I'm sorry, I shouldn't have said hits. I should have said "results" or "web pages" I also checked archived Philadelphia newspaper articles and there were 7% more mentions of the Phillies than the Flyers (12,300 to 11,500). As expected, the Eagles came out on top (13,900) Nope, just long enough to see Mike Schmidt, Dick Allen, Larry Bowa and Greg Luzinski. Again, the only thing relevant is objective evidence not "feelings" or anecdotes.
Give me any of your "objective evidence" and I'll tell you exactly why it, and you, are full of *#*#*#*#. Do you want to know why the Phillies have 7% more mentions in Philly papers than the Flyers? Could it have something to do with the Phillies playing 162 games against 82 for the Flyers? Ya think? There is no one "objective way" to measure a team's popularity. Attendance is a team popularity to ticket price ratio. Newspaper coverage is often decided on a combination of popularity and success. And then there is the issue of the fair-weather fan. Basketball and football are easy sports for the fair-weather fan to follow: Basketball has constant scoring, so even those who don't understand the game can keep up. Football breaks its action up into seven-second spurts so that announcers can tell fair-weather fans what they just saw. I've always considered baseball and hockey (and soccer) to be different in that sense. That all being said, I'd be surprised if hockey was higher than third in most non-Original Six cities that have all four major professional sports. It is in Denver (second or third, depending almost solely on the Rockies' bullpen). And for the record, I don't think you can judge it if you're not in that city. RS
[sarcasm]yeah that makes a difference[/sarcasm] - so my question stands...how does that factor in the the people who don't need to find the links? more statistics (yawn) - ok i'll give you one of my own: the phillies got 7% more mentions... with 200% as many games ok then, now we are getting somewhere - you want to try and prove everything with stats, but that is simply not reasonable ben - this time we are talking about the flavor of a city and i am going to listen to a lifelong resident before i listen to a guy who spent a couple days in philly - i mean were you even there during hockey season? sounds like you were there during the summer, so (as usual) your version is skewed - but if you demand statistics, i'll provide another one... and consider this objectively... 100% of people who have resided in philadelphia for thousands upon thousands of days are more qualified to speak on what the city is like than are you - it's not like you are being objective at all... you have come up with a position and then found numbers that "prove" your assertion - had it happened the other way around, your boast of objectivity would be appropriate
It's web pages! Not links. More web pages mention the Philadelphia Phillies than the the Philadelphia Flyers. Second, if it were as you imagined, your logic is still terribly flawed because it's an extremely unlikely explanation for the discrepancy. 100% more games, not 200%. However, the Eagles are mentioned more than the Phillies. Define "flavor" Measure it. One person (or a handful) on a soccer message board is not much of a sample. If you had long-term polling data to suggest that the Flyers were more popular than the Phillies, then I'd listen. Nope, you're wrong again. By several of these measures the Red Wings are ahead of the Tigers.
1-blah blah blobbity blah - says you - i never stated that the variables listed meant anything conrete, i only stated that your google statistics don't prove your stance - btw where are your statistics to show how flawed my logic is? and how unlikely my explanation is? without them i don't know what to think 2-twice as many, you know what i meant - and of course, instead of responding to that figure you countered that the eagles blah blah blah - all you did was prove my point that those stats you offered prove nothing 3-this is your problem - you think everything can be quantified in an absolute manner with abstract figures and manufactured stats - i could work all night and mathmatically prove that a tree branch could support an elephant... doesn't make it so 4-please remember THIS next time you wish to hijack a thread 5-and if i cared enough i might look for some NEWSFLASH: i NEVER said anybody was more popular than anybody else - i merely pointed out that you are in no position to adequately judge the sports fan situation in philadelphia and you have posted nothing since to convince anybody that you are 6-blah blah blah - lemme ask ya? what do the people of that town call themselves? is it baseballtown?
Exactly. Can I provide any solid, concrete evidence that the Flyers are more popular than the Phillies? No, just like you (Ben) can't provide any concrete evidence that the reverse is true. What I can tell you is that I've lived in Philly for most of my life, and the Flyers are a lot more popular than the Phillies (and for that matter, the 76ers are just as popular as the Phils). Before this past summer, the last time I can remember anyone giving a *#*#*#*# about the Phillies was 1993 (and even this summer the spike in popularity was fairly modest). By contrast the Flyers are always popular (in fairness, they're always good). In addition, the Flyers have to compete with the Eagles--by far the most popular team in town--for the first half of their season. If you tune into WIP, the local sports-talk station, during the friggin' dead of summer, you're just as likely to hear Eagles talk as you are Phillies talk. And there's a lot more Flyers discussion in, say, July, than there is Phillies discussion in January. There aren't many US cities where the NHL is more popular than MLB, but Philly is one of them--as are Detroit, Minneapolis, and arguably Denver and St. Louis (leaving aside cities that don't have both sports). There was actually an article on either ESPN or CNNSI a month or so ago that had a writeup on every town that had both an NHL and MLB team saying which of the 2 was more popular in that city, anyone have a link to it?
Nope, not at all. The Eagles have the most mentions. There are more Red Wings articles than Tigers in the Detroit Free Press archives. Even if the reason was exclusively due to having more games, that still relates to popularity. I don't have the time to go on and on about this, but having so many games has its disadvantages as well in terms of popularity. There are no perfect ways to measure popularity, but we can do a heck of a lot better than "I have a feeling" In other words, I'm asking WHAT DO YOU MEAN when you say the Flyers are more popular than the Phillies? Another thing to consider is Alex's demographic, by the way. I doubt he talks to many people who wax poetic about Richie Ashburn. Could be wrong, though. Yes, this is a big problem, which is why we need to look at long-term data. No opinion on whether the Yankees are more popular than Metrostars?
I'm not asking for "concrete evidence," I'm asking for ANY evidence. BTW, have you ever considered that 35-70 year old guys care more about the Phillies than that Flyers? Have you ever considered that maybe the Flyers are just more popular in your particular circle?
There is a less physical, gentlemanly league for you - the Swedish league. Eurotrash should leave their panties at the airport when they join the NHL, though. Do you remember the 70s at all? One of the best decades in hockey with the fiercest rivalries. It wasn't because of all the fancy skating, Euro-peeing, wimpy-stars out there. Hockey's changed and in respect to the physical aspect of the sport, not for the better.
He didn't use the word "more," you did. He was right. Math smack is lame. Math smack when you're correcting something that was right to begin with is really lame. Kansas City lame.
You can't seriously be suggesting that the Blues are conceivably more popular than the Cardinals in St. Louis, can you? If so, I hope I remember to put on a CCM HT652 hockey helmet before I slap my forehead.
nah dude CARDINAL baseball is like a religion in st. louis, but the BLUES are the second most popular team in town and that's sayin' something because the RAMS are veeeery popular
Spoken like a true self-serving canadian hockey purist. Get it through your head that you aren't an arguably never were the dominant hockey nation. Don Cherry is an xenophobic dinosaur. Go Sunbelt teams!!!
It's funny, the same people that say the 70's were the best decade in hockey are also the same that say the league is too watered down in talent now. If you recall, in the late 60's early 70's the league tripled in size. Also, there was the WHA around taking away players who would normally be expansion fodder. If that's not waterred down talent, I don't know what is. Anyways, blaming the Euros is always the easy scapegoat for North American hockey fans who can't bear to look themselves in the mirror. Remember a kid named Wayne Gretzky? Who was all fancy skating and would whine to the ref at every opportunity? And also had to have someone named Marty McSorely protecting him 24/7? Sounds pretty wimpy to me. I don't hear people blaming him for the "wussification" of the sport. Anyways, I love hockey, more now then ever. If they were to change anything, it was that they increase the size of the rinks. The players are getting bigger and faster but the rink isn't.
If they went to a larger ice surface I'd probably watch the game a lot more. I think they would gain fans with a bigger rink. More skating ,more exciting.
count me as one who thinks that more free flowing offense wouldn't necessarily equate to more NHL excitement
My favorite ice hockey scapegoats are the goaltenders and their ever enlarging equipment, the lack of a marketable superstar, and the too-small rinks.
Gretzky was such a superstar there's no one except for Mario in his prime who could match him. It's like Jordan in basketball. He could get away with murder and get every single call going. I love hockey too despite the influx of corner-avoiding skaters. They won't enlarge the rinks because they don't want to give up the premium seats downstairs. Seems kind of short-sighted but money talks obviously.
Having played the game my whole life and getting to a high level. While playing for teams in southern states, I noticed the lack of knowledge of the rules and I don’t know how many times when I went out. We talked they would say I just don’t understand the rules. I'd like it better if I understood the rules. With all other sports, it’s easy to understand the rules. Baseball most kids play it at a young age. The cost of the sport does not help. The only way the NHL will become bigger is on the grass roots effort and its starting to work. With the growth of teams in the southern states not just in big cites but more and more teams are starting to pop up in small to mid size southern cites. Kids start to play grow to love the sport. It’s the same thing with soccer. As far as making the game better, I'd make the ice bigger; players are just too big now. I don't know if I’d get rid of the red line but I would like to see it tried out at the AHL or ECHL level for a little while. Crack down on the clutch and grab (they are doing that now, just make sure they keep doing it).
Crack is very,very,very,bad for you.And it makes your posting even worse. I know you kids think it's cute to ingore history,and I realize who you're responding to,but.... the quoted statement is totally absurd. BTW,Euros didn't invent the trap.You can't use the trap on a wide surface.Roger Neilson (God bless the man) invented it in Peterborough.
Actually, no it isn't. Canadians should've learned this lesson back in 1972, when the Soviets fought them to the brink in that 8 game international tournament.