5 Cities That Don’t Deserve Their Teams

Apr 17, 2013; Sacramento, CA, USA; Sacramento Kings fans hold up a sign during the game against the Los Angeles Clippers at the Sleep Train Arena. The Los Angeles Clippers defeated the Sacramento Kings 112-108. Mandatory Credit: Ed Szczepanski-USA TODAY Sports

Over the last half dozen years, there has been quite a bit of talk about taking the Kings out of Sacramento. Much of this has been attributed (by people who think they know but don’t) to a decline in the popularity of a team that was never popular to begin with. That is a flat out falsehood, as Kings fans are as avid as they have ever been, and the so-called experts seem to be confusing a deep-seated dislike for the ownership with a lack of support.

Let’s not forget that the Kings averaged a sellout crowd for home games nearly every year from 1985 until 2007 — that’s nearly 22 years of strong local support for a team that was terrible for the majority of that time.

People say Sacramento doesn’t deserve a team because they don’t support them, but I disagree. As a native of Sacramento I know better, there are plenty of cities that have teams they deserve far less than Sacramento deserves the Kings.

Here is a list of my top five:

May 6, 2013; San Diego, CA, USA; Fans look on from upper level seats during the National Anthem prior to the Miami Marlins game against the San Diego Padres at Petco Park. Mandatory Credit: Christopher Hanewinckel-USA TODAY Sports

5. San Diego Padres: As an avid baseball fan — and Giants fan — I obviously keep a sharp eye on the NL West standings. The Padres are so unpopular that I not only forget that they are in the NL West, but I also forget that they even exist. Apparently so does the city of San Diego, since the Padres ranked 29th in popularity in all of Major League Baseball last year.

4. Toronto Blue Jays: Possibly the only thing keeping the Padres from being 30th out of 30 is the fact that they tied for the bottom spot with the Toronto Blue Jays. Why are the Blue Jays so unpopular? Who can really say? They have won a couple championships, and people seemed excited when it happened, but they have been terribly unsupported for a long time. Maybe Canadians just aren’t baseball people — I mean, just ask the Expos.

3. Miami Heat. Sounds like a strange thing to say about the defending NBA champions, right? Before you “die hard” Heat fans dismiss this a heresy, tell me this: what was the starting line-up of the Miami Heat in 2009? If Dwyane Wade is all you can come up with then you are in good company. The Miami Heat really only made it out of the middle of the pack as far as attendance in the 05-07 time period: when they won a title (2006), and after 2010 when LeBron James decided to “bring his talents to South Beach”. Miami is the eighth most populated metro area in the United States, with a population of over 5.5 million. You would think with that many “die hard” fans, they could manage to rank better than 15th in attendance seven times in the last 13 years. Take away the LBJ era and that number drops to four, and between ’02 and ’04 they had a hard time making it into the top 20. Come on Miami, are you fans, or bandwagon jumpers?

2. Charlotte Bobcats: The Charlotte Bobcats have the one draw that could overcome their expansion team status: Michael Jordan. Unfortunately he isn’t playing for them; he owns them and he’s also running them into the ground, one bad decision at a time. The Bobcats average attendance runs at about 80%, compared to the Kings 79%. The difference is that the Bobcats play in a metropolitan area with a population density three times that of Sacramento.

October 4, 2012; Oakland, CA, USA; Oakland Raider fans celebrate after the Raiders scored a touchdown in the second quarter at O.co Coliseum. Mandatory Credit: Ed Szczepanski-USA TODAY Sports

1. Oakland Raiders: Ok wait, don’t kill me. The Raiders are a Bay Area institution, I agree. However, the fact of the matter is that bad leadership making bad decisions has crippled this team and its attendance. There is no arguing with the fact that Oakland runs at or near the bottom of the list when it comes to attendance, despite having a fan base that is described as “fiercely loyal”. The problem is that their fiercely loyal fan base is not large enough to sell out the Coliseum on a weekly basis, causing game blackouts that leave potential fans unable to watch. Say what you wish, but in a city of nearly half a million, the NFL team should sell out regularly. Green Bay, Wisconsin, has a population a third smaller than Oakland, yet they sell out almost weekly. I just think that a team as storied as the Raiders deserve better from “The Town” they call home.

Topics: Charlotte Bobcats, Miami Heat, Oakland Raiders, San Diego Padres, Toronto Blue Jays

Want more from Golden Gate Sports?  
Subscribe to FanSided Daily for your morning fix. Enter your email and stay in the know.
  • http://fansided.com Zach

    Would the NFL and Raiders be better off moving back to LA?

    • goldenbaysports

      I would have a hard time arguing against that. LA is a large, metropolitan area and it’s clearly a sports town. As much as it hurts to say.

      As long as the Raiders play in the Coliseum, there are going to be relocation rumors all over the place.

  • Travis Bateman

    Forget that the Blue Jays average 29,500 fans per game while playing in one of baseball’s worst stadiums, forget that they have some of the strongest local tv ratings in the MLB, and maybe you have a point?….nope still don’t have one….some facts would be cool if you’re going to rip on an entire country for not being “baseball people”

    • Chris Furry

      You are absolutely right, the Blue Jays do average 29,500 fans per game. The only problem with that stat is that Rogers Centre (formerly the SkyDome) seats 49,282 when configured for baseball. In my opinion having 40% of your seats empty on a regular basis doesn’t constitute strong support. Thank you for you comment though.

      • http://jaysjournal.com/author/mcdougles Daniel G.

        Right now, there’s 12 teams out of 30 that average 60% or less than max attendance per game. Last year, only 11 teams sat an average of 80% of max attendance, with 12th place being 73% attendance on average.

        You have to realize that baseball has at least twice the amount of home games of any other major sport. Depending on the size of the market, it’s hard to average near 80% attendance on average over 81 home games.

        • goldenbaysports
          • Chris Furry

            The San Francisco Giants average 99%. Sorry.

          • http://jaysjournal.com/author/mcdougles Daniel G.

            I’ll respond with this: the Cleveland Indians are not a huge draw, even in Cleveland. They’ve ranked in the bottom 6 in attendance since 2010. They’re dead last in attendance and they’re a half game back of the AL Central!

            Meanwhile, the immediate next series against the Red Sox averaged 43,000 in attendance.

          • malna

            I’ll respond with this, in regards to your link:

            How on earth do you write for a sport’s blog without already knowing that the second home game of the sports season is the toughest game to sell tickets for? How on earth does this support your point in any way shape or form?

            Often there are sellouts the first home game, and a stark decline in the level of tickets sold for the second game. The author of the article you linked to even says this:

            “The second-night slouch was expected after Tuesday’s impressive opening-day draw 48,857, but the Jays had still hoped to see numbers
            north of 30,000 for the rest of the Cleveland series.”

            The mistake on the Blue Jays part here was expecting to draw well against Cleveland.

            You should maybe respond with more than just a link if you want to argue a point, especially when your link doesnt say anything.

      • Brandon

        If filling seats in the stadium is the only way how you’re figuring out popularity, then that’s lame. Toronto built they’re dome large enough in ’89 to fit multiple purposes. Like Travis said, our avg attendance is up, and popularity is increasing again, not from hardcore fans who have been a mainstay, but from casual fans in the market.

        AND did you know way back in ’76 your Giants almost came to Toronto…..you had crap support back then.

        • Chris Furry

          Yes the Giants attendance was bad in ’74, ’75, and ,’76. But honestly, can you compare a few years of low attendance to the decades your team boasts? The Blue Jays have 3 years at the top of attendance, the Giants have decades. Also, saying you support a team and then not showing up to watch them play is called lip service.

          • http://jaysjournal.com/ Michael Wray

            Game attendance is only one way to look at a team’s popularity. TV ratings have been steadily rising for years and it’s not just “lip service” if you watch 162 games from the comfort of your couch. Have you ever been to Rogers Centre? It’s $10 for a beer and made of concrete. And the Blue Jays have one of the most active web communities in all of baseball. And the Giants? You were lucky to have Barry Bonds and some very good baseball teams the last decade plus. Your attendance numbers sucked as recently as the ’90s, ranking 11th in NL in 1997 even when you guys won the NL West.

          • Chris Furry

            Actually the Giants were terrible in the mid ’00′s and our attendance was still high.

          • http://jaysjournal.com/ Michael Wray

            lol you had a brand new ballpark and Barry Bonds… that will sell plenty tickets you are using faulty logic… miss the playoffs 20 straight years and see how many fans still show up… no one went to candlestick

          • malna

            Yeah this guy has no idea how to argue within context, it is amazing that he marvels at the Giants attendance numbers over the last 10 years without once mentioning the beautiful new baseball park in San Fran, or Barry Bonds breaking records.

            Hell, I even flew from Toronto to San Fran to watch them play Houston of last year (oh god) just so I could sit behind the plate in their park. I would not even consider paying that price to sit in the stadium formerly known as Skydome.

          • malna

            Again, the 20-25k per game (81 games per year) that have showed up over
            the last 20 years of mediocrity would like to have a word with you.

            I mean, all you do is provide lip service for your poor argument and evidence. How many decades are you referring to? The Jays haven’t been around for that many….

            But blue Jays fans not only say they support the team, but they watch the team by showing up to the park at respectable rates even when the team is poor, and they watch the team on television.

            And once again, why do you completely ignore the TV market with your poor argument? This is especially important if you are going to evaluate the popularity of the Toronto Blue Jays. Evaluating TV ratings is more important than attendance metrics anyways, as this is where most of a team’s revenue comes from and this would likely best help determine whether or not a city “deserves” the team. Money talks, and Canadians support the Blue Jays via the television. Thus, Toronto deserves the jays.

            It is cold in Canada, and we like to stay inside on the internet. We watch our games online or on tv. We even built a domed stadium to play outdoor games indoors when it is cold and rainy. TV ratings support the fact that the Jays are quite popular, and the Blue Jays have the largest exclusive TV broadcasting market in the MLB. Over the last ten years the jays have been bottom third in stadium attendance ratings (middle of the pack this year with a terrible team, and have only once been bottom five), top third in local tv ratings, 3rd largest city in the MLB market behind L.A. and NYC as we just passed chicago, largest exclusive TV market, and all of this built as an expansion team in a non traditional baseball market.

            Even when it is 100 degrees in the middle of the summer we like to think it is cold and watch the game on tv.

            Basically your argument can be summarized as follows: Canadians are pretty goddamn thoughtful about how they spend their money, and they would prefer to watch more baseball games on television rather than watch less games in a mediocre multi-purpose stadium for more money. Because they are thoughtful with how they spend their money and despite the fact that the Blue Jays and Expos have turned baseball into one of Canada’s top 5 most played/watched sports, Toronto does not deserve an MLB team as their physical attendance ratings have been below average since the last MLB Union work stoppage.

            You really thought long and hard about this one.

      • malna

        It doesn’t constitute as strong support for you because you are ignoring the facts to support your poor arguments.

        Allow me to repeat: the Stadium itself should not be a factor in determining the answer to your question (of popularity), yet the only metric you use is 100% dependent on the stadium configuration.

        The SkyDome was originally built as a multi-purpose stadium, and still is. When the stadium was built no one expected to sell 100% of the tickets every day for baseball, but it was expected that 60k large would be able to pack a Rolling Stones or Cher concert. It was only over this most recent offseason that the capacity was reduced to 49,282 after a slew of renovations that took out a couple thousand seats for the stadium’s baseball configuration.

        If the Blue Jays’ stadium was only a 10k capacity stadium but it was 90% filled every night, by your logic you would then deem the team as having a lot of support? Toronto would then deserve a professional baseball team at that point in time? Maybe all these sports/entertainment companies have been doing it wrong all along and need to reduce the sizes of their venues? What exactly is your clip point for the percentages you use?

        Your entire premise and argumentative form is disingenuous and in poor form, and you have clearly missed out on some basic post secondary business and critical thinking (logic) courses.

  • http://jaysjournal.com/author/mcdougles Daniel G.

    In my opinion, you’re right about the Toronto Blue Jays, but not because they aren’t baseball fans. In fact, they’re 16th in average attendance this year, 23rd last year, 25th in 2011 and 26th in 2010. Their attendance is improving, but let me explain why we don’t deserve a team (even though we will have one for a long time).

    Toronto is a hockey market. The Maple Leafs are an original 6 team, and the market for hockey is the hugest in the NHL. Its the primary sport that is followed in Toronto (and in Canada), with our sports networks (biggest is tv-conglomorate-backed Bell’s TSN) spending the majority of their coverage on hockey. They provide highlights, immediate reports from players after the game, then go to a panel of hockey experts (some of which are former/current players) which provide their expert analysis on the games and the directions of teams.

    After that, coverage typically goes to basketball with the abysmal Toronto Raptors, then (if it’s in season) Canadian Football League highlights followed by NFL highlights, then (if there’s a major tournament going on) Golf or Tennis or Curling highlights, then finally it’s baseball. It’s different for Sportsnet, which is owned by Rogers (who owns the Toronto Blue Jays), but even then sometimes coverage of hockey takes precedence.

    Baseball, for the past 2 decades, has been the 3rd of 4th sport of Toronto fans. There’s little coverage, little conversation and little respect paid by the market’s fans and media. However, this is great for bloggers (like myself), as it has led to a blossoming of analysis, conversation and prospect focus by the hardcore baseball community in Toronto. That’s why you see guys like Jon Heyman, Danny Knobler and Jon Trolololosi teasing and trolling for page views by inciting the Blue Jays community on Twitter; it’s because Toronto might have one of the most informed and dedicated HARDCORE fanbase. Toronto, however, has one of the weakest casual fanbase, as many people who show up to the games are geared towards the constant action of a hockey game, and are not nuanced to the slow-pace, marathon-esque nature that is baseball. That’s why (as of late) you have fans throwing beer cans, getting into fights, throwing paper airplanes at the stadiums.

    But recently there’s been a shift. Ever since the Blue Jays fired J.P. Ricciardi as GM (thank zombie Jebus) and replaced him with Alex Anthopoulos, the team has taken a smart direction. They’ve focused more on building a strong team through the draft since he took over in 2009, trading away the face of the franchise Roy Halladay for prospects, letting free agents walk to get draft compensation and by spending money on the international free agent market. As of this past off-season, however, with a bevy of blue chip prospects paired with a plethora of strong players that are signed with the club through 2015 (Jose Bautista, Edwin Encarnacion, Brandon Morrow, Casey Janssen, etc.) AA entered into win-soon mode and traded for great players like R.A. Dickey and Jose Reyes to add to a team built to make the playoffs before 2015 (after that, it’s up in the air).

    This win-now attitude has been noticed by the Toronto market that is desperate for a championship contender that’s been missing since the Blue Jays last won it all. Unfortunately, since they’re just jumping onto the bandwagon now they expect for Rome to be built in a day. The slow start (which is in part due to injuries to the starting rotation and blossoming Canuck Brett Lawrie) has led to many potential fans jumping off the bandwagon, which is unfortunate. AA’s strategy of slowly building a strong farm system to build a contender has been faltered only by the opportunity to suddenly jump from pretender to contender, and it’s been at the downfall of the potential fan.

    Now, the only chance to build the Blue Jays’ fanbase again is to actually make the playoffs. It’s not like we’re the Rays (who, in my opinion, are WAYYYY less deserving of their team due to bad attendance even when they made the World Series); the Greater Toronto Area has ~5M people, and the Blue Jays have sold out some games this year. We just need to have a good team.

    • Chris Furry

      Thank you for the comment, and I agree with pretty much all of what you said. The problem, again, is that even though their attendance has improved the Blue Jays still consistently rank last in popularity.

      • Guest

        I’m actually a staff writer for Jays Journal, the Blue Jays’ FanSided chapter. I was notified by our Twitter account and just had to jump on and explain exactly why our team has been bad in its support for the Blue Jays.

        • Chris Furry

          Ha, I saw that after I posted. I’m glad you did I enjoy a good debate. Best of luck in your future as a staff writer!

      • Andrea

        A super quick google shows that, “This year’s poll was conducted online among 2,163 U.S. adults from June 13-20 (Harris Poll).” Of course they are going to rank last when you exclude the whole country the team is located in.

  • Emmanuel Rojas

    Wait but the raiders only got blacked out once last year and it was vs a 2-14 jags team and the year b4 that they sold out all there games what r u talking about ?

    • Chris Furry

      Actually Emmanuel, the Raiders ranked dead last in attendance last year at 86%. Also in 2011 the averaged 94%, which is not a sellout crowd by any stretch of the imagination.

      • Emmanuel Rojas

        Still that BlackHole is Strong ! Loud and Proud ! Go RAIDERS!!!!!

        • Chris Furry

          Unfortunately the Black Hole doesn’t fill the stands.

          • Emmanuel Rojas

            No but us as raider fans come to b with 1 another every week if it means watching the game on tv radio or being @ the game as a family like no other that being the black hole that is unified as 1 it’s called the RAIDER NATION and that is what fills the BLACK HOLE ONE TEAM! One Family 1 NATION and that is the RAIDERNATION!

          • goldenbaysports

            Completely agreed. If only you guys could get more people in the seats and a better product on the field.

          • UncleStevve

            The better product comes from better management, which we hopefully have moving forward..

          • malna

            No, they have only filled 90% of the stands over the last two years. 94% in 2011, 86% in 2012, and only one local tv blackout during this time.

            What a shame and a waste.

            The lowly people of Oakland surely do not deserve a professional sports team, an NFL team, nor the Raiders specifically.

            Maybe Oakland should use tax dollars to build a smaller stadium so that they are always at 100% capacity. Guys? What do you think?

            Then they will surely deserve a team.

      • malna

        Actually, Chris, the Raiders ranked second last in attendance last year (2012 season) by attracting 433,732 total fans to their home games, 54,216 per game, on average.

        St. Louis only attracted 396,925 total fans during this same time.

        By your line of reasoning and logic (using only one metric – the percentage of seats which actually had bums in them while ignoring all other metrics), all Oakland would have had to do was remove a couple rows of seats to increase their 86% score past St. Louis’ 86.8%.

        Considering that you are stretching your imagination to say that 94% capacity filled is not a sellout in any way shape or form (it is pretty damn close, and considering this is an AVERAGE score, one would assume some of the scores are closer to, if not exactly, 100%), I am going to stretch my imagination and say that the Raiders have sold out nearly every home game over the last two years.

    • goldenbaysports

      The only reason they weren’t blacked out last season was because the NFL changed the policy that a stadium only had to be filled to 85 percent capacity. So it wasn’t blacked out, but it was far from a sellout.

      • malna

        Can you please provide a source which indicates that when one refers to a “sell out” in the NFL, one is only referring the clip point at which their games are no longer subject to the local television black out rule? For example, I assume that a “sell out” refers to 100% tickets sold.

        Can you please also provide a source which indicates that Oakland did not actually “sell out” all of their games in 2011? When you provide that source, keep in mind that the number of people that physically show up to the seats is not necessarily the same as the number of tickets actually sold. As far as I can tell, the Raiders were going so far as to offer 2 for 1
        deals in 2011 to ensure that all their tickets were sold.

        Thus, when all reports tell me that Oakland “sold out” every game in 2011 and that 94% of the seats physically had bums in them, while in 2012 all but one game was sold out and 86% of seats had bums in them, I start to question the legitimacy of your critical thinking abilities when including them on a list of cities that don’t deserve their teams.

  • 619chargers4life

    Come to San Diego and tell this to our fans face

    • Chris Furry

      Well, considering there will be about 20,000 empty seats at Petco Park on any given day, I am sure there will be a seat available should I choose to do so.

      • 619chargers4life

        Good luck

      • malna

        But there will still be 25,000 people there to party/chill/talk baseball with, on average.

        Again, I am not sure why the only metric for “popularity” you use is the “percentage of stadium seats that have bums in them, on average.” At the bare minimum simply using average absolute attendance numbers would be a better way at looking at this question, and average attendance numbers ignore most of the question in the first place. TV/Online numbers and advertising revenues would be a much better indicator of a team’s popularity, rather than physical attendance numbers.

        However, this might help everyone understand why the Padres and Blue Jays are on this poorly constructed list. With the Blue Jays, they use a multi purpose stadium that had a ~ 55,000 capacity until this year. The capacity is now well under ~ 50,000 after a bunch of offseason renovations. Thus, selling 25k tickets per game will not work well with the way you have evaluated “popularity”. Although even without the Blue Jays spike in attendance this year they would have been filling a higher percentage of their stadium capacity, simply because they renovated the stadium which reduced the number of seats.

        Furthermore, why on earth are you comparing the “percentage of stadium seats that have bums in them, on average” between different sports? It is completely unfair to compare the NFL, which plays 8 home games per year to the MLB, which plays 81 home games per year. One would expect that the percentages are going to be lower in the MLB as there are more event offerings.

  • http://www.facebook.com/chris.schroeder.161 Chris Schroeder

    Put down the pipe dude. Weed might help glaucoma but it makes people stupid. So you know that the Oakland Raiders have not only a Fanbase in Oakland but also in LA. The only team in existence to have a Fanbase dominating two separate regions. Here’s some facts that apparently you are unaware of. Over the last two seasons Oakland has sold out nearly every game. And they did sell out every game in 2011. You have to be retarded to list Oakland as a city undeserving of their team. Even with the team struggles over the last decade Oakland has one of the biggest and most loyal fan bases amongst any team. And you list them as number one. Wow!!!

    • Chris Furry

      Maybe you should check your facts my friend. They did NOT sell out every game over the last two seasons.

      http://espn.go.com/nfl/attendance/_/year/2012

      Maybe before you accuse someone of smoking weed you should read up on the ridiculous things that you are spouting. 86% sir, is NOT A SELLOUT.

      AGAIN< SAYING YOU SUPPORT A TEAM AND NOT SHOWING UP TO WATCH THEM PLAY IS CALLED LIP SERVICE!

      • malna

        Well, apparently you have problems reading.

        Chris Schroeder clearly stated: “Over the last two seasons Oakland has sold out NEARLY every game.”

        YOU MIGHT WANT TO PAY ATTENTION TO THE MODIFIER ADVERB, “NEARLY”!

        If you had have paid attention to this word before responding to the sentence that contained the word, you would have realized that he was in fact correct.

        The Oakland Raiders sold out every single home game in 2011 (according to a variety of sources), and according to the below website they sold out every single game in 2012 except for their game against the Cleveland Browns (understandably).

        http://www.silverandblackpride.com/2012/12/14/3768114/oakland-raiders-sell-out-final-home-game-of-2012-season-kansas-city-chiefs

        Even if we wanted to go by your 86% stadium-capacity-filled number (a number that is sure to be different than tickets sold as there is not necessarily a bum in a seat for every ticket sold), we all still come to the same conclusion:

        The Oakland Raiders have sold out nearly every game over the last two years.

        Is it still lip service to say somebody supports a team if they buy a ticket but do not attend the game (for whatever reason)?

    • goldenbaysports

      So why don’t they move to LA?

      • malna

        Because, as Chris Scroeder just stated, Oakland supports their Raiders just fine? And if LA is already supporting the Raiders team in order to not support the San Fransisco team, why bother with the cost of the move?

        • Chris Furry

          Perhaps you are right. I misquoted. What i should have said is the Raider did not sell out NEARLY every game over the last two seasons. While they did have a 94% average attendance at home in 2011 (which somehow qualifies as sold out?) They still came in 29th in the league. Also in 2012 the only averaged 86% which was good enough for DEAD LAST. Here is your source.

          http://espn.go.com/nfl/attendance/_/year/2011

          • malna

            Some people are good at using a variety of statistics to add depth and leverage to a point they are trying to make.

            You are not one of these people.

            I am still not sure why you continue to use the one stat you are using, despite its flaws in cementing your argument and despite the other stats which are available to use to help answer this question. A few key issues which are required for context in order to use your one stat: How large is the stadium? How large are other stadiums in the league? How large is that city? How large is that stadium relative to that city? How large is the stadium relative to the city, relative to other cities and stadiums in the league? How successful is the team, and how does success affect capacity rates, on average? How old is the stadium? Stadium amenities/general attractiveness?

            What’s worse is that after using that source you just linked to, it is getting pretty easy to tell that not only are you poor at constructing arguments in the written word, but you are also poor at reading. Using the link you just provided me, we see that that Oakland ranked 31/32 in terms of total attendance in 2012, 32/32 in terms of average attendance per game, and 29/32 in terms of the percentage of stadium seats that actually had bums in them.

            So, by averaging 86% capacity they were actually good enough for FOURTH LAST, not DEAD LAST as you are suggesting. Here is your source.

            http://espn.go.com/nfl/attendance/_/year/2012/sort/homePct

            At first I got mad at this article because I thought it was an example of Yellow Journalism that decided to say some factually incorrect things about some places I respect / live(d) in. Maybe not as extreme as Yellow Journalism, but at the bare minimum I was mad at a pandering fluff piece that had managed to steal my eye time such that I have contributed to your website’s traffic metrics.

            Now, after interacting with you here, I realize that you are just not very smart.

  • Keegan Tatum

    When I read an article such as this, my reaction is not to get offended because my beloved Padres are listed but rather I question why it was written. While my immediate reaction is to accept that I am, by default, inferior to Giants fans, I can’t help but feel that this was written merely to bother some people, as shocking as that must be to read. Maybe this is an impulsive thing – to say/do things against a people from somewhere else and henceforth treating them as inferior.

    The San Diego fanbase has never been given the respect it deserves because of those whom we root for. The Padres have the lowest payroll over the past three years and have one of the lowest year-by-year attendance figures. The owners seek only to make money. They lack passion for the sport, the organization, and winning. Given a dedicated ownership group San Diego would be a significantly better sports town. The ones at the top should be blamed rather than saying the fans don’t deserve a team. One can see that winning brings along myriad bandwagon fans. As someone who lives in the Bay Area (and must therefore deal with these types of fans on a regular basis), I see fans of the Giants merely because they’ve won. The same trend occurred during the mid to late 2000s and the Boston Red Sox. The difference between 25,000 fans per game and 40,000+ is an influx of bandwagon support.

    • jeff yaws

      this is how san fagcisco are,..

      they finally have a coue good teams and they flood out of the woodwork and think their shit dont stink and claim they’ve always been close fans

      these writers of golden bay sports are horrible biased writers and if the was a way to block them from my fansided feed i would

      • goldenbaysports

        We’ve been through this discussion before, Jeff.

        We aren’t biased. We love the Raiders. We love the Bay Area. We use facts to back up our opinions.

        If you don’t want to read us, then don’t. Take us off your Fansided feed. Plain and simple.

        • jeff yaws

          your writer mr he didnt even know greg knapp was with the raiders twice

          facts arent you writers strong suit

          i would love to know how to get goldenshowers sports off my fansided feed

          if you have any suggestions please let me k ow

          you guys are the worst lol

          • goldenbaysports

            Here’s how: If you see a link from Golden Gate Sports, don’t click on it.

          • malna

            Unfortunately it still clogs up the feed display, and eye time is valuable.

        • malna

          In my experience I find that the most biased individuals claim not to have biases.

          In order to be rid of your biases (a task that is likely not possible) you must first admit that every single human on earth carries a large number of biases with them everywhere they go. Then you can get to work on reducing the damaging effects of your biases.

          • Travis Williams

            Damaging biases.. haha Are you crying? Are you crying? There’s no crying from biases..

      • Chris Furry

        Wow, homophobic slurs, and some lame excuses about Giants and Niners bandwagoners. Good argument. Here are those facts you so desperately crave. In 2007 the 49ers were 7-9, two years removed from drafting Alex Smith and dark days ahead. Attendance stood at 96.9% at home, 18th in the league and 12 poisitions higher on the list than the Raiders who were 30th. In 2008 the San Francisco Giants went 72-90 and still kept an 85% attendance mark over their 81 home games, while the A’s who had a similar record at 75-86 weren’t even able to manage a 50% attendance rate. In 2010 the 49ers had a dismal 6-10 season, and attendance stood at 99.3%. That same year the Raiders broke even at 8-8 but could only manage to fill 73% of their seats. Through the good times the bad times and the UGLY times, 49ers and Giants fans came out and supported their teams, regardless of how bad the product was, entertaining or not they were THERE. Something Oakland can’t boast with ANY of it’s teams. Don’t blame me and call me biased, blame yourselves and your fair-weathered attitude. Sorry about your bad luck.

    • goldenbaysports

      If you think we wrote this piece to bother people from different areas, you’re wrong. You may have noticed that we ranked the Raiders — a team from the Bay Area — at No. 1.

      Thanks for your comments about the Padres. While it’s true that they don’t put a good product on the field and have a low payroll, that’s no excuse to have no support. In the article, it is stated that the Padres are the second least popular team in MLB.

      If the Padres won the World Series, I guarantee they would get a ton of more support, bandwagon or not. At that point, they would definitely not be on this list.

      • Keegan Tatum

        You did put the Oakland Raiders at number 1. However, you aren’t a fan of theirs.

        My main point cannot be overstated: the Padres ownership is interested only in profits. They are the baseball equivalent of banksters (I hope that makes sense to someone that’s not me). They simply don’t care. It’s difficult to grow upon a fan base when an ownership group would take money above all else. And the fact is that it’s not sexy to own the Padres. Billionaire want to either make a shitzillion dollars or own a prestigious and/or elitist team. I suppose that’s a sad reflection of our society.

        Also, I don’t think that bandwagon fans should be a measure of how much a city is worthy of it’s team. I guarantee that die-hard Padre fans make up a higher percentage of paid attendance than do Giant fans who hold the same passion for their team.

        • goldenbaysports

          We aren’t a fan of any team. We support Bay Area sports as a whole.

          Chris may be a Niner fan, but his writing reflects that of Golden Gate Sports, which again, covers the entire Bay Area region.

      • malna

        How does putting the Raiders on your list mean that you are not trying to bother people from different cities? As a blog that gets its traffic from prying on our basic sensibilities as territorial animals rather than from quality writing or sound research, it would make a lot of sense to me that you would list a city/team within your own territory in a blog post such as this.

        Why?

        This would theoretically help draw more traffic into your website as most of your readership base is likely located around the Bay area, and probably wouldn’t take too kindly to having the local team ripped on. Even if the locals totally disregard the franchise, or even loathed it, an article like this would theoretically still pique some curiosity as locals typically enjoy knowing the state of affairs within their neighborhood – whether or not it is good or bad, or something they agree with.

        Furthermore, if you can say something bad about your own region’s sport team in a way that the locals might disagree with, then you are more likely to spur heated debate about the topic, further increasing traffic metrics on your website such as a user’s average time on site, bounce rate, and referrals via sources like twitter. More along those lines, the more localized and focused a blog is, the more likely you are to have an incentive to go after certain keywords such that your on-site advertising can be sold in a more optimal manner. This can also be advantageous for organic search referrals as well.

        So yeah, it would make total sense that a regional sports blog entitled “Golden Gate Sports” would include a local sports team called the “Oakland Raiders” on an article meant to simply piss people off.

        It worked and got me here reading and discussing your blog, though I’m not sure these are the reactions you were looking for.

    • Chris Furry

      I’m sorry you feel like i was trying to shock you, I wasn’t. I was merely pointing out that the Padres are badly supported, Giants fans by the way, had an attendance of 85% in one of the worst seasons in recent memory. The Padres didn’t make it above 50%.

      • malna

        Can you please provide your source for these attendance numbers?

        Furthermore, can you please explain to me how “total percentage of stadium capacity filled” can be equated to the popularity of the franchise and why or why not a certain city deserves said franchise?

        How does this account for stadium size? City size? Actual attendance numbers? TV/Internet ratings? The ability of the city to support the financial health of the franchise via other means?

        If the Padres are so “poorly supported” and San Diego “doesn’t deserve their team” because they are are only selling 50% of their stadium seats per game, on average, you would figure that some smart businessman would have adjusted this situation since 1969.

        The simplest solution, as per the guidelines that would help make San Diego “deserve” their team as per your metrics, would be to reduce the stadium to a 15-20k seater such that they were always selling 100% of their tickets.

        Problem solved. Time to write a new article.

        • Chris Furry
          • malna

            Now that the actual source has been provided, can you answer the rest of the questions from my previous comment? If you are going to write and publish an article at least defend your assertions.

            Most importantly, how on earth does “bums in seats as a percentage of total seats in stadium” have anything to do with that team’s popularity and whether or not the city deserves the team? This is only relevant if you also state the stadium size, why that stadium was built, and the circumstances around why a particular sports team is in a particular stadium. If the Yankees had a 500k capacity stadium (not happening anytime soon, obviously) would they still be hitting their 90% + numbers? What about the Red Sox in their mini yard, if they moved to a larger yard? What about the Indians in the 70′s and 80′s when they had an 80k capacity stadium?

            The only relevant attendance statistic on the ESPN website is attendance per game (maybe total attendance if you are not capable of multiplying), and even then we must question whether or not this is tickets sold or bums in seats.

            And why does ESPN suggest that for both the NFL and MLB attendance statistics that it is possible to have more than 100% of your stadium filled? Don’t get me wrong, I totally understand the concept of standing room only and packing a house tightly. But I am going to go ahead and assume here that ticket vending issues, liquor license laws, and a whole bunch of other policing and crowd enforcement by laws would prevent any MLB or NFL stadium from being over capacity – much like restaurants and bars can only have certain numbers of people in them, by law.

          • Travis Williams

            Can you please read the original article and respond in context to what it was actually talking about? Your responses just make you sound like you’re stroking your ego waaaay to much.. this isn’t an audition for First Take guy..

      • Keegan Tatum

        So let me get this straight. Your intent was not to “shock” people. I’m going to take that as you meant not to offend people. Ok. Then why not call this article “5 Teams that Deserve More Support” or “5 Teams that Need More Support?”

        If I were writing an article that used attendance as evidence, the percentage of seats sold would not be my centerpiece. To add to malna’s comment below, the bandwagon factor isn’t taken into account. Bandwagon fans inflate recent winning franchise’s attendance figures and therefore are a very poor measure of how much love a city gives to a team. The Giants are a unique bandwagon case. At one point in the comments section, it was noted that the Giants saw 85% attendance figures when the Giants were finishing at the bottom of the NL West. This is deceiving because I know (from experience) that there were bandwagon Barry Bonds fans. So tell me, is that something to brag about. People wanted to come out and see him.

        You aren’t better than us because your team has won two World Series Titles in three years. Not only is it irritating that someone would write such a low-brow article but it’s rather pitiful. Is it insecurity, arrogance, or a post-retirement impulse to continue to make others unhappy? Do any of the fanbases mentioned above “deserve” to have their teams taken from them?

    • malna

      I totally agree. Articles like this are simply meant to make certain people in certain cities upset for no reason at all, and to boost traffic ratings on the site. It is almost the exact definition of “Yellow Journalism”:

      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yellow_journalism

      If the author actually wanted to engage in civil discussion about a topic like this, he would have provided some legitimate sources that actually supported his claims rather than merely pandering to regional divide lines that stir very basic human emotions. I came to this article curious to find out why Toronto did not deserve the Blue Jays, or any sports team at all.

      After realizing that this author had absolutely no interesting insight or data to back up his points, I came to the conclusion that the author ( Chris Furry ) simply felt upset after being forced to watch a 36+ inning 3 game series between the Padres and the Blue Jays over the weekend.

      I mean, if the author had any actual insight, he would know that Canadians are actually some of the biggest baseball fans on earth, and that SkyDome attendance numbers during two decades of mediocrity (while completely ignoring one of the largest MLB Telivision/Online markets) hardly tell any of the story as to whether or not Toronto (or Canada) deserve an MLB team. How many other countries in the world can mark baseball as being the 3rd-6th most popular sport in their land depending on which age/gender/region/metric you want to look at?

      http://www.statcan.gc.ca/pub/81-595-m/2008060/s5-eng.htm

      Off the top of my head, I would guess only a few: USA, Cuba, Japan (maybe), Dominican Republic, and Venezuela (maybe).

  • RetiredCatholic

    With the exception of the Heat, these teams underperform chronically. Why should people waste what is a good deal of money to most on teams that won’t put a good team out there for them to watch? Sports are entertainment, why spend money to be bored or PO’d?

    • malna

      Well, sports at the highest level can be consumed as entertainment. But watching or engaging in sport, as a general principle, does not necessarily imply entertainment. Much like art and entertainment are two mutually exclusive items.

      But yeah, I see your point. I generally don’t pay for movies or television shows until I have already been entertained by them, and there is a set of parameters by which i would pay to watch professional sports.

      • RetiredCatholic

        A movie comes out after being reviewed and previewed and bargain hours cost seven bucks. Eat and drink normally, and you can pay ten times that at a ball game-quite easily when you bring a child or two.There are movies I don’t go to, either, if I’m familiar with the previous output of those involved. With movies there is a lot of choice. Say, between the badly done Red Tails and the Hurt Locker, or some dumb vampire trilogy and the Lord of the Rings.

  • Samuel Brewer

    I agree with you when you say most people are misinformed about the fan support the Kings have . We love our team and look forward to great years to come, win or lose.

    With that said, I am a Padres fan and don’t wish to see San Diego lose its team. The Padres have a ton of fans all over California. I have been to interleague games between the A’s and Padres and have seen tons of empty seats in Oakland. In fact, it seemed like there was just as many Padres fans as A’s fans.The team has improved over the last few year’s with youth, and hopefully in a year or two they will be contenders. It’s how Atlanta went from worst to best in the 90′s.

  • lorens

    The Raiders have had better success with attendance in LA than Oakland. The true reason why it was difficult to succeed in LA was that they had to sell 105,000 seats every week and sit in a venue that was built in 1911, not to mention having to pay T-Bone to park on his house lawn in South Central LA to have decent parking. I’m a big Raiders fan and I used to make my trips to Oakland to watch them, but honestly, the stadium is a dump, and its no longer worth making the trip. Why should I pay big bucks on tickets if the team and the city feels the team is as worthy as such to play on a baseball diamond??

    • Chris Furry

      You just made my point. ” the city feels the team is as worthy as such to play on a baseball diamond??”. Exactly.

  • Chris Furry
  • Samuel Brewer

    This article has bugged me since reading it early today. You pick on San Diego Padres for being a poor supported team. I just pulled attendance numbers for ten years. Their are 30 teams. In 10 years the Padres have ranged from 7 to 21in attendance. That isn’t last or even near last. In fact a team in your own area, The A’s, have had worse attendance except for one year. That one year the A’s did better, they barely beat the Padres. Don’t get me wrong, I don’t want Oakland to lose their team, I’m from Sacramento were the A’s have their minor league team The Rivercats. But people shouldn’t go around pointing at teams saying that city doesn’t deserve a team.

    • Samuel Brewer

      And we’re do you get your numbers for ranking popularity? Attendance #’s Don’t support what your saying. How are the Padres the second to last popular teams.

      • goldenbaysports
        • Samuel Brewer

          I click the link, and all it shows is photos in order of how the poll shows. How about a breakdown of who was polled and how they got results. I googled most popular teams and found different results. The A’s as second to worst and Padres at 21.

          http://bleacherreport.com/articles/1219254-mlb-power-rankings-the-worst-fan-bases-in-baseball

          • Samuel Brewer

            23rd Padres (3rd most buzz last month)

            27th A’s

            http://m.kcra.com/news/-/17404292/19544422/-/7241wjz/-/index.html

          • goldenbaysports

            We can argue about this all day long and pull up different sources saying different things.

          • malna

            Except that your source literally says nothing, it is just a slideshow of pictures.

            What’s worse is that this article is mostly based off of the captions for the pictures in the slideshow, not even the pictures themselves. Furthermore, your source provides no real data in any of the picture captions.

            If it did, the author would realize that the Padres and the Blue Jays aren’t actually that unpopular at all – much like Samuel Brewer has pointed out.

          • Chris Furry

            The source is the results of a national Harris Poll. Try reading the headlines.

            http://www.kirotv.com/gallery/entertainment/multimedia/favorite-mlb-teams/gZrs/#1276821

          • malna

            I tried reading the headlines. Here is what they said:

            “MLB’s most, and least, popular teams

            Favorite MLB Team”

            The only place that Harris Poll is mentioned is in the caption of the 1st image (of 32) on that image slideshow you have now linked to multiple times. Again, an image slideshow is not a credible source. An image slideshow that merely mentions some random poll but no other context is not a credible source.

            Who is Harris? How was this poll done? Where are the raw results of the poll? Please send me the links.

            And how on earth does some random poll provide any sort of indication for whether or not a certain city does or does not deserve its team?

        • malna

          Is this seriously your excuse for a source?

      • malna

        Yeah seriously, what a brutal article. If the guy is going to take shots at cities and countries then at least have an interesting point to make or use a credible source here and there.

  • Travis Williams

    FYI none of you padres, blue jays, raiders fans gave a crap about the Sacramento Kings fans having their team damn near stolen us.. which is why this piece was written in the first place. Idiots.. the fact of the matter is that none of your fanbases can boast anything close to the consecutive home sellout record that our fanbase had going for close to a decade. But someone writes an opinion piece and you’re all up in arms.. there aren’t very many fanbases out there if any that desreve a team more. The greedy former owners tried their best to dampen our spirits, but when a new owner stepped in, the Kings season tickets were selling at a rate of one ticket per four seconds until sold out.. but we don’t support them.. Go Kings!! Great piece Mr. Furry :)

    • Chris Furry

      Thank you, Travis. And to keep the nay-sayers informed it was over 2 DECADES. That by the way is a record. Thanks again.

      • Travis Williams

        I wanted them to think they were actually closer than they were.. haha

      • malna

        A record for what?

        How does it compare to Fenway Park’s attendance streak?

    • Samuel Brewer

      I do give a coral. I posted a comment saying I was both a Kings fan and a Padres fan. I live in Sacramento. Just like when Seattle fans would talk crazy about Sacramento not deserving a team, I also get upset when people say San Diego doesn’t deserve a team. The writer uses attendance numbers to prove Sacramento deserves the Kings, but some random poll for baseball. Why not use the attendance numbers for baseball if your argument is that the home fans don’t care.

      • Travis Williams

        Not having enough fan support was the reasoning the magoofs used to try and take them away.. that’s why the attendance argument was made against those other teams.. that’s all. Nobody is actively saying that those teamz should be taken away.. only that those teams should go before Sacramento should lose our Kings if based on attendance. He couldve used only basketball teams, but Kings fans have made that argument many times and nobody listens. It seems as though this way brought some awareness to this issue.

    • malna

      As a Blue Jays fan that is up in arms about this article due to its poor research and sensationalism, I can tell you that most people in Toronto did not care about Sacramento having the Kings stolen from them because most people in Toronto do not care about the sports teams in Sacramento unless they are facing each other. From my perspective, and I think i can speak for a lot of people so far removed from the Sacramento situation, I think most people construed this as “business as usual”: Owners weren’t making the money they wanted to make, and that was that.

      Unfortunately, selling out an 18,000 capacity arena for ten years is no longer as relevant as it once was. Most money is made via some sort of advertising – either local or on television. Networks pay for the rights to broadcast with ad revenues.

      Case in point: in 2012, Blue Jays attendance was about 15% over 2011, from ~22k / game to ~25k / game. It was estimated that this only increased profits by about 5-7 million dollars for the team. In baseball, this is enough to buy you one mediocre free agent and a team will generally need between 40-50 players for a season. What does 5-7 million dollars do for a team in basketball? Not a whole lot.

      Basically what I am saying is that even if Sacramento had a 30,000k capacity arena (never happening I know) and they sold out every game for a decade an owner would still likely have the problem of attracting advertising dollars in the city.

      I understand the business aspect of it, but it still sucks for the people most of all. Sports are supposed to be by the people and for the people, and it is disconcerting when at the highest levels of sport we are made aware of the business aspects that take away from sport and entertainment itself.

  • Richard

    I’m sorry but for years fans have had to pay a very high price for Raiders tickets before the organization took over and better adjusted the cost of tickets to match the location .I recall back in 2000, tickets on mt Davis being 50 bucks for mid field while the same midfield tickets at the club level were 70 (hardly fair, and rather pricey at that time). Also there has been a proposal pushed through to scout out the construction of “Coliseum City” on the current location of O.co . To say that Raiders don’t deserve their team over the Bengals or any NFL team in Florida seems to be pure personal bias on your part Chris.

    • Chris Furry

      Again, its not bias. More people go watch the Bengals and Jags play, that is why the Raiders are dead last in attendance. Ticket prices are high everywhere.

      • Richard

        As far as attendance goes the Raiders were not last according to last years numbers the Jags the Bucs anf the Chiefs had worse attendance for starters. And I was referring to ticket prices before the restructure when ticket prices increased and decreased dramatically throughout the stadium depending on location. This restructure helped the Raiders sell tickets to people that weren’t willing to shell out 50+ for bad seats. I’ve been a season ticket holder for years and it seems that you did not do any research when making this list.

        • Chris Furry

          I’m pretty sure that the team ranked 32nd out of 32
          for 2012 on this list says Oakland. My info comes from ESPN so unless you’re going to tell me they’re another biased media outlet that is lying to prove my point, you sir are misinformed.
          http://espn.go.com/nfl/attendance/_/year/2012

          • malna

            I’m pretty sure that you are wrong.

            Oakland ranked 31/32 in total attendance for home games last year (2012), according to the exact same ESPN source you claim to be using:

            http://espn.go.com/nfl/attendance/_/year/2012/sort/homeTotal

          • Chris Furry

            Am I the only one that thinks its strange that when I click on you link and I click on my link there are different results? What sorcery is this?

          • malna

            The URL changes to reflect how the table is sorted. The ESPN table can be sorted for 3 metrics for any given year, they are: total attendance, average attendance per game, and total attendance as a percentage of available seats.

            The only category that Oakland ranked last in during 2012 was average attendance per game.

            I am still not sure how this is an indication of Oakland not deserving the Raiders (as the article title suggests), nor does it mean that the Raiders are not popular.

            If I was a Raiders fan, I would not want to pay 100$ to sit in a half-baseball-half-football stadium watching mediocre sporting entertainment, and I would not help contribute to the ESPN attendance numbers.

            I would just watch the game on TV/Internet, and contribute to those metrics.

            Metrics which you have conveniently ignored when calling out entire fanbases, cities, and countries with your very own brand of Yellow Journalism.

  • Fan Card

    Don’t get me wrong. I am all about calling out bandwagon fans (http://fancardblog.com/?p=76) but to say Miami doesn’t deserve a team is a bit of a stretch.

  • Jason Klenetsky

    You are delusional dude

  • mrjktcvs

    It isn’t San Diego, it’s the Padres organization.

  • Travis Williams

    I’m pretty sure this Malna is a troll.. either that or it has waaaay too much time in its hands

  • Chris Furry

    So you can afford to drive from Toronto to Oakland to watcha Raiders game, but not to the Rogers center to watch a Jays game. That makes zero sense. Also I NEVER SAID THE RAIDERS DON’T HAVE FANS I SAID THE SUPPORT THEY RECIEVE FROM OAKLAND TELLS ME THAT OAKLAND DOESN’T DESERVE THEM. They should be in LA, in a new stadium, in a football starved market. They could prosper there and maybe more fans would show up. O.co is a dump, plain and simple and if Oakland doesn’t want to provide them with better facilities OF THEIR OWN, they should leave. According to all the Raiders fans on here it doesn’t matter it they are in Oakland or LA, they will still be fans. They were fans last time they were in LA, so why not give the team a chance. By the way, if you showed up and watched the way Yankees fans do, the Jays could afford a bigger payroll.

  • goldenbaysports

    and “your” an idiot as well. Thanks for your comments.

  • goldenbaysports

    I will, thanks for the recommendation. Real “pridenpoise” you are displaying.

  • goldenbaysports

    And yet you keep coming back to comment and curse on our articles. You don’t like us? Don’t read us. Plain and simple.

  • Richard

    Attendance in LA was abysmal to say the least. Gang associations killed the Raiders image and Family attendance dipped immensely. To say that LA deserves a team is idiotic for starters because in 40 years they have managed to lose three nfl teams. No other market has lost as many. In addition to this they have not actively pursued a new team in 19 years while considerably smaller markets in Jacksonville, Houston, and Charlotte were granted expansion teams.