Go to the sports page of the Post and take part in this online poll. They're asking fans "if you had two front row seats to any team in Denver, which would you choose?" It would be good to see the Rapids come out on top for this, especially after some idiot sent a letter to the Sports editor which was printed on sunday, saying how he has been to two Mammoth games that had attendance of 32,000, and he was asking how many Rapids games he would "have to endure" to see that many fans. http://www.denverpost.com/Stories/0,1413,36%7E76%7E,00.html
Yeah, I'm thinking the Mammoth have been stuffing the ballot box on this one. Right now on the poll, they are leading (over the Avalanche and Broncos, Denver's clear top two professional teams). Is there a similar thread on biglacrosse.com? Were there really 32,000 at the first two Mammoth games? Incidentally, we could respond to that guy by citing last years attendance figures. Considering we averaged 20,000 a game, less than two matches would be all he would "have to endure"... He'd probably have to endure at least 3 Nuggets games.... Why the rip on the Rapids anyway? Do the Mammoth see the Rapids as their main rival for Denver's sports dollar?
Yes, the Mammoth obviously see the the Rapids as their #1 competition for the Denver sports dollar. This is great because it means that the Rapids have actually established themselves within the community. Every year, I get more and more comments about my Rapids apparel and so forth. People are paying attention, if we can put together a winner on the field, I think the Rapids would make serious in-roads as soccer as a whole entrenches itself ... Do we have to worry about Lacrosse becoming anything more than a fringe sport? NO. Any sport that has it's best competition hail from Ivy league and large East Coast schools will never make it. It's a rich boy's sport and simply a yawner. Oh, and as for 32,000 fans... *LOL* Do you have any idea how many of those tickets were FREE!!! *LOL*
Well I'll be attending a Mammoth match upcoming. I plan on wearing either Rapids stuff or USA stuff. Just to cancel out those people that show up at Rapids matches wearing Donkeys jerseys etc. Anyway, I don't really have a problem with lacrosse in general. It's not my favorite sport obviously, but it's not bad. It's fast, a team sport, and physical too. Still voted for the Rapids, and just to update those that haven't checked in the Rapids are leading as of 7:30pm Monday night.
As it stands now: Total Votes = 5492 Avalanche (1216) 22% Broncos (1242) 23% Crush (69) 1% Mammoth (976) 18% Nuggets (155) 3% Rapids (1700) 31% Rockies (134) 2% It's not a Sun-Times poll, but all the same - vote early, vote often.
I voted once at work but read on another thread how to repeat vote so I came home did it up Chicago Style as Trooper Bari suggested. It is my understanding that in professional lacross, these guys beat each other with these sticks while passing and shooting the ball. I am not sure that this will compete for dollars with the same suburban soccer moms that the supporters section guys describe as being at a Rapids game so much as it will with the moms who go to WWE events. I have nothing against violent sports having grown up playing football (American)and still loving it. But after reading Kisla's column on a game he went to, it seems this would compete more with minor league hockey or even the Crush. It will be interesting to see if the lacross numbers go down when the Crush starts up with its huge season ticket base.
I just cast vote #1970 for the Rapids. Man this is some serious box stuffing. I'll vote tomorrow at work. BTW, Lacrosse is a good game, especially indoor (box) lacrosse. Fast, athletic, good spectator sport. It's not the beautiful game, but it's not bad. Also played by tons of Canadians, as well as those Ivy League preps.
A quote from a site: "According to the American football website football.com (2002, ¶ 2), the story of American football began sometime during the 19th century in England when a soccer player frustrated at using only his feet to play the ball, decided to simply pick it up and run with it. Althought it was clearly against the rules of soccer, other players soon found a new way of playing soccer, and thus, the sport of rugby was born."
That explains rugby. Not American football. Many accounts point to American football having begun as a result of athletic clubs from competing colleges looking for a common sport they could play against each other in most any condition and without much regard for equipment. There are many retellings of when colleges would meet against each other in competition. The plan might be to play soccer, only the field wasn't big enough, there weren't enough players or as was often the case, the ball was inadequate. Rugby too ran into regular problems, as most American colleges played by different sets of rules and could rarely agree on a common system. For the first 10 years or so, American football had a shockingly small amount of rules; in a similar fashion to the earliest organized English rules for soccer, a minimal set of guidelines were agreed upon. It wasn't until the game caught hold and became widely organized that the majority of the rules came in to play. Like it or not, most early American football players were also soccer players.
both teams are on the fringe, so probably. I know lax fans will focus on how physical its sport is in comparison to soccer (not that I agree, just cause there's pads doesn't make it more physical). But I think the Mammoth thing will blow over eventually, as lax needs new fans to succeed while soccer just needs to tap into those fans who don't bother to go to MLS games. Nevertheless, people need to keep voting---how do you vote on the site more than once?
I helped you out and voted for the rapids. All you have to do to vote more than once is delete your cookies.
Yeah, it's all about being a novelty. Some news station interviewed people outside of The Can and asked them if they knew anything about lacrosse, and no one had a clue. Most just want to see what all the fuss is about. We'll see if these guys are still around after 8 seasons. The Crush and the Mammoth have a lot of work to do to establish themselves as prominent members of the Denver sports landscape.
And while you debate the origins... you miss the fact that my reference was in the context of the HERE and NOW, not a galaxy far far away, where "helmet ball" and "rugby" were virtually the only games in town... I'm saying that a sport played by Ivy League prats will not tap into a joe-6-pack market...
Come on people, where's your soccer passion?? I spent an hour yesterday raising it from 31% to 35%, only to see it fall down to 29% just now. Go vote again and do MLS proud !!!!
I try to be productive at work and don't have the time to spend voting for something that in all honesty is quite irrelevant. If it works out, great. If it doesn't I won't lose any sleep and nor should anyone else here. While a psuedo poll might influence a few people to view a match or two, in the end it all gets back to how the team plays on the pitch. If they win, they will come. I don't think the Av's are selling out their home matches anymore because they aren't having the winning seasons they've had in the past. It's no longer the place to be and be seen. I'll give my take on the Mammoth and the fans a bit later.
Jeff, because of corporate purchases??? Fickle Denver sports fans be it Avs or Donkeys... Sell-outs and attendance are two different issues...I remember seeing a Donkey game in the past year or so where they announced a sell-out and there was 20,000 visibly missing from the stadium, and this wasn't because of traffic or 20K simultaneously getting the runs. It's cuz they sucked and were losing (not the game, but for the season)...
A little sidebar From An Overview of American Soccer History By Dave Litterer http://www.sover.net/~spectrum/overview.html "The first intercollegiate game using rules resembling modern game was played on November 7, 1869 in New Brunswick, NJ bewteen Princeton and Rutgers (Rutgers won 6-4). This game used the London Football Association's 1863 rules which called for, among other things, 25 players, a field 110 meters x 70 meters, a 24 foot wide goal, movement of the ball allowed with all parts of the body (including hands, ball could be batted or held, but not carried or thrown). First team to score 6 points won. Interestingly, this same game is also generally recognized as the first GRIDIRON FOOTBALL game as well. ... Meanwhile, Harvard had become more interested in the Rugby form of the game, and looked for competition against similarly oriented teams. When they happened upon McGill University of Montreal, who had also adopted those rules, the two teams played the first intercollegiate rugby match in 1874. The second of these games was played with an oval ball under English Rugby Association rules, and marks the evolution of soccer into the modern gridiron game. A fateful event which would forever change the fortunes of American soccer took place in 1875 when Yale Harvard and bridged the game gap to play a match under special concessionary rules, which included both goals and tries (later touchdowns), and a 15 man roster. Harvard won 4 goals to none and 4 tries to none. Yale reassessed their position after this humiliation, and decided to adopt the Rugby code. Princeton, who had watched the game as observers were impressed enough to follow suit. In 1876, Harvard, Princeton and Columbia formed the Intercollegiate Football Association using Rugby rules. Stevens, Weslayen and Penn soon followed, and by the end of 1876, the death knell had been signed for collegiate soccer in the US." A very interesting read by the way. If you get a chance you should read the entire article. It puts the entire US soccer situation into a better perspective. Cheers
Originally posted by TeamUSA I try to be productive at work and don't have the time to spend voting for something that in all honesty is quite irrelevant. If it works out, great. If it doesn't I won't lose any sleep and nor should anyone else here. While a psuedo poll might influence a few people to view a match or two, in the end it all gets back to how the team plays on the pitch. If they win, they will come. I don't think the Av's are selling out their home matches anymore because they aren't having the winning seasons they've had in the past. It's no longer the place to be and be seen. I'll give my take on the Mammoth and the fans a bit later. _________________________________________ Irrelevant? IRRELEVANT??? SINCE WHEN IS SOCCER IRRELEVANT???? Damn the work and production, I say!! This country can survive without'em!! O.K.... o.k.... back to the reality... The "place to be and be seen" is all perception, and taking top votes even in a "pseudo" poll surely does nothing except perhaps increase this perception. You say it might influence few people to view a match or two, and I say in the business world there is a phrase; "All I want to do is get the customer thru my door." As far as staying power is concerned, the Revs had been ranked at last place for the first 6 years of MLS and still their loyal fans show up. It really is a no-loss/win situation!
Without a doubt corporate purchases play a role, it does everywhere across NHL/NBA/MLB/NFL. Not limited to Denver by any means. The tickets are still being sold though. Which leads me to a slight concern of mine about the Raps' announced seemingly being quite a bit higher than actual quite often. While every ticket dollar helps, I'd like to see some of these frequent no shows show up a bit more, like what they see, and follow the domino effect (buy more and more tickets, get friends to come).