We played in the street pre-rollerblades. Hockey stick, a ball, and our jackets served as goals. It can be done cheaply, it just isn't in most places for some reason.
I'm basing it on intangibles. I spent most of my life in Philly, and I can confidently tell you that the Flyers are the second most popular franchise in town. There's always a buzz about the Flyers, no matter how good the team is (altho admittedly there hasn't been a truly bad Flyers team in a very long time, which you can't say about the other 3 major franchises in Philly)--the only time there's ever been a real buzz about the 76ers was the year they went to the NBA Finals, same with the Phillies and the 1993 World Series (altho there was a bit of it this past summer, they had a good team).
I appreciate your comments, but I just don't find "intangibles" to be very useful. How can you be confident about something without having any evidence to back it up other than a feeling?
A (very) crude way to measure popularity is Google hits. Philadelphia Eagles: 384,000 Philadelphia Phillies: 253,000 Philadelphia Flyers: 181,000 Philadelphia 76ers: 172,000 Boston Red Sox 413,000 New England Patriots 310,000 Boston Bruins 202,000 Boston Celtics 193,000 New England Revolution: 46,500 Edit: Manchester United: 675,000 New York Yankees: 517,000
This thread reminded me of a John Buccigross article that I have bookmarked: http://sports.espn.go.com/nhl/playoffs2003/story?id=1538933
And we played touch football in the street, with the neighbor's tree marking one goal line and the El Camino parked down the street marking the other. We did so because we had exposure to the real game and we liked it. We could just as easily have played hockey with some makeshift sticks, but there was no exposure to the game at any level. If we wanted to knock a ball through a goal made of jackets, we would play soccer.
one can never have too many canadiens, damn fine people how is living in the freakin' town not a good way to take the sports pulse? he lives there and you discount his opinion... then you come back with freakin' google hits as 'crude evidence'? unbelievable!
But in basketball points are actually scored. Each time the team goes downcourt, points may or may not be scored, and then the other team can go down and change the score right away. The scores constantly change, but it isn't repetitive like hockey. In hockey, less than 10% of shots actually go in, and when they do, you don't even know until you hear a siren because you can't see the puck well at all. Also, there really isn't anything special about any goals, they all seem to be the same.
Funny. I know another sport where two teams run up and down a field trying to score a goal past a goalie. And a small percentage of shots go in as well.
When I grew up in Kansas City in the fifties, I always had a basketball goal, we had local baseball teams, and semi-organized basketball teams. We played touch football in our back yards, and as we got bigger and more people touch or tackle in the parks and school grounds. Hockey had minimal coverage. I played it once or twice with sticks and something for a puck on a creek. There was an ice skating rink, but no organized hockey. The first time I saw or played soccer was on a field hockey field at Kansas University in 1966. My first sight of a real soccer field was when I went to work at IBM in 1968 in Kingston, NY. In summary, there were only three team sports growing up, and hockey and soccer weren't one of them.
The percentage is a lot higher. The game is much more exciting. And you can actually SEE THE BALL! Every time a team is going down the pitch your heart starts to race. In hockey, when a guy shoots, you just think to yourself "another shot, another save."
There are people whose hearts race every time a bobsled nears a curve. I'm not one of those people, but I realize people have different tastes. What's exciting to you isn't exciting for everyone else. In soccer, when a team goes down the pitch, you just think to yourself "another poorly executed cross, another easy catch for the keeper". See how stupid it is? Well, it's no less stupid than your statement.
Re: Re: why is hockey less popular than big 3? Bingo..... and there aren;t that many frozen ponds in most of the US .... alas..... Go Rangers!
I find people unwilling to consider any data to be beyond unbelievable. That seems to be a pattern with you. One problem here is that we can't even translate these feelings or your "sports pulse" into a meaningful definition of popularity.
And then there's the immense illegal betting on football, SD. Can't forget that. I love all of the major sports save pro basketball (it wasn't the game I watched as a kid I guess - college is still fairly good). Hockey is absolutely the one that you have to pay attention to the most because the action is fast & furious. These guys are in tip-top shape, are tough as shoe leather and competitive as can be. It has a great history (the history of pro football & basketball pales in comparison IMO), dedicated fans and they still let them drop the gloves to settle "disputes" (although if Bettman had his way he'd force them to have pillow fights). Did I mention that they punch the crap out of each other now & then?
keep whining because you didn't give a statistic worth mentioning - google freakin' hits?! ya know what that tells us? it tells us how many people didn't know where to find the websites they were looking for - so where, mr. wizard, do those figures take into account the people who have the websites they want in their favorites? or written on a piece of paper? or were sent the link in an email? or followed a link from nhl.com? guess what, unbelievable one.... they don't! oh and by the way have youe ever lived in philadelphia? been to philadelphia for more than a few days?