When the team you root for is at the bottom

November 13, 2008

When the team you root for is at the bottom

5 Comments

Recommended (4) | Share

When a team is flying high, the ranks of their fans swell to epic proportions. (See also 1990's Dallas Cowboys.) The new fans that arrive are often derided by the long time fans as "bandwagoners." These long time fans are the ones who suffered through the down times, and can truly taste the joy of the winning seasons. There are some teams that do not know what it is like to have a true down cycle such as NCAA's University of Kentucky Wildcats in basketball (One losing season in the last several generations.) Other teams such as the Detroit Lions or Kansas City Royals (One world series appearance) don't have the history of up times to have acquired a bandwagon.

When a team that has a history of domination, such as the Oakland Raiders falls on hard times, it takes its toll on the fan base. The Raider Nation is beyond frustrated with the current state of the team. In fact, they are ready to eat their own as Al Davis would likely finish in a daed heat in a popularity contest with Osama bin Ladin and LaDainian Tomlinson among Raider fans.

Other teams, such as the Chicago Cubs, have the fan base that have adopted a "lovable loser" mentality, as they seem to expect their beloved Cubbies to come up short. Their motto seems to be "wait 'till next year."

The Detroit Lions, who seem to be a lock to be the first overall pick in next year's NFL draft, don't have the lovable loser mentality, but their team has been a doormat for much of their existence. I was told by a co-worker who is a Lions fan that he is just frustrated with them.

Being a fan of a team means being a fanatic. During the down times, it gets more difficult to root for a team, especially when it becomes apparent that the team itself has given up. In baseball, teams announce that they are giving up when they trade away their better players at the trade deadline to get 'prospects.' As a follower of the Oakland A's, it was disheartening to see them trade away several of their best players in July, thus admitting that they weren't going back into the playoffs. I used to consider myself an A's fan, but in recent years I have drifted away from watching baseball, due to the A's inability to keep their star players.

Its not even about wins, but its about the appearance of being competitive. The A's letting go of all their top players once they become eligable for free agency has become something of a running joke. After a while, it was like rooting for a farm club for the large market teams, so I lost interest. The Oakland Raiders are down, and they don't look competitive this season. For that matter they haven't for the last several seasons, but the Raider in me just doesn't know how to quit. Besides, I write for the Raiders so I have been forced to watch some miserable football for the last few years.

Patrick A. Patterson covers the Oakland Raiders for TFDSsports.com and Examiner.com.

Tags: Chicago Cubs, Dallas Cowboys, Kansas City Royals, Kentucky, MLB, NCAA, NCAA Basketball, NFL, Oakland Athletics, Oakland Raiders, San Diego Chargers, University of Kentucky Wildcats

Discussion

5 Comments on "When the team you root for is at the bottom"

Posted by Eli, November 13, 2008 10:29 PM

The Royals have 1 World Series championship, 2 pennants and a total of 7 playoff appearances, all falling between 1976-1985.
Those guys were good. 7 playoff appearances in 10 years is impressive, especially before the wildcard and realignment.
You are should do better work or give someone else your job.

Weak.

Posted by Ryan Brown, November 14, 2008 10:42 AM

Wow, Eli - easy there, big guy. I'm one of the 12 remaining Royals fans on the planet (World Series in 2039, baby!), and I understood what Pat was trying to say.

However, I can appreciate the fan in you defending your team. You just have to believe, somehow, that your team will win - even if they play in Oakland.

Posted by Jeremy, November 14, 2008 12:46 PM

"I used to consider myself an A's fan, but in recent years I have drifted away from watching baseball, due to the A's inability to keep their star players.

Its not even about wins, but its about the appearance of being competitive. The A's letting go of all their top players once they become eligable for free agency has become something of a running joke. After a while, it was like rooting for a farm club for the large market teams, so I lost interest."

Talk about someone who just doesn't get it. It's not like watching a farm team, it's like watching a team that is run by a guy two steps ahead of everyone else. You write this column the day after they officially bring in one of the premier players in all of baseball. Not paying attention?

"Its not even about wins, but its about the appearance of being competitive."

This is one of the strangest statements I have ever heard/read. This makes no sense... The A's have winning seasons for 8 consecutive seasons, finish below .500 for two and they get lumped in with the Lions, Royals, and Raiders? You have no clue what you're talking about.

And it's "eligible"... I second Eli

Posted by Desert Raider, November 14, 2008 2:05 PM

Calm down boys. As a daily reader of Patrick's work I am telling you his is good at it. I understand getting defensive about your team but really 1 World series appearance or 2 does it make that big a difference to the conversation? Especially when it was 20 years ago. Acquiring a big name after the season is over is completely different than trying to be competitive during the season. So please take a deep breathe and relax.

Posted by Eli, November 15, 2008 2:15 AM

I see what you guys are saying, but he talked about the Raiders falling from dominance. I don't see a point in history where they ever were dominant to begin with. They certainly were much better in the past but they didn't run the league and all of that was 20 years ago. The Royals were just as good in the same period but are labeled as a franchise that has never won and the Raiders are supposed to be viewed as a force to be reckoned with that has recently fallen on hard times. I just think that he exaggerated what the Raiders have done and diminished what the Royals have done. Plus, I'm a lifelong Royals and Chiefs fan, so I may have a little bias.