Reality/Fantasy.. What is more important to you?

twinlaker

twinlaker

Well-Known Member
With the relatively new interest in Fantasy leagues; where do you guys come down on this question? What is more important to you - the name on the front of the jersey or the name on the back?
Has fantasy changed the way a whole generation views team loyalty? If so is this good for sports? Franchises? Attendance? :confused:
 
For me personally, while I'm still 100% loyal to the teams I support whether or not it has an impact on my fantasy teams. So I don't necessarily think it has a negative impact on team loyalty. I do however think that it actually brings more popularity and interest to the sport because games that previously would have meaningless to an individual are now gaining there attention because they have a vested interest in a player on a certain team. I think this is good for the sport, but doesn't necessarily influence attendence numbers or product marketing because it's hard to gage the pull these players have on their owner in such leagues.
 
Thanks for the reply kicker. As a Twins fan since 1961, I just get to wondering what makes people decide to root for teams - or individual players.
MLB has stayed somewhat consistent, but I think around the late 80's, early 90's the NBA/NFL went away from marketing teams and switched to marketing the individual player, and I just don't see the loyalty to "local" teams that use to be so prevalent a generation ago. Pre ESPN, most everybody rooted for the team that was somewhat close by, or your local radio station would carry their games, etc.
It just seems that younger people don't seem as loyal to their local teams as what use to be. I know it's painting a lot of people with a broad brush, but again I wonder if 24 hour sport news cycles and highlight shows have damaged allegiances to local teams, or if the broader appeal has helped the various leagues in general?
Anybody else have thoughts on this subject?
 
twinlaker said:
Thanks for the reply kicker. As a Twins fan since 1961, I just get to wondering what makes people decide to root for teams - or individual players.
MLB has stayed somewhat consistent, but I think around the late 80's, early 90's the NBA/NFL went away from marketing teams and switched to marketing the individual player, and I just don't see the loyalty to "local" teams that use to be so prevalent a generation ago. Pre ESPN, most everybody rooted for the team that was somewhat close by, or your local radio station would carry their games, etc.
It just seems that younger people don't seem as loyal to their local teams as what use to be. I know it's painting a lot of people with a broad brush, but again I wonder if 24 hour sport news cycles and highlight shows have damaged allegiances to local teams, or if the broader appeal has helped the various leagues in general?
Anybody else have thoughts on this subject?
Click to expand...

I've said it before in other threads, that I think free agency is the main reason that you see more attention to the player as opposed to the focus on the team. I think for many of us, we start out loyal to the team we were fans of as kids, however we find ourselves getting attached to a superstar or player who then ends up moving around throughout his career and we continue to follow that player.
Let's face it the days when a team was built from the ground up and players worked their way through the system and remained with the team that drafted them for the majority of their career are over. From a professional standpoint it became more about the money then team loyalty and that's affected the fans as well. Not saying it's a bad thing, but it's hard to be 100% behind a team that shuffles rosters more frequently then a junior college.
 
kicker22 said:
I've said it before in other threads, that I think free agency is the main reason that you see more attention to the player as opposed to the focus on the team. I think for many of us, we start out loyal to the team we were fans of as kids, however we find ourselves getting attached to a superstar or player who then ends up moving around throughout his career and we continue to follow that player.
Let's face it the days when a team was built from the ground up and players worked their way through the system and remained with the team that drafted them for the majority of their career are over. From a professional standpoint it became more about the money then team loyalty and that's affected the fans as well. Not saying it's a bad thing, but it's hard to be 100% behind a team that shuffles rosters more frequently then a junior college.
Click to expand...

I agree with this. The only teams that I am 100% loyal to are the Hawks and the Cubs. I'd add the Blackhawks to that group, but since I've only really gotten into hockey in the last three years, I don't know what would happen if Kaner were to leave town.

But the NBA? Eh, I don't really care that much, pretty casual Bulls fan. NFL? I've been a Colts fan since 2004, when they drafted Bob Sanders. They still have Clark, but now that Sanders is gone I don't really care that much.
 
Steelers/Hawks the faces may change, but I will be loyal til the day I die. I don't attend games much any more for several reasons ,but I watch every game I buy the gear. At 40 years old I still have a passion for Steeler football, hawkeye football.

I am in transition with Iowa bball I loved it as a kid, but now I just don't know.

Cubs, Sixers, Penguins when they are relevant I care....when they are not I could give a rat's a$$.
 
trj said:
Steelers/Hawks the faces may change, but I will be loyal til the day I die. I don't attend games much any more for several reasons ,but I watch every game I buy the gear. At 40 years old I still have a passion for Steeler football, hawkeye football.

I am in transition with Iowa bball I loved it as a kid, but now I just don't know.

Cubs, Sixers, Penguins when they are relevant I care....when they are not I could give a rat's a$$.
Click to expand...

Well the Cubs aren't relevant, so you better being giving a rat's a$$, I guess.
 
Reality. I quit playing fantasy sports years ago. It was taking up waaaaay too much of my time. It also took away from the enjoyment of rooting for my teams when a I needed a player to do well against them. Call me old school but I'm still a fan of the teams as players can now come and go at will and rarely show loyalty to anyone but themselves. I will admit that I did have to divorce my NFL team when I got fed up with the ineptness of management. Been a fan of the Cardinals, Bulls, and Penguins since I was kid and will remain that way no matter where I live.
 
kicker22 said:
For me personally, while I'm still 100% loyal to the teams I support whether or not it has an impact on my fantasy teams. So I don't necessarily think it has a negative impact on team loyalty. I do however think that it actually brings more popularity and interest to the sport because games that previously would have meaningless to an individual are now gaining there attention because they have a vested interest in a player on a certain team. I think this is good for the sport, but doesn't necessarily influence attendence numbers or product marketing because it's hard to gage the pull these players have on their owner in such leagues.
Click to expand...

I'm in this group.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Latest posts

Share this page

Top