PDA

View Full Version : End near for wideout Harrison in Indy?



indyblue47
04-12-2008, 01:42 PM
http://msn.foxsports.com/rumors/nfl#1


Colts worried about Harrison, looking for WR help

LSU wide wideout Early Doucet also is scheduled to visit the Colts this weekend. The fact that the Colts have two coveted receivers coming to town could be interpreted in any number of ways, but one option would be in relation to the future of Marvin Harrison. There are questions about how much longer Harrison can and will play. -- NFL Network


http://www.nfl.com/news/story;jsessionid=55A95F420DB727CDDF050C8E89B026BC? id=09000d5d807b2b9a&template=with-video&confirm=true



The men of Manning
Manningham's visit to Indianapolis is not the only one for a highly-rated receiver. LSU wide wideout Early Doucet also is scheduled to visit the Colts this weekend.

The fact that the Colts have two coveted receivers coming to town could be interpreted in any number of ways, but one option would be in relation to the future of Marvin Harrison. There are questions about how much longer Harrison can and will play.

This offseason, Harrison underwent right knee surgery that could cause him to miss the start of training camp. The right knee was not the one that bothered the eight-time Pro Bowler last season, when he missed 11 games. So Harrison is playing on two questionable knees.

As if that weren't enough of an obstacle, Harrison turns 36 years old this summer. Outside of Jerry Rice, there aren't many receivers who perform at a high level when they are closer to 40 than 30.


Indianapolis drafted wideout Anthony Gonzalez with its first-round pick last year. And even though the Colts are without a first-round pick this year, it doesn't mean that Indianapolis won't take another receiver with its top pick.

Ownagedood
04-12-2008, 10:07 PM
http://msn.foxsports.com/rumors/nfl#1


Colts worried about Harrison, looking for WR help

LSU wide wideout Early Doucet also is scheduled to visit the Colts this weekend. The fact that the Colts have two coveted receivers coming to town could be interpreted in any number of ways, but one option would be in relation to the future of Marvin Harrison. There are questions about how much longer Harrison can and will play. -- NFL Network


http://www.nfl.com/news/story;jsessionid=55A95F420DB727CDDF050C8E89B026BC? id=09000d5d807b2b9a&template=with-video&confirm=true



The men of Manning
Manningham's visit to Indianapolis is not the only one for a highly-rated receiver. LSU wide wideout Early Doucet also is scheduled to visit the Colts this weekend.

The fact that the Colts have two coveted receivers coming to town could be interpreted in any number of ways, but one option would be in relation to the future of Marvin Harrison. There are questions about how much longer Harrison can and will play.

This offseason, Harrison underwent right knee surgery that could cause him to miss the start of training camp. The right knee was not the one that bothered the eight-time Pro Bowler last season, when he missed 11 games. So Harrison is playing on two questionable knees.

As if that weren't enough of an obstacle, Harrison turns 36 years old this summer. Outside of Jerry Rice, there aren't many receivers who perform at a high level when they are closer to 40 than 30.


Indianapolis drafted wideout Anthony Gonzalez with its first-round pick last year. And even though the Colts are without a first-round pick this year, it doesn't mean that Indianapolis won't take another receiver with its top pick.
Last year I was betting he wouldn't recover from it.. It's Harrison, so I left some hope up.. But ya, it IS a career ending injury, I doubt he gets past it.

Suaveness
04-12-2008, 11:27 PM
Of course, this could also be a ploy by Polian

Sollozzo
04-13-2008, 12:02 PM
The bottom line is he is 36 years old, and is on the wrong side of 35. Even if he makes a full recovery this off season, he can't have *that* many seasons left. Sooner or later we have to face the music, and the Colts know that they need his replacement ready once he is done.

Jonathan
04-13-2008, 12:35 PM
I was upset about the fan base calling him out after his playoff performance last year. He should have been IR'd but was not, so he went out and played against San Diego. Yes he fumbled the ball but he deserves that right after playing several pro bowl season for the Colts. He did not have it that day and sat out our final possesions by choice. He did not want to hurt the team any further.

Lord Helmet
04-13-2008, 03:17 PM
I was upset about the fan base calling him out after his playoff performance last year. He should have been IR'd but was not, so he went out and played against San Diego. Yes he fumbled the ball but he deserves that right after playing several pro bowl season for the Colts. He did not have it that day and sat out our final possesions by choice. He did not want to hurt the team any further.
This is the same fan base that booed Adam V.

Even after the key Baltimore playoff game 2 years ago.

Hell, people on here said they wanted him cut when he was struggling this year, I thought I remembered.

Bottom-line is the Indy fan base is VERY fickle.

Sollozzo
04-13-2008, 04:16 PM
I REALLY hope Marvin Harrison can come back and have a great season. It would be awesome to see him be a pro bowler in the stadium that he helped build.

Even if he can come back and be productive, we still have to face the music sometime. 36 is 36, and he can't play forever. So I don't see the Colts drafting a WR as an indication that Harrison is done, but a sign that they realize that he is 36 and are merely preparing for the future.

tdubb03
04-13-2008, 05:20 PM
Marvin's not done. How many guys does the average team bring in for workouts/interviews? Dozens I imagine. Polian's just covering all his bases.

Kaufman
04-13-2008, 07:26 PM
Marvin sure looks like he's breaking down

duke dynamite
04-14-2008, 01:49 AM
Marvin's not done. How many guys does the average team bring in for workouts/interviews? Dozens I imagine. Polian's just covering all his bases.
I agree. I just imagine that is it a good idea at this point to get a decent backup just in case Marvin has seen the last of his days.

I'm sure he still has plenty of gas in the tank, but face it, these players aren't going to last forever.

Midcoasted
04-14-2008, 02:37 AM
Im just glad he got a super bowl. He desered it more than Randy or TO. People cant forget they won't be young forever either. Marvin sure got to 36 fast. Seems like yesterday he was breaking records.

I think Marvins unquestionable work ethic will help him. I always worried about him being able to make till he was 30 because he has always been a fast food addict. But he did play on turf alot in his career so that doesnt help. Maybe he can but his same dedication into easting healthy and play at a high level into his 40s.

U never know with Marvin. I hope to see him have at least 2 more 10 td reception years and at least another SB victory.

James Bond
04-14-2008, 11:48 AM
This is the same fan base that booed Adam V.

Even after the key Baltimore playoff game 2 years ago.

Hell, people on here said they wanted him cut when he was struggling this year, I thought I remembered.

Bottom-line is the Indy fan base is VERY fickle.

I think we all just got too used to being really good. Not saying we're bad now, just saying we go so used to everything going right with the offense, when one small thing goes wrong we are more upset than other teams would be.

tdubb03
04-14-2008, 04:22 PM
I'm sure he still has plenty of gas in the tank, but face it, these players aren't going to last forever.

You're right, I suppose I am a bit blinded by my love for Marvin. I just think the reports of him being done are very premature. I've seen online that his rehab's going as scheduled. Drafting a wideout wouldn't surprise me, but doing it with our first pick would. I'd like picking up Dorien Bryant with one of our 6th rounders, if for nothing more than his kick returning ability.

duke dynamite
04-14-2008, 05:15 PM
Yeah, we need defense and a decent kick returner. I really wish Terrance Wilkins would have stayed.

ABADays
04-15-2008, 09:58 PM
I don't think Marvin will ever have the productivity from past years. He could help the team a lot as a possession receiver but I have doubts as a long threat.

carpediem024
04-19-2008, 09:32 PM
Yeah he is getting old. Hard to see him get injured like that last year.

Sollozzo
04-20-2008, 03:00 PM
I know I used to be vocal that Marvin was done, but the more I think about it the more optimistic I am. I mean, Andrew Bynum is 20 years old and his knee injury has had him out since January. I think it might very well take someone a year to recover from a knee injury as devastating as the one Harrison received.

But still, he is 36. He obviously can't have that many years left, regardless of whether his knee is sound or not.

Hicks
04-20-2008, 03:50 PM
What is the typical age of a retiring wide receiver?

BoomBaby31
04-20-2008, 06:03 PM
Lets start the James Hardy Chant. We need a big tall receiver :)

Kraft
04-20-2008, 07:15 PM
What is the typical age of a retiring wide receiver?

Sadly, many of them hold on way too long, so I'm not sure that's a big help. But production starts to tail off around 34 or so for a lot of guys. Jacksonville's Jimmy Smith, for example, retired at 37, though he had three so-so years -- by his standards -- beforehand.

And he was a guy that probably got out earlier than most would.

Cris Carter walked away after the 2002 season at 37, but he had an injury wash out the '02 season and was just a shell in 2001 (73 catches, 871 yards).

Denver's Rod Smith retired in February, again, at 37. But he didn't play last year and had just 52 catches in 2006.

Dr. Goldfoot
04-21-2008, 02:31 AM
Wide Recievers tend to play a little longer because they can become possession players etc... There are a great number of WR's that have played into their late 30's but generally speaking 32-33 is where most see their productivity waiver and many retire around that time. Bill Brooks, Andre Rison, Al Toon, Herman Moore & Mark Clayton all retired at that age or earlier. But then again there's Kraft's list that excluded Henry Ellard, Art Monk, Irving Fryar, Tim Brown etc.. who all played past 35 and maintained an edge.

naptownmenace
04-24-2008, 10:27 AM
I think that reports of Marvin's demise are vastly overrated. I definitely think he should be able to recover from his injury. He may lose a step but IMO, he'll still be a viable option this season and possibly the next.

With that said, it's important that the Colts start grooming his future replacement too. Gonzo should be even better this season and it'd be nice to have at least 2 more prospects waiting in the wings.

Eindar
04-26-2008, 04:21 AM
I think we all just got too used to being really good. Not saying we're bad now, just saying we go so used to everything going right with the offense, when one small thing goes wrong we are more upset than other teams would be.

I disagree...kinda. This city has shown, time and time again, that is has no patience for losers, either as a team or individually. Each time a team earns a new accolade, the fan base sets the bar right at that accolade. Eventually, they can no longer top themselves, and the "fans" start grumbling. A couple bad years, and everyone's looking for the next hot thing in the city. When I was a kid it was IU, then IU/Purdue when Glenn Robinson was there. Then it was the Pacers. Now it's the Colts.

When the Colts inevitably have to rebuild (it is the NFL, after all), I seriously doubt Lucas Oil Stadium will remain more than half full, especially if the Pacers manage to rebuild and become a contender again.

Moses
04-26-2008, 12:38 PM
Generally speaking, most WRs retire around 35-37. There are obviously always exceptions..You have the ageless wonder in Joey Galloway who is 37 or 38 and is still the #1 wideout on the Bucs and probably still runs a 4.4. Jerry Rice played effectively until he was 40 and Troy Brown was a great outstanding possession WR for the Pats and hes in his late 30s.

Sollozzo
04-26-2008, 03:24 PM
I disagree...kinda. This city has shown, time and time again, that is has no patience for losers, either as a team or individually. Each time a team earns a new accolade, the fan base sets the bar right at that accolade. Eventually, they can no longer top themselves, and the "fans" start grumbling. A couple bad years, and everyone's looking for the next hot thing in the city. When I was a kid it was IU, then IU/Purdue when Glenn Robinson was there. Then it was the Pacers. Now it's the Colts.

When the Colts inevitably have to rebuild (it is the NFL, after all), I seriously doubt Lucas Oil Stadium will remain more than half full, especially if the Pacers manage to rebuild and become a contender again.


Most cities are that way, Indy is no different.

Let's pick on Boston being a bandwagon town for a second. In 2004-2005, the Celtics averaged just 16,001 fans, or 81 % of the arenas 18,624 capacity (and they were actually a playoff team that year).

The Pacers that year averaged *more* fans, despite having a smaller stadium! They averaged 16,994 fans, despite having a smaller stadium than Boston (Conseco seats 18,345).

So are Bostonians bandwagoners as well? Looks like it. I mean, they had 2,000 empty seats a night 3 years ago, however, this year they sold out every game. That screams bandwagon to me.

This is the classic Boston Celtics we are talking about. This is a team that has won 16 championships. This is Larry Bird and Bill Russel's franchise. Yet they play in one of the largest metro areas in the US, which is always said to be one of the best sports town, and they had 2000 empty seats that year?

Maybe every city is like that? I'm not trying to pick on Boston, just trying to show that it's not just Indy who loses fans when the team goes downhill.

It never ceases to amaze me how people pick on Indy for attendance problems. Indy is one of the smallest metro areas in pro sports, and has millions and millions less people than many of the cities that it competes with, yet has stadiums that are relatively the same size. I'm sure that demand in New York for Knicks tickets has declined, but since New York has like 25 million in the area, the Knicks can almost always find 19,000 people to attend a game....even if demand has fallen by thousands.

Indy on the other hand has about 24 million less people than NY metro, but has a stadium that is just a few hundred smaller. So the lack of demand for tickets shows in the seats.

Eindar
04-27-2008, 04:38 AM
Most cities are that way, Indy is no different.

Let's pick on Boston being a bandwagon town for a second. In 2004-2005, the Celtics averaged just 16,001 fans, or 81 % of the arenas 18,624 capacity (and they were actually a playoff team that year).

The Pacers that year averaged *more* fans, despite having a smaller stadium! They averaged 16,994 fans, despite having a smaller stadium than Boston (Conseco seats 18,345).

So are Bostonians bandwagoners as well? Looks like it. I mean, they had 2,000 empty seats a night 3 years ago, however, this year they sold out every game. That screams bandwagon to me.

This is the classic Boston Celtics we are talking about. This is a team that has won 16 championships. This is Larry Bird and Bill Russel's franchise. Yet they play in one of the largest metro areas in the US, which is always said to be one of the best sports town, and they had 2000 empty seats that year?

Maybe every city is like that? I'm not trying to pick on Boston, just trying to show that it's not just Indy who loses fans when the team goes downhill.

It never ceases to amaze me how people pick on Indy for attendance problems. Indy is one of the smallest metro areas in pro sports, and has millions and millions less people than many of the cities that it competes with, yet has stadiums that are relatively the same size. I'm sure that demand in New York for Knicks tickets has declined, but since New York has like 25 million in the area, the Knicks can almost always find 19,000 people to attend a game....even if demand has fallen by thousands.

Indy on the other hand has about 24 million less people than NY metro, but has a stadium that is just a few hundred smaller. So the lack of demand for tickets shows in the seats.

I believe you are cherry-picking your numbers. The Pacers attendance numbers were inflated because it was the "support the post-brawl team" team and also Reggie's last year. Meanwhile, the Celtics were one year removed from being "the worst playoff team in the history of the NBA", the Red Sox had won a World Series that November, and the Patriots were in the middle of back to back Lombardi Trophies. I'd say comparing Indy to Boston that year is irrelevant.

The Kansas City Chiefs haven't been a playoff contender in years, yet they still sell out Arrowhead every game. San Francisco/Oakland have supported the Warriors despite both losing records and inept management. Ditto for the Sacramento Kings and Seattle Sonics. It took the "Jailblazers" to make Portland fans stay home, and they came back in droves the instant the bad character guys were replaced with lovable losers. The Chicago Cubs sell out almost every game, and they haven't won a title in a century.

While the Indy fan base isn't unique, they certainly aren't the norm. It also, in theory should be easier for us to support our teams, because we don't have MLB or NHL teams to steal season ticket dollars. And yet, we haven't managed to support both teams at a high level yet.

The only other city that I can think of that's as bad as Indy in terms of jumping on the bandwagon of a winner and jumping off again as soon as they lose is Miami. And I'm not saying the city is full of horrible pro sports fans. That distinction belongs to Atlanta. What I'm saying is that Indianapolis, in general, still has a college sports mindset, where you can use recruiting to have a good program every year and never have to rebuild. Indy sports fans don't really have the stomach for rebuilding, so any time there's some slippage, the fans go away because they aren't used to losing like that.

Sollozzo
04-27-2008, 01:10 PM
I believe you are cherry-picking your numbers. The Pacers attendance numbers were inflated because it was the "support the post-brawl team" team and also Reggie's last year. Meanwhile, the Celtics were one year removed from being "the worst playoff team in the history of the NBA", the Red Sox had won a World Series that November, and the Patriots were in the middle of back to back Lombardi Trophies. I'd say comparing Indy to Boston that year is irrelevant.

The Kansas City Chiefs haven't been a playoff contender in years, yet they still sell out Arrowhead every game. San Francisco/Oakland have supported the Warriors despite both losing records and inept management. Ditto for the Sacramento Kings and Seattle Sonics. It took the "Jailblazers" to make Portland fans stay home, and they came back in droves the instant the bad character guys were replaced with lovable losers. The Chicago Cubs sell out almost every game, and they haven't won a title in a century.

While the Indy fan base isn't unique, they certainly aren't the norm. It also, in theory should be easier for us to support our teams, because we don't have MLB or NHL teams to steal season ticket dollars. And yet, we haven't managed to support both teams at a high level yet.

The only other city that I can think of that's as bad as Indy in terms of jumping on the bandwagon of a winner and jumping off again as soon as they lose is Miami. And I'm not saying the city is full of horrible pro sports fans. That distinction belongs to Atlanta. What I'm saying is that Indianapolis, in general, still has a college sports mindset, where you can use recruiting to have a good program every year and never have to rebuild. Indy sports fans don't really have the stomach for rebuilding, so any time there's some slippage, the fans go away because they aren't used to losing like that.

Ah, I see. Boston gets an excuse for it's attendance problem, but Indy is just labled as a bandwagon city. It's OK to blame any Celtic attendance woes on the Patriots and Red Sox, but connecting the Pacers attendance woes to the Colts success just means Indy has a fickle fan base? And it's ok for Boston to abandon a team because it's the "worst playoff team ever", yet not OK for INdy to abandon the Pacers because they are lottery bound 2 years in a row? Nice double standards you have going there! Don't you realize the excuses you are using for Boston (other local teams successes, bad teams)are the exact same things you use to call Indy fickle?

I'm also confused as to what the Red Sox have to do with anything. They play from April-October and the Celts play from October-April. And it's not like the Red Sox weren't good in the 80's when the Celts were also good. Boston didn't have any trouble supporting them both at the same time back then.

Fine, I'll look at 05-06. No post brawl support and no Reggie. That year the Pacers filled Conseco to an 87.5% capacity (16,179) as opposed to the Celtics filling Fleet to a 86.2 % capacity (16,890).

http://sports.espn.go.com/nba/attendance?year=2006

So Boston averaged just 700 more fans a year than the Pacers that year, and left about 2000 empty seats in the stadium per game, despite having 3 million more people than metro Indianapolis.

If Indy had 3 million more residents, I honestly don't believe selling Conseco out would be a problem.

Last year the Celts filled to just an 85.9 % capacity, then coincidently they fill to 100% this year after getting KG and Ray, and becoming the beast of the east. That doesn't scream bandwagon to you? I thought Boston was like the best sports city in the United States, but it seems to me like they have had a little trouble supporting the team that has won 16 championships.

Let's not use the Chicago Cubs as an example. It is totally unfair to compare any team's attendance to the Cubs, because the Cubs are unlike almost anything in pro sports. They are a total way of life, and the losing for 100 years actually seems to make them more lovable. I think it is silly to think "If Chicago can do it with the Cubs, then you should be doing it."

The Cubs have been in Chicago longer than any human being has lived. Meanwhile, the Colts have been in Indy for a mere 24 years. When a foreign team comes to a city, it usually takes some time to build a fan base up.

I get that Arrowhead sells out. But the Chiefs have been a way of life in Kansas city for 45 years, which is almost twice as long as the Colts have been in Indy.

Besides, using Kansas City as an example to how a city supports it's major sports is a complete joke when you look at their support for the Royals. The Royals averaged a mere 19,961 fans last year, or 48% of the stadiums capacity.

http://sports.espn.go.com/mlb/attendance?sort=home_avg&year=2007&seasonType=2

Teams like the Cubs, Red Sox, Chiefs, Packers, etc will always have fans because they are a way of life in those cities.

Indy has done just fine. It is millions and millions smaller than most cities, yet has stadiums roughly the same size. Every city ride the bandwagon wave to some extent.

Eindar
04-27-2008, 11:50 PM
Thank you for not mentioning Portland and Seattle, which completely upends your entire argument.

But, sure, let's use the 05-06 NBA season. The Pacers won 41 games, making them a 6 seed, and Boston won 33 games, putting them in the lottery. Despite that, the Celtics sold 700 more tickets per game than the Pacers did, right? That doesn't say something about their respective fanbases? It certainly doesn't say what you're trying to convey.

And quit using percentages of capacity to try to prove your very shaky point. If the Pistons held their games at Ford Field and sold 22,000 tickets every game, would it make them a bad fan base because they sold less than half the tickets available? Like I said, quit massaging and cherry-picking your stats.

What are the numbers for Boston last year and the Pacers the last two years in terms of attendance? Both teams were bad, right?

What do the Red Sox have to do with the Celtics? Everything! That is, unless you live in a world where economics haven't been invented and when you buy season tickets for the Red Sox you can also magically afford Celtics tickets, because, you know, they don't play at the same time.

You want to use the Royals as an example of Kansas City not supporting the team? Wow, way to make my point for me! The Royals, a team which hasn't sniffed the playoffs since 1985, still sells more tickets per game than the Florida Marlins, who have won two World Series since 1997, and if you look at the history, any time they have anything approaching a chance at .500, they come out in droves. That's not bandwagon hopping, that's supporting a competitive team.

Face it, this town only has room in its collective conscious for one pro franchise. You need look no further than the year the Pacers won 61 games. In the years that the Colts sucked, there'd have been a virtual riot to pack Conseco. Instead, we put 16,556 butts in the seats every game. What's even more damning is that the Pacers average attendance that year as a ROAD team was higher than their average attendance as a HOME team. That means that other fans were more interested in seeing us play than our own city.

Sollozzo
04-28-2008, 12:22 AM
Thank you for not mentioning Portland and Seattle, which completely upends your entire argument.

But, sure, let's use the 05-06 NBA season. The Pacers won 41 games, making them a 6 seed, and Boston won 33 games, putting them in the lottery. Despite that, the Celtics sold 700 more tickets per game than the Pacers did, right? That doesn't say something about their respective fanbases? It certainly doesn't say what you're trying to convey.

It says that Boston has 3 million more people in it's metropolitan area than Indy. It's absolutely pitiful that in 2004-2005 Indy averaged more fans a game then Boston, when Boston has MILLIONS OF MORE PEOPLE TO PULL FROM. It's funny that you harp on Boston averaging a mere 700 more fans in 05-06 while completely ignoring the fact that Boston has 3 more million people to pull from.

But like I said, you use excuses for Boston (Red Sox, Pats, lousy teams), yet use those same reasons to call Indy "fickle."




And quit using percentages of capacity to try to prove your very shaky point. If the Pistons held their games at Ford Field and sold 22,000 tickets every game, would it make them a bad fan base because they sold less than half the tickets available? Like I said, quit massaging and cherry-picking your stats.



You're right. Using percent capacity would be silly if Boston had an arena that sat 50,000 and Indy had one that sat 18,000. But that's not how it is. Boston and Indy both have arenas that are in the 18,000's, so it is COMPLETELY RELEVANT TO USE % CAPACITY. And in the years I talked about, they were both in the 80's and Indy hung right there with them despite having millions of less people but a stadium that is the same size. That doesn't throw up a red flag to you? Boston, the team of Larry Bird and Bill Russell averaged roughly the same percent capacity in arenas the same size as the ole Indiana Pacers. That's inexcusable.

You're going to have to do far better than that weak argument. You're acting like Boston has an arena that is 5 times as big as Indy's, but in reality it's only a few hundred bigger. And since Boston has millions of more people in it, I think it is relevant to discuss percent capacities.




What are the numbers for Boston last year and the Pacers the last two years in terms of attendance? Both teams were bad, right?

What do the Red Sox have to do with the Celtics? Everything! That is, unless you live in a world where economics haven't been invented and when you buy season tickets for the Red Sox you can also magically afford Celtics tickets, because, you know, they don't play at the same time.



I guess I am living in a world where economics don't exist, because Bostonians *ARE* "magically" all of the sudden affording Celts tickets now that they're good.(along with Pats and Sox). If people in Boston are so cash-strapped, then why have the Celtics conveniently sold all of their games out this year in which they win 60+ games (along with the Red Sox who continue their streak)? Did everyone in Boston all of the sudden get higher paying jobs in the last year, or are they jumping on the bandwagon? I'll go with the latter. You make it sound like it's financially impossible to go to Red Sox, Pats, and Celts games, but please try again. This year totally proves your point to be false.

It's funny how your economic reasoning (which I just showed was false) only applies for Boston. I've never seen you make those same excuses for Indy, instead you just rip it for being a fickle city. Do people in Indy not have jobs/families/other commitments as well? And actually, I think Boston is one of the more wealthy metro areas in the US, and it's certainly more wealthy than Indianapolis.

Edit: Boston is the 5th wealthiest large metro area in the US

http://ruennsheng.wordpress.com/2008/02/08/top-10-richest-metropolitan-area/




You want to use the Royals as an example of Kansas City not supporting the team? Wow, way to make my point for me! The Royals, a team which hasn't sniffed the playoffs since 1985, still sells more tickets per game than the Florida Marlins, who have won two World Series since 1997, and if you look at the history, any time they have anything approaching a chance at .500, they come out in droves. That's not bandwagon hopping, that's supporting a competitive team.

Face it, this town only has room in its collective conscious for one pro franchise. You need look no further than the year the Pacers won 61 games. In the years that the Colts sucked, there'd have been a virtual riot to pack Conseco. Instead, we put 16,556 butts in the seats every game. What's even more damning is that the Pacers average attendance that year as a ROAD team was higher than their average attendance as a HOME team. That means that other fans were more interested in seeing us play than our own city.

Face it, this town is one of the smallest pro sport markets in the United States. It might even be the smallest multi sport city. Indy has stadiums that are relatively the same size as everyone else, yet millions of less people to pull from. And with the Colts, Indy has had to win over fans that were loyal to teams like the Bears or Bengals. It's not like KC or Green Bay where that's the only team people know. You can't just build a huge fan base over night.

Using population isn't an excuse, it's common sense.

Eindar
04-28-2008, 12:52 AM
We're just going to have to agree to disagree. Indy is a small market, but so is Kansas City, and so is Milwaulkee. And both of those cities have proven that they will support two teams as long as both are competitive. I'm not convinced we have.

The only other thing I'd like to comment on is your belief that pro sports franchises don't compete against each other in the same city. If someone spends $300 on an authentic Peyton Manning jersey, that comes directly out of their household spending. That has a bearing on if they can afford a Danny Granger jersey later in the year. And while the larger markets have a larger base they can draw upon, it still, in the end, boils down to entertainment dollars and how you budget them into your household planning. My stance is that fans will sacrifice elsewhere to support multiple teams if they are really beholden to them. Maybe they put off buying a new car, maybe they buy a smaller house. But some markets have people who will sacrifice to support multiple teams, and others don't. I'd say ours is one that doesn't.