ny33 Posted November 10, 2011 Share Posted November 10, 2011 Chris Berman Donald Trump Tim Russert (RIP) Jim Carrey Phil Mickelson Meat Loaf (for what it's worth) Those are/were prominent "celebrities, media, etc." who endear/endeared the Buffalo Bills. As for the "large national following," I was a member of the Bills Backers in Orange County, Calif., about 10 years ago. If you came late, you couldn't even get into the bar that we OWNED in Long Beach on Sundays. Not enough room. We had 250 members. The Bills have a huge following nationwide, including here in South Florida. Pick a Bills Backers bar -- any over 50 members -- join them for a few beers during a game -- and you'll understand. But yeah -- nobody gives "a flying f%&k" about the Bills. Clearly your anecdotal experience is indicative of the Bills' "large national following." While I'm happy that you guys packed so many people into a Bills Backers bar, you're completely delusional if you think the Bills have a large national, and global, fan base compared to the Cubs. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BRH Posted November 10, 2011 Share Posted November 10, 2011 Many Cubs fans are also fans of the Bears ('85 SB), Bulls (six NBA titles), and Blackhawks ('09 Stanley Cup). So, no. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The AntiFin Posted November 10, 2011 Share Posted November 10, 2011 Clearly your anecdotal experience is indicative of the Bills' "large national following." While I'm happy that you guys packed so many people into a Bills Backers bar, you're completely delusional if you think the Bills have a large national, and global, fan base compared to the Cubs. Clearly, you lack reading comprehension skills. Or perhaps you only retain what you choose to retain. The main point was that I proved the OP wrong by pointing out that there are celebrities and members of the media who have ZERO problem admitting to being Bills fans (Berman above all). I also disproved the statement that nobody gives "a flying f%&k" about the Bills. So what did you do? You picked the VERY LAST point of my post and attempted to pick on that. The Bills DO have a large national following (which can be interpreted in a myriad of ways), and NOWHERE did I even mention the Cubs, let alone compare the two. You made up the "global" reference as well. I suppose that ties right in to your "lack of reading comprehension/retention skills." And, according to your statement, I'm NOT "completely delusional" because I never wrote what you claimed I inferred. Nice try... I guess. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ny33 Posted November 11, 2011 Share Posted November 11, 2011 Clearly, you lack reading comprehension skills. Or perhaps you only retain what you choose to retain. The main point was that I proved the OP wrong by pointing out that there are celebrities and members of the media who have ZERO problem admitting to being Bills fans (Berman above all). I also disproved the statement that nobody gives "a flying f%&k" about the Bills. So what did you do? You picked the VERY LAST point of my post and attempted to pick on that. The Bills DO have a large national following (which can be interpreted in a myriad of ways), and NOWHERE did I even mention the Cubs, let alone compare the two. You made up the "global" reference as well. I suppose that ties right in to your "lack of reading comprehension/retention skills." And, according to your statement, I'm NOT "completely delusional" because I never wrote what you claimed I inferred. Nice try... I guess. I replied to the second part of your post because that is what I took issue with. Do the Bills have a large national following? Relative to, say, MLS teams, or the Florida Panthers, yes. In terms of the big four sports, in terms of finances (MLB, NBA, NFL, NHL), I don't think it's an accurate statement to say that we have a "large national following," like the Cubs, Yankees, Cowboys, or Packers. As for the "global" reference, I was not attributing that to you, but rather stating that we certainly aren't like Manchester United or the Lakers, teams which can be accurately said to have a large world-wide following. I didn't post that to pick on you personally, but to say that a team has a large following outside of the regional fanbase implies that a significant amount of merchandise, T.V. revenue, and other financial benefits feed into that team. You did say the Bills have a "huge following nationwide"; that's simply not accurate in the scheme of professional sports, and matters because we don't get, say, prime time games like even a struggling Dallas team or the New York Knicks might, which affects the bottom line of the team. As a fan, this affects us for two reasons: primarily, and most concerning, it means that the NFL has less incentive to keep the team in Buffalo; secondly, the Bills' margins- particularly with home games not selling out- means that the management has less leeway to spend to the salary cap. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The AntiFin Posted November 15, 2011 Share Posted November 15, 2011 I replied to the second part of your post because that is what I took issue with. Fair enough -- Thanks for clarifying. Do the Bills have a large national following? Relative to, say, MLS teams, or the Florida Panthers, yes. In terms of the big four sports, in terms of finances (MLB, NBA, NFL, NHL), I don't think it's an accurate statement to say that we have a "large national following," like the Cubs, Yankees, Cowboys, or Packers. I agree with this. I also don't believe comparing baseball (162 games a year) to the NFL (maximum 20 games a year, including Super Bowl and preseason) is apples to apples. The Cubs are known just as well (if not moreso) for their stadium -- their tenure in MLB -- their losing streak -- and even Waveland Avenue -- than for their actual team. Chicago is a huge market; Buffalo is not. As for the "global" reference, I was not attributing that to you, but rather stating that we certainly aren't like Manchester United or the Lakers, teams which can be accurately said to have a large world-wide following. Again, I agree. But football is definitely the odd sport out in an international discussion. "Futbol" -- to most, overseas -- is soccer. The NFL and other leagues are TRYING to spark interest in some parts of Europe, but most of those folks don't have a clue what American Football is all about. I travel extensively on business -- overseas -- and everyone knows the Yankees. Everyone knows the Lakers. They shrug when I try to speak about "football." I didn't post that to pick on you personally, but to say that a team has a large following outside of the regional fanbase implies that a significant amount of merchandise, T.V. revenue, and other financial benefits feed into that team. It's all about winning. This team has sucked for a very, very long time. Winning leads to prime time TV appearances. That leads to notoriety. That leads to merchandise sales and other financial benefits. The Bills simply have not earned the right to be on prime time on a regular basis. Mind you -- I'm a diehard fan. But an honest one. You did say the Bills have a "huge following nationwide"; that's simply not accurate in the scheme of professional sports, and matters because we don't get, say, prime time games like even a struggling Dallas team or the New York Knicks might, which affects the bottom line of the team. I wonder how many prime time games the Cowboys will get next year when they miss the playoffs this year. Also -- and I'm the first to admit I don't have the time for this -- I'd be very interested in comparing Buffalo's population to some of the other teams' cities' populations -- then multiplying our fan base by the number of times their population trumps ours. I'll amend my original statement to: "For such a small market, Buffalo has a nice following nationwide." As a fan, this affects us for two reasons: primarily, and most concerning, it means that the NFL has less incentive to keep the team in Buffalo; secondly, the Bills' margins- particularly with home games not selling out- means that the management has less leeway to spend to the salary cap. Again -- If you're "good," you get all that cool stuff you mentioned above. If you suck -- you become more irrelevant in the eyes of the NFL. The 49ers were a "household name" through the 80s and 90s. Since then? Not so much... Until this year. Because they're winning again. They have an exciting new coach. Etc. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts