Hicks comment in the postgame thread about the fanbase not demanding a title here got me thinking.
There's obviously a different mentality with the Colts fanbase than the Pacers fanbase. For the Colts since 2003, the mentality amongst the fanbase has been "Championship or Bust". But while the Pacers fanbase as a whole over the past few years has accepted upper mediocrity, the Colts has been held to an extremely high standard, and finally that standard was rewarded.
I'm not comparing the expectations of the 03-07 Colts to the 03-07 Pacers. I'm comparing the expectations of both franchises as a whole, Reggie years to present.
The Colts had to have felt the pressure, and that was good. The Colts organization knew everyone was extremely disappointed after the 2 postseason losses in NE, and especially after the Steelers, and I'm sure they read the columns and heard the disappointment. I think that the building pressure helped translate into a Superbowl victory.
Have the Pacers ever felt that same pressure as the Colts? It seems to me that mediocrity was accepted with the Pacers. The Pacers making ECF's was always treated as being impressive, but if the Colts would have just made the AFC Title game and lost to NE, it would have been treated as a total failure.
Why have the Colts been held to a higher standard with fans demanding success, while wherever the Pacers end up is treated as being ok?
From the Colts 2003 AFC Title game appearance, it took them 3 more seasons to get to the Superbowl and ultimately win it (yes, they made the AFC title game in 95, but that was pre-Manning and was kind of a fluke as it was surrounded by bad seasons on both ends).
Yet it took the Pacers 6 more seasons after their first ECF appearance in 1994 to finally make the finals. Were they as scrutinized as heavily as the Colts were in the 3 year period it took them from their first AFC title game appearance to this year when they finally made it? The Colts felt far more pressure in those 3 years by the fanbase and media than the Pacers ever felt in the 6.
How come it was ok to accept that the Pacers were beaten by one of the greatest dynasties ever in 1998 by the Bulls, yet it was unacceptable to most fans that the Colts were beaten by a great NE dynasty in 2003 and 2004 and were labeled "chokers."
Why is it that Pacers management can get a free pass year after year, yet the Colts can win 4 STRAIGHT division titles, but fans in the Colts forum here question Dungy and Polian and wondered if it was time for a change when things started to go a little sour at the end of the year. 4 Straight division titles. A very impressive feat. Yet fans were actually calling for changes in the front office and in the coaching department.
Can you imagine if the Pacers ever won 4 straight division titles? I think that a statue of Walsh would be erected infront of Conseco. He would be treated as a god throughout the local media and fanbase. Just making the playoffs would be treated as ok.
Why is it an ok excuse to say "it's hard to win a title in the NBA, all you can do is build a solid team, there are no guarantees" when the Pacers are eliminated, yet when the Colts were eliminated in the 3 years preceding the superbowl, everyone was labeling them "chokers", and questioning the front office and coaching.
I'm guilty of this. I think everyone who is a Colts/Pacers fan is. It's unbelivable to me how 2 teams that play in the same city and are covered by the same media and basically watched by the same people are treated in totally opposite manners.
With the Colts, a championship was demanded (and delivered). With the Pacers, upper mediocrity has always been accepted.
It took Manning 3 years to get to the SB after his first AFC title game appearance. He won the Superbowl. It took Reggie 6 years to get to the finals after his first ECF's appearance. His team lost the finals.
Yet I'm sure that if Reggie would have never gotten to the finals, he would have still been treated as a god by people in Indy. The mentality would have been "We were awful before he came, he put us on the map." I'm almost positive that if he wouldn't have gotten to the finals, that Reggie would be treated basically the same.
The Colts weren't anything when Manning came. He put the franchise on the map within no time at all. Yet to win a place in the city's heart, he HAD to win a Superbowl.
I know Manning as a football player is lightyears better than Reggie as a basketball player, yet it still amazes me how such opposite standards can be held to players/teams in the same place.
What if Donnie Walsh had ever felt the pressure that Bill Polian has these past few years? Walsh has always been given a free pass by the media, yet Polian felt the pressure year after year that he had to win a superbowl. Maybe if Walsh would have ever had that kind of pressure put on him, he would have had to have made a couple of more moves.
I don't think we'll ever see a title for the Pacers until the fanbase and media basically demand one as they did for the Colts.
There's obviously a different mentality with the Colts fanbase than the Pacers fanbase. For the Colts since 2003, the mentality amongst the fanbase has been "Championship or Bust". But while the Pacers fanbase as a whole over the past few years has accepted upper mediocrity, the Colts has been held to an extremely high standard, and finally that standard was rewarded.
I'm not comparing the expectations of the 03-07 Colts to the 03-07 Pacers. I'm comparing the expectations of both franchises as a whole, Reggie years to present.
The Colts had to have felt the pressure, and that was good. The Colts organization knew everyone was extremely disappointed after the 2 postseason losses in NE, and especially after the Steelers, and I'm sure they read the columns and heard the disappointment. I think that the building pressure helped translate into a Superbowl victory.
Have the Pacers ever felt that same pressure as the Colts? It seems to me that mediocrity was accepted with the Pacers. The Pacers making ECF's was always treated as being impressive, but if the Colts would have just made the AFC Title game and lost to NE, it would have been treated as a total failure.
Why have the Colts been held to a higher standard with fans demanding success, while wherever the Pacers end up is treated as being ok?
From the Colts 2003 AFC Title game appearance, it took them 3 more seasons to get to the Superbowl and ultimately win it (yes, they made the AFC title game in 95, but that was pre-Manning and was kind of a fluke as it was surrounded by bad seasons on both ends).
Yet it took the Pacers 6 more seasons after their first ECF appearance in 1994 to finally make the finals. Were they as scrutinized as heavily as the Colts were in the 3 year period it took them from their first AFC title game appearance to this year when they finally made it? The Colts felt far more pressure in those 3 years by the fanbase and media than the Pacers ever felt in the 6.
How come it was ok to accept that the Pacers were beaten by one of the greatest dynasties ever in 1998 by the Bulls, yet it was unacceptable to most fans that the Colts were beaten by a great NE dynasty in 2003 and 2004 and were labeled "chokers."
Why is it that Pacers management can get a free pass year after year, yet the Colts can win 4 STRAIGHT division titles, but fans in the Colts forum here question Dungy and Polian and wondered if it was time for a change when things started to go a little sour at the end of the year. 4 Straight division titles. A very impressive feat. Yet fans were actually calling for changes in the front office and in the coaching department.
Can you imagine if the Pacers ever won 4 straight division titles? I think that a statue of Walsh would be erected infront of Conseco. He would be treated as a god throughout the local media and fanbase. Just making the playoffs would be treated as ok.
Why is it an ok excuse to say "it's hard to win a title in the NBA, all you can do is build a solid team, there are no guarantees" when the Pacers are eliminated, yet when the Colts were eliminated in the 3 years preceding the superbowl, everyone was labeling them "chokers", and questioning the front office and coaching.
I'm guilty of this. I think everyone who is a Colts/Pacers fan is. It's unbelivable to me how 2 teams that play in the same city and are covered by the same media and basically watched by the same people are treated in totally opposite manners.
With the Colts, a championship was demanded (and delivered). With the Pacers, upper mediocrity has always been accepted.
It took Manning 3 years to get to the SB after his first AFC title game appearance. He won the Superbowl. It took Reggie 6 years to get to the finals after his first ECF's appearance. His team lost the finals.
Yet I'm sure that if Reggie would have never gotten to the finals, he would have still been treated as a god by people in Indy. The mentality would have been "We were awful before he came, he put us on the map." I'm almost positive that if he wouldn't have gotten to the finals, that Reggie would be treated basically the same.
The Colts weren't anything when Manning came. He put the franchise on the map within no time at all. Yet to win a place in the city's heart, he HAD to win a Superbowl.
I know Manning as a football player is lightyears better than Reggie as a basketball player, yet it still amazes me how such opposite standards can be held to players/teams in the same place.
What if Donnie Walsh had ever felt the pressure that Bill Polian has these past few years? Walsh has always been given a free pass by the media, yet Polian felt the pressure year after year that he had to win a superbowl. Maybe if Walsh would have ever had that kind of pressure put on him, he would have had to have made a couple of more moves.
I don't think we'll ever see a title for the Pacers until the fanbase and media basically demand one as they did for the Colts.
Comment