What irks me is they don’t even mention United when mentioning DC’s championships, but believe me people will be flocking to the new stadium when it opens. People who don’t even know what soccer is, just because it is the new thing in DC. Every media in the DC area will be talking about the new stadium, but after the excitement of the new stadium is gone, nobody will give a sh*t about United again!
2004 was long ago, hell they are referencing a championship from 1992 when talking about DC’s last championship. The Redskins have been pure garbage longer then DC United been a team, yet they are the team being mentioned when talking about DC’s last championship team.
I hear ya but it's hard to make the argument that those championships were won by a "major" professional sports team in Washington (if we're measuring "major" by not only how many people knew about it, let alone cared). I think we all hope that some day a DCU cup win would see throngs in the streets, but it didn't happen back then, and it wouldn't happen now. I do see it happening one day, though.
I'm sure plenty of media will cover the opening, but it will also be easy for it to be lost in the middle of everything else happening in that area that week.
Seriously? What metric would you use? And before you answer...you're wrong. "Major" in this context is absolutely about whether or not large numbers of people care.
People do care about MLS, just look at Atlanta and Seattle. If you look at the attendance figures, MLS averages more fans per game then the NBA or NHL.
We are not talking about “in Washington”! We are talking about Major League as a whole! It is not the fault of the fans if the a$$ hats that own/run United do absolutely nothing to promote the team. Other teams are doing it right. Look at both Portland and Seattle when they won the cup. They had huge parades and people turned out. Sorry if the a$$ hats in DC are too dumb to know when they are being crapped upon. They should have spoken to the media after the Capitals won and reminded them of United’s four championships. If I’m not mistaken, United had DC last sports championship before Thursday night and I believe they have the most championships of any DC sports team at four!
For purpose of giving coverage to a domestic sports championship, I would define "major" as involving the top domestic league in a given sport. More generally, I think it is folly, and unserious, for the mainstream media to define newsworthiness by what interests the masses. For example, a royal wedding in England involving someone unlikely to ever gain a throne involving no real power does not deserve the outlandish coverage it received in derogation of everything else happening in the world.
Washington Capitals: the first DC team to win a trophy since before the beginning of the DC United era.
Bigger venues makes it possible, not popularity of the sport. Put the caps and DCU side by side over the last 10 seasons on per game attendance. Look at the hockey attendance when they play those frozen pond games at baseball and football stadia. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NHL_outdoor_games sure they are "special events" but they draw. Except the one they plated at the slammer in 1954 United and the Caps both played in Annapolis recently, how did that compare?
It did because dads tell their daughters they are little princesses and the seed of the dream are planted. Way off topic, but I support your outrage 100%.
Arguably by that standard no sport is a major news story. It's hard for me to separate how Alex Ovetchkin is a person of serious import if Meghan Markle is not. (The latter is probably more likely to have a cultural influence, and that's from someone who is generally no fan of Americans' fascination with the British monarchy.) At any rate, 'major' is an adjective. It all depends on what noun it's being used to modify. I think the 'top level in that country' is perfectly valid, but it's one sense of the term. The newspapers mean it in a different sense, one of whether events in that sport are a major news story, which is perfectly valid as well.
The newspapers' definition you posit is circular. A "major news story" is simply one they choose to give prominence to. If they chose to treat it as such, the Capitals' Stanley Cup victory would be a major news story. And if they don't it isn't. But the media never seem to be able to reflect upon their own biased perspective on things. And I agree, with paper sizes decreasing, perhaps the lavish treatment of sports generally should be jettisoned for more substantive stuff. But if pro sports are going to be covered, DC United deserves equitable treatment in the Washington Post.
Congrats to the Washington Capitals. Even though most of the players have never been part of the so-called legacy, its hard to ignore all the harping from the sports-media. And those previous teams had to face Crosby and Fleury at their best. Congrats again.
There might be some other activities, but considering the Nats are at the Mets on 7/14 and 7/15 before the Home Run Derby on 7/16, I don't think the opener will be an issues. I do think, however, DCU office should do something to tie into the 3rd place WC game that will be played that day.
Fed Gov is issuing internal statements about traffic closures due to parade for the Capitals. Some meetings even canceled because I assume they think no one will be around to attend them.
Wow a parade and to think that those poor overlooked Washington Kastles didn't even get a long crossing light at the intersection let alone a parade when they won WTT championships in the 2009, 2011, 2012, 2013, 2014 and 2015 seasons.
Going the other extreme I saw a feature that included not only DC United as champions in 2004, it showed the Capitals as champions, the Washington Capitals that won their basketball league in 1949. Back then basketball was less of an major league sport than soccer in the US in 2004.