not because they have great jersey's or they play in a nice city, it would be because of Kobe Bryant. You would have many "fans" buying number 8 T'wolves jersey's.

I know the Knicks will have a bandwagon fans when the Staples Center, Memphis, Oklahoma City, Houston, Chicago, is filled with Knick fans.
But I don't expect that because while the Knicks have 2 top 15 players, they don't have the most popular player on their team.
Wrong.
The Celtics are not as popular as the Lakers. However, the Celtics are defintely a national team with a following around the country, that is 2nd to the Lakers and superior to the Knicks.

When the Knicks are in Boston, there are no Knick fans.
When the Celtics are at MSG, they invade MSG moreso than any other Boston team.
Compare a Celtic game at MSG to a Bruin game at MSG, and you will see the difference is astonishing on how many more Celtic fans are here.

The Celtics regularly invade places like MSG, New Jersey, Philly, Washington, the sunbelt, and the west coast.
The Knicks?
Not like the Celtics, and only this year have the begun to have a real road presence, and frankly, it's not any better than when the Rangers are in Tampa/Florida.

My point?
1) The Knicks do not travel better than the Rangers, and if we had 2 superstars (or 2 of the top 15 players) we would easily outdraw the Knicks on the road.

2) The Celtics have the second best NBA fanbase and dominate the road like no other fanbase outside the Lakers do.

mucker* is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
03-09-2011, 03:50 AM
  #147
MaximusT
Registered User
 
MaximusT's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Posts: 975
vCash: 500
Lived on LI my entire life and moved to NYC last year to go to college here, so I don't have the input of some of the long time new yorkers .

Obviously the Rangers are behind all other major NY sports teams(from the top 3 other sports that is) including the Knicks for that matter. Especially this year now that the Knicks are somewhat decent and you see the amare/carmelo jerseys everywhere. But that makes it so much better when you see someone rocking the blue, especially if you have some gear on, you can easily be like "good game from Cally the other day" or something along those lines and more often then not they'll know what youre talking about and not just some dude trying to look cool. I'm glad the Rangers have a much more low-key following than the Giants or Yankes for example, but the fanbase is still so hardcore and loyal, even when the team can be substandard/mediocre .


I've been a huge fan for the majority of my life, but moving to the city has definitely made me care more about the team than in my entire time following them. It definitely inspires you when you pass the Garden every other day,see all the banners/**** and just being surrounded by this massive Ranger community. As opposed to LI where you have much less of a die hard following.

MaximusT is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
03-09-2011, 07:15 AM
  #148
patnyrnyg
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Posts: 4,687
vCash: 500
Still waiting for Balej20 to give us some proof for his so-called facts.

patnyrnyg is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
03-09-2011, 08:56 AM
  #149
SupersonicMonkey*
DROP THE PUCK
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: USA
Country: United States
Posts: 15,193
vCash: 500
The Americans were the first major pro team to play regularly at any MSG (MSG III).

The Rangers were the biggest draw when they were established in 1926. Their popularity due to instant success.

The Rangers were established 20 years before the Knicks. The knicks established in 1946.

So, you'd think that because New York has a longer history of professional hockey then Basketball, that hockey would be more popular.

Even the (football) Giants weren't around much longer then the Rangers, and not before the Americans. The Giants were established in 1925 I believe.

You'd also think that New York would be more partial to National League baseball, considering it has a longer history of the league then the American League. With the Dodgers and Giants.

But with the success of the Yankees, its obvious why they're so popular.

New York is a Yankees baseball town. Bar none, IMO.

Then comes the Giants.

Then Jets.

Then Mets.

Then Knicks.

Then Rangers.

Then Islanders.

Unfortunately, in this time era, hockey isn't the top of the popularity food chain.

However, I'd like to point out, that the sport of hockey existed over 5,000 years ago. Played as a form of hurley or field hockey in ancient cradles of civilization such as Egypt and Mesopotamia. And scarce evidence that the Vikings and others played forms of hockey on ice. So, you'd think it would be more popular overall.

Also, you'd think Soccer would be among the most popular pro sports in America, considering its one of, if not the, most popular major sport in the world. With the popularity and success of the Cosmos in New York in the 70's and 80's. We have an MLS team right here in Harrison NJ. The Red Bulls. But they're lower on the food chain then even the Islanders.

SupersonicMonkey* is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
03-09-2011, 10:20 AM
  #150
Marc Staal
 
Marc Staal's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Posts: 137
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by SupersonicMonkey View Post
The Americans were the first major pro team to play regularly at any MSG (MSG III).

The Rangers were the biggest draw when they were established in 1926. Their popularity due to instant success.

The Rangers were established 20 years before the Knicks. The knicks established in 1946.

So, you'd think that because New York has a longer history of professional hockey then Basketball, that hockey would be more popular.

Even the (football) Giants weren't around much longer then the Rangers, and not before the Americans. The Giants were established in 1925 I believe.

You'd also think that New York would be more partial to National League baseball, considering it has a longer history of the league then the American League. With the Dodgers and Giants.

But with the success of the Yankees, its obvious why they're so popular.

New York is a Yankees baseball town. Bar none, IMO.

Then comes the Giants.

Then Jets.

Then Mets.

Then Knicks.

Then Rangers.

Then Islanders.

Unfortunately, in this time era, hockey isn't the top of the popularity food chain.

However, I'd like to point out, that the sport of hockey existed over 5,000 years ago. Played as a form of hurley or field hockey in ancient cradles of civilization such as Egypt and Mesopotamia. And scarce evidence that the Vikings and others played forms of hockey on ice. So, you'd think it would be more popular overall.

Also, you'd think Soccer would be among the most popular pro sports in America, considering its one of, if not the, most popular major sport in the world. With the popularity and success of the Cosmos in New York in the 70's and 80's. We have an MLS team right here in Harrison NJ. The Red Bulls. But they're lower on the food chain then even the Islanders.
Replying to your order of sport in this town i'd agree somewhat.

Your order IMO is correct in general but when the Knicks are competitive (which is now) they are the talk of the town. When the playoffs start I think the talk will be even more crazy and like other said, NYC only has one bball team unlike two for football/baseball.

Yankees
Knicks
Mets
Giants
Jets
Rangers

Marc Staal is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Forum Jump


Bookmarks

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 05:27 AM.

monitoring_string = "e4251c93e2ba248d29da988d93bf5144"
Contact Us - HFBoards - Archive - Privacy Statement - Terms of Use - Advertise - Top - AdChoices

vBulletin Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
HFBoards.com is a property of CraveOnline Media, LLC, an Evolve Media, LLC company. 2014 All Rights Reserved.