Sociological question about Skins fans in DC

[Larry Brown #43]

The answer to this question is simple. The Redskins play football and the other teams don't.

It's really not that simple, actually. While the NFL is the most popular sports league in America, there are a lot of cities that don't embrace their NFL team the way we do here.

LA lost two teams and can't generate enough interest to get one back.

The Patriots were the 4th most popular team in Boston until they became a dynasty in recent years.

There are other examples, but the point is it goes beyond the fact that the Redskins play football.

[RFKFedEx]

Clearly MLB is a distant second or even third in most markets where the NFL is also present. However, the exceptions the norm are the four largest markets of NY, LA, Chi and NE, all of which carry baseball's revenue pool.

In NY, the Yankees and Mets combine for far more coverage than the Giants and Jets.

In Chicago, the Cubs and the Sox just edge out the Bears.

In LA, the Dodgers and the Angels combine for a little more ink than the Trojans, who are basically like an NFL team in LA.

In NE, the Sox dwarf the Pats. I think this would still be the case even if the Sox weren't winning championships and the Pats were.

I nearly every other market, even a mediocre NFL franchise gets more love than the MLB team. Cleveland, Cinci, KC, Oak, Hou, Mia, Atl, Bal, Phi, DC, SD, AZ, Sea, Den, on and on.

[scruffylookin]

DC United has won 4 MLS titles and plenty of international tournaments.

It's a damn shame most on this site ignores them but can mention the Capitals.

I think Larry Brown #43 hit it pretty well with regards to DC United.

DC United while dominant in the MLS is playing in a league that is not considered anywhere near the top of the sport of soccer. I worked with a guy who was a soccer nut and I always would try and get him started on one of his rants by saying "DC United, best soccer team on the planet". He would roll his eyes and say MLS is nothing but a joke when compared to the Premier League in England or pro soccer in other countries.

That's why DC United is rarely mentioned. First because soccer as a pro sport is the least popular sport in the States.

Second, the league (MLS) is not on a level with the top leagues in the sport.

For DC United to have a chance, MLS will need to develop into a credible professional league world wide first.

For now they are viewed as the big boys of the minor leagues and not a true representative of the sport.

[yank]

The small crowd for the second game ever played in the Nats new stadium last night, along with the surge in local interest in the Caps thanks to their recent playoff push, got me thinking about the Skins.

First off, I'm a DC native. Born and raised here, and still live here.

History has shown that Washington is a front-running town when it comes to sports. Back in the 80s when the Bullets stunk, they'd be lucky to get 8,000 fans in the building for a game, unless Larry Bird or Magic Johnson happened to be in town. In which case, 75% of the arena would be pulling for the Bullets' opponent.

Interest in the Caps spikes when they perform the way they have over the past few weeks, but otherwise, they barely register on local sports scene.

And now that the novelty of having baseball back in town has worn off, with the Nats having yet to establish themselves as contenders in the National League, the Nats drew only (an announced) 20,000 fans last night, in the second game ever played in their new ballpark.

There are plenty of explanations for this. One might point to the "transient" nature of DC as a reason why people don't establish strong bonds with the local teams.

But one team in this town bucks the trend. One team captures the imagination of this town, even when Heath Shuler is under center. One team enjoys rabid support even when Steve Spurrier can't remember the names of his own players.

Our Skins.

That's what this thread is about. I have my own theories, but I'd like to hear from you. Why is it that in this supposed front-running, transient town, that the Skins enjoy such loyal support regardless of their fortunes on the field?

Sure, we've won Super Bowls. But if this town is as transient as people claim it is, how many in DC actually remember those glory days?

Personally, I think the idea of DC being a transient town is overrated. There is a segment of the town (mostly political types) that is transient, but there are many who live in and around the city who have been here for generations.

When I hear people say that "nobody is actually from DC," I think of all the kids I went to school with, who were from here just as I was.

Anyway, I'd love to hear your thoughts on this. What is it about our beloved Skins that grabs hold of this town and won't let go, while the other local teams have to practically dominate to even come close to filling up their buildings?

The explanation for the Monday night nats crowd is incredibly simple - it was played against the NCAA Championship Game!

The Skins would have had trouble getting 40K to a game on Monday. In fact they've had games where they had trouble getting 40K to game for no reason at all except they were having a bad year.

All of the conclusions in this thread drawn from Monday are out the window. Give the new stadium a couple of months before making conclusions that can be substantiated.

[Larry Brown #43]

The explanation for the Monday night nats crowd is incredibly simple - it was played against the NCAA Championship Game!

The Skins would have had trouble getting 40K to a game on Monday. In fact they've had games where they had trouble getting 40K to game for no reason at all except they were having a bad year.

All of the conclusions in this thread drawn from Monday are out the window. Give the new stadium a couple of months before making conclusions that can be substantiated.

There is some merit to what you're saying, and I'm a diehard Nats fan, so I'm not here to put the Nats down.

But the small crowd the other night for the Nats game is only part of the story. It's not just about ticket sales. The Nats clearly have yet to capture the hearts of this town. There was a honeymoon period after the team came to town, but that has passed.

This is the Nats' 4th year in town, so there are some reasonable conclusions we can draw.

There's precious little talk about the Nats on local sports radio, for example. Not that that tells the whole story, but it is somewhat a reflection of what listeners want to hear.

The Nats are now in that place that the Caps and Wizards have historically found themselves: win or else. And when the Nats start to win, I have no doubt they will fill up or come close to filling up the new stadium.

But the point here is that support for the Skins is unconditional. For the Caps, Nats and Wizards, it's very conditional.

EDIT: By the way, I think you are overestimating by a mile the significance of the NCAA Championship Game in all of this. If a local team had been playing in it, that would be one thing. But it was Memphis vs. Kansas. I don't think too many people would stay home from a game to watch that.

And I completely disagree with your statement that the Skins would only draw 40,000. FedEx Field is always packed for Monday Night games, and an NCAA final game between two teams with no relevance to DC would not keep many people from going to a Skins game. No chance.

[pjfootballer]

Great Thread LB43. I gave it 5 Stars!!!

[Larry Brown #43]

Great Thread LB43. I gave it 5 Stars!!!

Thanks PJ! Recent events with other local teams got me thinking, and I thought it would make for good off-season discussion.

[The Pascedina Kid]

Vince Lombardi

George Allen

Joe Gibbs

One man does make a difference.

Forty men together can't lose.

[Major Harris]

let's not forget, fed ex isn't exactly solid burgundy and gold on sundays, either. not to say that dc doesn't support the 'skins, but there are a ton of other teams fans in the stadium almost every sunday.

[mcarey032]

I have been here in the D.C. Area (Arlington, VA.) for about 34 years and I was very surprised about seeing the Nationals seats at the stadium being less than half full. I think that a big part of that was the fact that the Nats were playing the Marlins during the week which is really hard to take kids during the school week.

I do agree that I have seen in this area that it would appear that people are more concerned about being seen at games vs. actually going to a game and watching for the pure enjoyment. I think that is the utter downfall of Fed Ex is that it is so large that there really isn't the demand for people to go to every game and that is why you see at Fed Ex so many opposition fans. While that is bad, what is worse are the people who are at the game, but could careless about being there. You know, the WHINE and CHEESE crowd. Get there an hour late and leave early to avoid traffic!

Go home and stay home.

For example, opening night, there would have been a ton of people who were sports fans would have loved to have gone to that game, but how many people do you know who were at the game were nats fans or even sports fans. This town is becoming very similar to LA. We don't put a premium on our sports teams. In LA, the Lakers are what counts and the other events are backdrop. People just like to say that they attended the games, but could careless about the team much less the score.

I just hate it when people who attend the games don't know anything about sports are just there to absorb space and spend money on something that they could really careless about. Just stay home and let the real sports fans enjoy these events.

[mcarey032]

In addition, what is sad to me is the fact that I have lived in this area my whole life without baseball and now there is this backlash about not going. People need to start thinking about getting their priorities straight. I am going to the game this Friday and I plan on going to another one later this year. While I wish that I could afford to go to both redskins games and Nats games, I can only do a couple a year on both sides, but I am glad that I don't have to go to Baltimore any more. I don't have anything against the Orioles. I had a lot of good memories going to Memorial Stadium and seeing Eddie Murray and Cal Ripken, but Baltimore isn't my town, D.C. is and I am glad that we have a team. So go out and support the Nats and do your part. Please don't be an event seeking hound who is only there to be seen.

[Burgundy&Gold4Ever]

I think that certain sports grab certain towns and always stay front and center. I spent a few years in Ithaca, NY and that'll always be a hockey town. It doesn't matter if the lacrosse team is going for the national championship, hockey still will be #1 in everyone's hearts. Granted, that's college sports, not professional sports, but the same concept applies.

[Burgundy&Gold4Ever]

Are the Yankees more popular than the Giants? Maybe.

But consider this: The Yankees don't sell out every game. (Okay. They will sell out every game this year but this is a special case' date=' being the final season of the Stadium and all).

Here is the Yankees average attendance this decade:

2000: 37,956

2001: 40,807

2002: 42,736

2003: 42,785

2004: 47,788

2005: 50,499

2006: 51,858

2007: 52,739

The Giants draw 78,000 to each and every game.

Just sayin'.

Football is a different dynamic.

(And in reality, the team that New York wants to care the most about is the Knicks. But, well, you know. When the Knicks are good, no other team in that city matters).[/quote']

If the Giants played 81 home games, I don't think they'd be getting 78,000 for each game. There's a big difference when there are only 8 home games. Each regular season game becomes a bigger deal when there are so few.