PDA

View Full Version : Whitlock: If Royals stopped losing, Chiefs wouldn't be winners


tk13
04-10-2005, 01:07 AM
http://www.kansascity.com/mld/kansascity/sports/11356107.htm

If the Royals stopped losing, Chiefs wouldn't be winners

JASON WHITLOCK


Carl Peterson mouthpiece Bob Gretz made an interesting point on the Kansas City Chiefs' official Web site last week.

Gretz expressed the sentiment that the men and women working inside Arrowhead Stadium would love nothing more than to see their Sports Complex neighbors, the Kansas City Royals, experience on-field success this season.

The Chiefs are tired of baking under media and fan scrutiny all by themselves. Peterson would like a little relief.

You know, I'm halfway sympathetic toward Peterson. OK, not really. But Gretz does have a point.

Kansas City has turned into a unique pro sports market. The reality is we have one major professional sports franchise, the Chiefs, and a team that participates in a major sports league that is treated by its fan base and media as a nonprofit charity group, the Royals.

In terms of pro sports, you could argue we're Jacksonville, the only other NFL market that doesn't have an NBA, MLB or NHL franchise. I consider Green Bay part of the Milwaukee market.

What separates us from Jacksonville is we've created a big-league sports media market. Seriously. We have a nationally respected newspaper sports section, a cable TV network dedicated to sports, two all-sports talk radio stations and Jack Harry melting down every Sunday night about the escalating prices of Chiefs tickets, prune juice and cigarettes.

I know many of you think the Kansas City media market is soft compared with “major” cities. You're wrong. I travel the country quite extensively. Yes, New York, New Jersey, Philadelphia and Boston have a more in-your-face brand of media and fans. But other than that, our media are as consistently tough on teams as any market.

The difference is we only have one professional sports team we whip on. The Division I football and basketball programs in our coverage area — Missouri, Kansas and Kansas State — get scrutinized and criticized more heavily than the Kansas City Royals.

The Royals get treated like UMKC basketball.

Is it fair and appropriate? Probably not.

But it's also not a cause to have sympathy for Peterson and the Chiefs.

The main reason Peterson and the Chiefs are perceived as “successful” right now is because of the Royals' incompetence. If the Royals were consistently average — just like the Chiefs of the last eight years — Peterson wouldn't have a waiting list for season tickets, nor would they be selling out Arrowhead Stadium.

The Chiefs are a hot item in this town because that's all we have to talk about in terms of professional sports. Arrowhead isn't sold out because of Peterson's brilliance. It's not sold out because fans believe the Chiefs are going to the Super Bowl every year.

You see, the Chiefs should be careful of what they wish. Sports fans here have given up on the Royals. For years, in order to excuse their ineptness, the Royals have sold fans the small-market mentality that the team can't field a legitimate product because of baseball economics. Fans bought the message and quit being overly passionate about the team.

For a different reason — primarily because Peterson has stayed too long as general manager — Chiefs fans are ready to abandon some of their passion. They've eaten enough barbecue and drank enough beer at the Arrowhead Stadium parking lot for two lifetimes. They've contemplated life without the Chiefs. Taking their season ticket money and buying a big screen and the NFL cable TV package has crossed their minds.

What has stopped them?

Nonstop, year-round media coverage of the Chiefs in the newspaper, on TV and on the radio. The Chiefs are shoved down Kansas Citians' ear passages. You have to be up on Chiefs gossip in order to converse comfortably at any KC social gathering.

Rather than whine about the media spotlight, Peterson should send members of the media and the Kansas City Royals thank-you cards. We cover the Chiefs like they're the New England Patriots, winners of three of the last four Super Bowls. And the truth is that since Marty Schottenheimer left seven years ago, the Chiefs have only been slightly better than the Royals.

A couple of decent seasons by the Royals would allow KC sports fans to view the Peterson-led Chiefs objectively. That wouldn't be a good thing for King Carl.

Count Zarth
04-10-2005, 01:30 AM
:(

Logical
04-10-2005, 01:30 AM
Excellent article by Jason other than his promoting of the Star Sports section. Pretty much absolutely correct.

Count Zarth
04-10-2005, 01:30 AM
Excellent article by Jason other than his promoting of the Star Sports section. Pretty much absolutely correct.

And extremely depressing.

VonneMarie
04-10-2005, 02:08 AM
That's completely sad. :(

Count Zarth
04-10-2005, 02:11 AM
We're going to win the Super Bowl.

:cuss:

Sure-Oz
04-10-2005, 02:19 AM
Extremely sad and true, that really sucks.

beer bacon
04-10-2005, 02:24 AM
Why does he have to bash on the Roos. They were quite good this year in men's basketball :mad:

RedDread
04-10-2005, 02:30 AM
yeah, he should have used mizzou as an example

Priestgets30TDs
04-10-2005, 03:05 AM
Excellent article by Jason other than his promoting of the Star Sports section. Pretty much absolutely correct.

That's exactly what I thought when I read the article.

mcan
04-10-2005, 04:04 AM
More BS.


You want to know why professional football is huge? It's because it's a well run league with people in charge that make decisions that positively effect the way the game is played and watched...


BUT. There is one GIGANTIC reason that pro football is giant right now, and pro baseball is not, and it's not because the Royals suck... That wouldn't explain the NATIONAL mentality that mirrors the KC market.


That reason is this:
VIDEO GAMES.

Since the early ninties, an entire generation of football fans have grown up knowing more about the game and knowing more about their teams because of games like Tecmo Super Bowl and later Madden football. Anybody 26 years old or younger played these games right when they were first discovering sports on TV, and that's where the (age group) market for football fans is right now. My Dad is a football fan, but not like me and my friends (all of us grew up with Nintendo and Sega and Playstation). The Chiefs could suck for 12 years, and we'd all still love them because we fell in love with the game and the team BEFORE we started watching real games regularly...

Jason's argument is this, the coverage creates the interest... That argument doesn't make any sense at all, and the moment we lose interest, they'll stop they're coverage. That will happen in about 15 years, when the new youngsters step up with a different pass-time. I guarentee it will have something to do with what video game is popular RIGHT NOW...

htismaqe
04-10-2005, 05:11 AM
The main reason Peterson and the Chiefs are perceived as “successful” right now is because of the Royals' incompetence.

I'd like to know who Jason is talking about. I listen to the radio and read message boards. I don't hear/read anyone there calling the Chiefs "successful" - quite the opposite.

I mean, I'm often told I'm one of the biggest homers here, and even I don't consider the Chiefs successful.

Nzoner
04-10-2005, 05:33 AM
The main reason Peterson and the Chiefs are perceived as “successful” right now is because of the Royals' incompetence.

I'd like to know who Jason is talking about. I listen to the radio and read message boards. I don't hear/read anyone there calling the Chiefs "successful" - quite the opposite.

I mean, I'm often told I'm one of the biggest homers here, and even I don't consider the Chiefs successful.

I took the successful part as meaning in terms of dollars.

HemiEd
04-10-2005, 05:52 AM
Once again Sh#tlock is trying to take the credit for the Chiefs success! Fug Him! The NFL is Successful because they make small market teams able to compete, MLB does not. Maybe if EK was still here he could afford the $200,000,000.00 salaries to keep up. The Twins have been successful and the Royals are trying to follow the model. Screw Whitlock, once again he had to find something to write about IMO.

RedDread
04-10-2005, 10:44 AM
That's true mcan, one reason I'm glad the chiefs are making some serious offseason moves this year is that our D in madden would be rated in the 60's otherwise...maybe we can shoot for mid 70's...or dare I say it..80?

It's always fun to pick up madden before the season starts and play with all our offseason FA acquisitions before they ever take the field

Mr. Laz
04-10-2005, 10:50 AM
The main reason Peterson and the Chiefs are perceived as “successful” right now is because of the Royals' incompetence.

I'd like to know who Jason is talking about. I listen to the radio and read message boards. I don't hear/read anyone there calling the Chiefs "successful" - quite the opposite.

I mean, I'm often told I'm one of the biggest homers here, and even I don't consider the Chiefs successful.
he's talking about Market share/money/PR

he's saying a similar thing than you are...


If the Royals didn't suck, the people of Kansas city would have options.

Then they wouldn't be so quick to overlook the lack of success the chiefs have had since Marty left.


Good Royals = No more Chiefs koolaid


the Chiefs wouldn't be able to rest on their laurels if the Royals had some success.

mcan
04-10-2005, 10:51 AM
That's true mcan, one reason I'm glad the chiefs are making some serious offseason moves this year is that our D in madden would be rated in the 60's otherwise...maybe we can shoot for mid 70's...or dare I say it..80?

It's always fun to pick up madden before the season starts and play with all our offseason FA acquisitions before they ever take the field


Thanks for noticing my post. I figured a "reason why we all like the NFL" would garner a little more of a response. Anyway, I truly believe that video games has shaped this fan base over the past 15 years immensely.

Mr. Laz
04-10-2005, 10:51 AM
Once again Sh#tlock is trying to take the credit for the Chiefs success! Fug Him! The NFL is Successful because they make small market teams able to compete, MLB does not. Maybe if EK was still here he could afford the $200,000,000.00 salaries to keep up. The Twins have been successful and the Royals are trying to follow the model. Screw Whitlock, once again he had to find something to write about IMO.
that's not what he's saying... take a breath.


try reading it again without your whitlock bashing glasses on



:rolleyes:

htismaqe
04-10-2005, 10:53 AM
he's talking about Market share/money/PR

he's saying a similar thing than you are...


If the Royals didn't suck, the people of Kansas city would have options.

Then they wouldn't be so quick to overlook the lack of success the chiefs have had since Marty left.


Good Royals = No more Chiefs koolaid


the Chiefs wouldn't be able to rest on their laurels if the Royals had some success.

I don't buy that in the slightest.

1) There's very little overlap between the 2 seasons, hence there's really no choice. If the Royals were good, people would do BOTH.

2) The NFL is ridiculously popular in and of itself.

SCTrojan
04-10-2005, 10:55 AM
More BS.

Jason's argument is this, the coverage creates the interest... That argument doesn't make any sense at all, and the moment we lose interest, they'll stop they're coverage.

I agree in part with this point of your argument. The reason the coverage exists is that the fan base supports it. Not the other way around as Whitlock seems to argue.

Whitlock views the local fan base as a mindless, manipulated herd with no clue outside of what the media feeds us.

Royals and Chiefs fans root for their teams for a number of reasons, not the least of which is loyalty. Do I think they both sucked last year? Absolutely. That opinion came entirely from watching them on the field, not reading the papers and listening to sports radio. No matter, I'm still a season ticket holder for both.

I found Whitlock's piece personally insulting.

Mr. Laz
04-10-2005, 11:11 AM
I don't buy that in the slightest.

1) There's very little overlap between the 2 seasons, hence there's really no choice. If the Royals were good, people would do BOTH.

2) The NFL is ridiculously popular in and of itself.
i do ... to a certain extent

right now how many people are following the chiefs offseason moves with every breath instead of following the royals??

a ton

if the Royals were good, as many people wouldn't be crazed about the chiefs until training camp started.

football lovers with always love football ... but their are a ton of sports fans who would divide their sports time up alot different if the Royals were competitive.

mcan
04-10-2005, 11:24 AM
i do ... to a certain extent

right now how many people are following the chiefs offseason moves with every breath instead of following the royals??

a ton

if the Royals were good, as many people wouldn't be crazed about the chiefs until training camp started.

football lovers with always love football ... but their are a ton of sports fans who would divide their sports time up alot different if the Royals were competitive.


Everything you just said is true. But that's what GRETZ's argument was. Not Whitlock's. Jason just said that the reason people are bigger Chiefs fans is because the media covers them like a large market team. So they get the fans of a large market team, even though they aren't really any better than the Royals.

You and Gretz = Dead on the money.
Jason = Arrogant and wrong.

Mr. Laz
04-10-2005, 11:27 AM
Everything you just said is true. But that's what GRETZ's argument was. Not Whitlock's. Jason just said that the reason people are bigger Chiefs fans is because the media covers them like a large market team. So they get the fans of a large market team, even though they aren't really any better than the Royals.

You and Gretz = Dead on the money.
Jason = Arrogant and wrong.

i guess i just don't read whitlock's article that way :shrug:

mcan
04-10-2005, 11:35 AM
i guess i just don't read whitlock's article that way :shrug:

Go back and read the last couple paragraphs again. That's Jason's false premise... Granted it's surrounded by a couple of facts, but the entire premise is this...


Chiefs fans want to drop their season tickets, but they don't because of the media coverage.... BLAH BLAH BLAH... The Chiefs should send me 'thank you cards' for saving thier inept franchise... BLAH BLAH BLAH...


Stupid and arrogant argument. The Chiefs have a fantastic enviornment on gameday, even when the team isn't good. People LOVE thier football, and will go games anyway. They talk about dropping thier tickets, but few do, because the games are just too damned fun, and that has NOTHING to do with Whitcock...

Mr. Flopnuts
04-10-2005, 11:38 AM
i do ... to a certain extent

right now how many people are following the chiefs offseason moves with every breath instead of following the royals??

a ton

if the Royals were good, as many people wouldn't be crazed about the chiefs until training camp started.

football lovers with always love football ... but their are a ton of sports fans who would divide their sports time up alot different if the Royals were competitive.


I don't entirely agree with that. I live in Seattle and am an avid Seattle sports fan, with the exception of my beloved Chiefs. The Sonics are having a good year, their is a lot of buzz circling with the Mariners. The Huskies mens team went to the sweet 16 in the tourney. It's been a pretty good sports year up here, a lot better than what was projected anyways. However I spend all of my time here following my beloved Chiefs because there just isn't another game, another team, or another passion that I have that could pull me away. Maybe that's just me though. As far as Mcan statement goes. I believe that to be true, but I'm 28 and I was only 10 when the first Nintendo came out. So I would say anyone 30 and under can relate to the video game theory.

Mr. Laz
04-10-2005, 11:45 AM
IHowever I spend all of my time here following my beloved Chiefs because there just isn't another game, another team, or another passion that I have that could pull me away

understood ... i wouldn't think that it would apply to most people on this board. We are the true fanatics about football.

but ... 80% of the population isn't as passionate about football as we are.

there are a ton of casual fans that pretty much consume whatever sport is hot or fun at the time. This "hotness" of a sport is driven to a certain extent by the media coverage that exists.

the Chiefs ARE THE main thing in kansas city, they are the ONLY thing in kansas city ... more options would dilute the fanbase of the chiefs imo.

alanm
04-10-2005, 12:02 PM
understood ... i wouldn't think that it would apply to most people on this board. We are the true fanatics about football.

but ... 80% of the population isn't as passionate about football as we are.

there are a ton of casual fans that pretty much consume whatever sport is hot or fun at the time. This "hotness" of a sport is driven to a certain extent by the media coverage that exists.

the Chiefs ARE THE main thing in kansas city, they are the ONLY thing in kansas city ... more options would dilute the fanbase of the chiefs imo.
Laz, My GF is a big Denver Nuggets fan so I'm forced to watch a few games now and then. Through their early season suckiness up until George Karl took over the Pepsi Center in Denver was empty. Now it's packed every game because their winning. It's just another example of what band wagon fans the people in Denver are. :shake:

Mr. Flopnuts
04-10-2005, 12:03 PM
understood ... i wouldn't think that it would apply to most people on this board. We are the true fanatics about football.

but ... 80% of the population isn't as passionate about football as we are.

there are a ton of casual fans that pretty much consume whatever sport is hot or fun at the time. This "hotness" of a sport is driven to a certain extent by the media coverage that exists.

the Chiefs ARE THE main thing in kansas city, they are the ONLY thing in kansas city ... more options would dilute the fanbase of the chiefs imo.


Your point is well taken. We are definately the nuts (world series of poker reference) of the football world. No doubt that most fans are casual and would definately be drawn to a contending Royals team.

CHIEF4EVER
04-10-2005, 12:07 PM
understood ... i wouldn't think that it would apply to most people on this board. We are the true fanatics about football.

but ... 80% of the population isn't as passionate about football as we are.

there are a ton of casual fans that pretty much consume whatever sport is hot or fun at the time. This "hotness" of a sport is driven to a certain extent by the media coverage that exists.

Precisely. Take for example the recent rule changes the NFL made regarding the "chuck rule" thus making the "shutdown corner" a thing of the past. It was to allow offenses to score more points.....attracting who? The fringe fans. The fans who are not necessarily purists. The ones who make the ratings go up and dollars go into the coffers. BTW...rep.

HemiEd
04-10-2005, 12:58 PM
that's not what he's saying... take a breath.


try reading it again without your whitlock bashing glasses on



:rolleyes:


I even took my glasses off and still see this: What separates us from Jacksonville is we've created a big-league sports media market. Seriously. We have a nationally respected newspaper sports section

You are probably correct, that I do read his stuff with a certain amount of bias. He fancies himself as the National KC sports media figure.

Spott
04-10-2005, 01:11 PM
I don't think we'd care about the Royals even if they were winning. After that strike in 94, most people in KC haven't given a sh*t about the Royals or baseball.

milkman
04-10-2005, 01:40 PM
It still comes down to baseball economics.
You could point to small market teams that sre competitive and try to sell the idea that they can compete.

The reality, however, is that the teams that are spending the bank are the teams winning the WS.

Yankees, Red Sox, Marlins, Snakes, all are teams that have won recently because they were teams that were spending the most money.

It's hard to get excited about a team's propects when their chance of winning it all, because of the game's economics, are minimal at best.

milkman
04-10-2005, 01:50 PM
Oh, BTW, TK, will you quit spamming the board with Royals threads, dammit! :cuss: :p

|Zach|
04-10-2005, 01:55 PM
He fancies himself as the National KC sports media figure.
Weather you like him or not I believe he is...

HemiEd
04-10-2005, 02:00 PM
Weather you like him or not I believe he is...


Well darnit! :cuss:

Count Zarth
04-10-2005, 02:01 PM
Mcan has a very good point. I know most of the players in the NFL simply because I've played Madden every year since the 99 incarnation.

Conversely I don't play NBA or NHL games and only last year did I start getting into MLB games.

mcan
04-10-2005, 02:56 PM
Mcan has a very good point. I know most of the players in the NFL simply because I've played Madden every year since the 99 incarnation.

Conversely I don't play NBA or NHL games and only last year did I start getting into MLB games.


The MVP Baseball series is a very good baseball sim, and will definately create some new baseball fans, but it hardly has the widespread impact that Tecmo Super Bowl did. I don't care who you talk to, if they are in the age group of 20-30, they know that game and LOVE it to this day. They played it for hours. It made fans of football where before only the people who went out and played football in the backyards were fans. Of course, I did that too, but only AFTER I was a fan.

lawrenceRaider
04-10-2005, 03:46 PM
I agree in part with this point of your argument. The reason the coverage exists is that the fan base supports it. Not the other way around as Whitlock seems to argue.

Whitlock views the local fan base as a mindless, manipulated herd with no clue outside of what the media feeds us.

Royals and Chiefs fans root for their teams for a number of reasons, not the least of which is loyalty. Do I think they both sucked last year? Absolutely. That opinion came entirely from watching them on the field, not reading the papers and listening to sports radio. No matter, I'm still a season ticket holder for both.

I found Whitlock's piece personally insulting.

You should. Chiefs have done nothing beyond keeping the team competitive enough to fill the stands. Lamar wants his pockets full, and Queen Carl helps fill them.

LR :thumb:

lawrenceRaider
04-10-2005, 03:52 PM
I don't think we'd care about the Royals even if they were winning. After that strike in 94, most people in KC haven't given a sh*t about the Royals or baseball.

I grew up in Hiawatha, KS about 100 miles from KC. I turn 30 this summer, and I can remember when the Royals were THE thing and nobody gave much of a hoot about the Chiefs. The situation is reversed now, and that is because Fing Glass took lessons from Hunt and wants cash in his pocket instead of a truly competitive team. I still follow the Royals, and mourn every spring when they start on a slide. Hope springs eternal though, and one year the Royals will rise again.

LR :cuss:

lawrenceRaider
04-10-2005, 03:53 PM
Darn near every football fan I know plays FF, but hardly anyone I know plays fantasy baseball.

LR

C-Mac
04-10-2005, 04:01 PM
Excellent article by Jason other than his promoting of the Star Sports section. Pretty much absolutely correct.

Jo Po is the writer that has made the Star sports section an elite one.

C-Mac
04-10-2005, 04:21 PM
You should. Chiefs have done nothing beyond keeping the team competitive enough to fill the stands. Lamar wants his pockets full, and Queen Carl helps fill them.LR :thumb:


I suppose if you studied on how business needs to work and the pridefull desire of many to be the best, then such a comment wouldnt be warranted. For example not only does WalMart sell products and lots of them, they also are the reigning Superbowl champion of the retail league for the last 17 years. For one to think that just because the Chiefs are a business that they dont care about winning, then frankly your very limited on your business practicality and knowledge of the corporate ladder. Mr Hunt is a businessman, true fan of football and if you dont think he likes to win, then you should get a seat by his skybox at Arrowhead just to observe him and Carl.

Nzoner
04-10-2005, 04:58 PM
I turn 30 this summer, and I can remember when the Royals were THE thing and nobody gave much of a hoot about the Chiefs

In 81-82 our frat would roadtrip from Warrensburg to KC to see the Royals.Rightfield GA was a blast,$2 to get in and as I recall beers for about the same.We'd have get to get there early though because back then Royals Stadium was generally packed.During that same era we could go to a Chiefs game,walk to the ticket window and all but have our choice of seats just prior to kick-off.

Mr. Laz
04-10-2005, 05:04 PM
Jo Po is the writer that has made the Star sports section an elite one.
jopo is a great writer and needs to do novels and such

he really a pretty pathetic sports guy

if you want flowery speech and BS then he's your guy ... if you want sports then don't waste your time with JoPo

ChiefsCountry
04-10-2005, 05:10 PM
Bash on the Star all you guys want, but it is actually a very good sports paper. I have seen papers from around the country and the Star is just as good or better.

lawrenceRaider
04-10-2005, 05:11 PM
I suppose if you studied on how business needs to work and the pridefull desire of many to be the best, then such a comment wouldnt be warranted. For example not only does WalMart sell products and lots of them, they also are the reigning Superbowl champion of the retail league for the last 17 years. For one to think that just because the Chiefs are a business that they dont care about winning, then frankly your very limited on your business practicality and knowledge of the corporate ladder. Mr Hunt is a businessman, true fan of football and if you dont think he likes to win, then you should get a seat by his skybox at Arrowhead just to observe him and Carl.

Like every Chiefs fan's favorite writer just so eloquently wrote, the Chiefs have only been good enough to fill the seats, and only that because there's nothing else sports wise of interest in KC. What you fail to realize, is that Lamar gets the SAME AMOUNT OF MONEY as every other owner to run his team. Lamar just pockets his instead of handing out signing bonuses to get the players that could truly help the Chiefs. If Lamar truly wanted a winning team, he would get rid of Carl Peterson who has shown absolutely NOTHING in the 15 plus years he has been the head man in KC. How many playoff wins does CP have? How about just plain playoff appearances in the last ten years? Any other owner would have tossed this garbage out a long time ago. The only other thing I can think of besides money is that CP has pictures of Hunt with farm animals. When was the last time the Chief fielded a team that was at least above average on BOTH sides of the bll, lets say ended up the top ten statistically on offense and defense.

LR :thumb:

C-Mac
04-10-2005, 06:40 PM
Like every Chiefs fan's favorite writer just so eloquently wrote, the Chiefs have only been good enough to fill the seats, and only that because there's nothing else sports wise of interest in KC. What you fail to realize, is that Lamar gets the SAME AMOUNT OF MONEY as every other owner to run his team. Lamar just pockets his instead of handing out signing bonuses to get the players that could truly help the Chiefs. If Lamar truly wanted a winning team, he would get rid of Carl Peterson who has shown absolutely NOTHING in the 15 plus years he has been the head man in KC. How many playoff wins does CP have? How about just plain playoff appearances in the last ten years? Any other owner would have tossed this garbage out a long time ago. The only other thing I can think of besides money is that CP has pictures of Hunt with farm animals. When was the last time the Chief fielded a team that was at least above average on BOTH sides of the bll, lets say ended up the top ten statistically on offense and defense.

LR :thumb:

Up until 2 years ago the Chiefs, during the Peterson era, had one of the best winning percentages and most playoff appearances. You really think spending money is the answer to the Chiefs problems? Again your not applying business reality on signing bonus, how on earth is he to sign every demanding player when you have a thing called a "salary cap"? Apply some reality to your senarial.

C-Mac
04-10-2005, 06:45 PM
jopo is a great writer and needs to do novels and such

he really a pretty pathetic sports guy

if you want flowery speech and BS then he's your guy ... if you want sports then don't waste your time with JoPo

You know what, I never looked at it that way, maybe he isnt such a good sports writer. These idiots..........
:rolleyes:

Tue, Oct. 28, 2003
Poz the best in America
Joe Posnanski, named best sports columnist in America by the Associated Press Sports Editors, has been writing columns at The Star since October 1996. He spent his first day on the job standing in center field during a rain storm at Yankee Stadium. It was a sign of things to come.
He has covered Olympics, Super Bowls, World Series, Final Fours and every golf major championship, but his favorite sporting event has been the weekly game of chess he has played with Chiefs star running back Priest Holmes, who had a nine-match winning streak at last check. A selection of his columns about the magic of sports is compiled in the book, The Good Stuff.

Before joining The Star, Posnanski wrote sports columns in Cincinnati and Augusta, Ga. He was born and raised in Cleveland, where every one of his favorite sports teams was routinely awful.

He and his wife, Margo, live in Kansas City, where they spend most of their time chasing around their young daughter, Elizabeth, and their not-so-young dog, Hilton.

Posnanski has won the Missouri Press Association award for best sports columnist in Missouri seven times and was the first recipient of the Joe McGuff sports journalist award, presented by the Greater Kansas City Sports Commission.

Logical
04-10-2005, 07:18 PM
I don't buy that in the slightest.

1) There's very little overlap between the 2 seasons, hence there's really no choice. If the Royals were good, people would do BOTH.

2) The NFL is ridiculously popular in and of itself.

Historically that is not true. Chiefs came along and did well A's did poorly and moved. Royals did well and Chiefs did poor to at best average and Chiefs played to vastly empty stadiums while the Royals avg over 2 million a season. In the 90s Chiefs did well and attendance dried up for the Royals.

While it might be possible for both to do well in fan support I see no KC precedent to show it being likely.

htismaqe
04-10-2005, 07:33 PM
Historically that is not true. Chiefs came along and did well A's did poorly and moved. Royals did well and Chiefs did poor to at best average and Chiefs played to vastly empty stadiums while the Royals avg over 2 million a season. In the 90s Chiefs did well and attendance dried up for the Royals.

While it might be possible for both to do well in fan support I see no KC precedent to show it being likely.

Have the teams both been good (or bad) at the same time? If not, then there's no proof in what you're saying.

I'll stand by what I said - baseball and football are separate entities. If the Royals were good, it wouldn't change a goddamn thing with the Chiefs.

KILLER_CLOWN
04-10-2005, 07:41 PM
I wonder what will happen when we get an nba team, from what i've heard it's going to happen.

Logical
04-10-2005, 08:07 PM
Have the teams both been good (or bad) at the same time? If not, then there's no proof in what you're saying.

I'll stand by what I said - baseball and football are separate entities. If the Royals were good, it wouldn't change a goddamn thing with the Chiefs.

I believe the early 90 Royals through 94 might have been over .500. Some fan that still likes MLB can probably clear that up.

C-Mac
04-10-2005, 08:48 PM
Have the teams both been good (or bad) at the same time? If not, then there's no proof in what you're saying.

I'll stand by what I said - baseball and football are separate entities. If the Royals were good, it wouldn't change a goddamn thing with the Chiefs.

Bingo! :thumb:

chappy
04-10-2005, 09:01 PM
More BS.


You want to know why professional football is huge? It's because it's a well run league with people in charge that make decisions that positively effect the way the game is played and watched...


BUT. There is one GIGANTIC reason that pro football is giant right now, and pro baseball is not, and it's not because the Royals suck... That wouldn't explain the NATIONAL mentality that mirrors the KC market.


That reason is this:
VIDEO GAMES.

Since the early ninties, an entire generation of football fans have grown up knowing more about the game and knowing more about their teams because of games like Tecmo Super Bowl and later Madden football. Anybody 26 years old or younger played these games right when they were first discovering sports on TV, and that's where the (age group) market for football fans is right now. My Dad is a football fan, but not like me and my friends (all of us grew up with Nintendo and Sega and Playstation). The Chiefs could suck for 12 years, and we'd all still love them because we fell in love with the game and the team BEFORE we started watching real games regularly...

Jason's argument is this, the coverage creates the interest... That argument doesn't make any sense at all, and the moment we lose interest, they'll stop they're coverage. That will happen in about 15 years, when the new youngsters step up with a different pass-time. I guarentee it will have something to do with what video game is popular RIGHT NOW...
Great we're gonna have to watch 'Dance Dance Revolution' Competitions on Sundays in the next 15 to 20 years if your theory is correct.:(:(:deevee:

Nzoner
04-10-2005, 09:14 PM
Have the teams both been good (or bad) at the same time?

I'm not going to go on a search to find out how the teams did the following year but the only time that I'd think it may be close would be 1985-86.The Royals were coming off the WS win and the Chiefs made the play-offs.

Rausch
04-10-2005, 09:30 PM
Terrorists could blow up Arrowhead and I still wouldn't be tempted to watch a MLB game...

mcan
04-10-2005, 11:29 PM
Dance Dance Revolution?

Funny, but I think a better example might be reality TV and "Sim" video games... Sim City, Sim____, Rollar Coaster Tycoon, The Sims... People spend hours doing this stuff and fantasizing about a better life...


As for "Lamar makes just as much money as every other team" that is completely false. Teams only split revenues for television contracts IIRC. Seattle's new stadium puts money in the hands of the Seattle's owners. I believe parking and concessions and all merchandise sales for an individual team stay with that team as well... That's why the Broncos changed their uniforms. So that people in New York might think it's cool and buy a Denver jersey. The Chiefs don't have that, but you don't see Lamar jumping on that just to make a few extra dollars. You don't see him demanding that he get a new stadium or move the team. Sure he might say that he needs renovations, but geez, he's just renting the place, and since he helps drive the whole KC economy I think he's got a legitamate beef.

The Chiefs are a corporation anyway. He pays himself a salary (probably a small percentage of gross) and that's all he gets. The rest of the money gets put back into the business. Saying otherwise is astronomically stupid.

chappy
04-11-2005, 12:35 AM
mcan i was being sarcastic

mcan
04-11-2005, 05:54 AM
mcan i was being sarcastic


I know, I thought I might take a stab at a real example though, to bolster my point...

Dr. Facebook Fever
04-11-2005, 07:37 AM
Jason's an idiot. The Chiefs aren't winners. It's not the 90's anymore.

C-Mac
04-11-2005, 07:44 AM
I'm not going to go on a search to find out how the teams did the following year but the only time that I'd think it may be close would be 1985-86.The Royals were coming off the WS win and the Chiefs made the play-offs.

Chiefs were in the playoffs in 1986...because of special teams. :thumb:

Deberg_1990
10-04-2014, 12:50 AM
We have come a looooooong way my friends.

Guru
10-04-2014, 12:51 AM
Nzoner 338? Yeah, this thread has come a long way. LMAO

Gonzo
10-04-2014, 01:14 AM
LMAO I didn't see the date on this thread at first and was like, wtf???
Peterson?? What the fuck????

Deberg_1990
10-04-2014, 01:16 AM
Excellent article by Jason other than his promoting of the Star Sports section. Pretty much absolutely correct.

RIP......

crazycoffey
10-04-2014, 01:20 AM
I didn't want to read this 2005....

Mr. Flopnuts
10-04-2014, 01:20 AM
I don't entirely agree with that. I live in Seattle and am an avid Seattle sports fan, with the exception of my beloved Chiefs. The Sonics are having a good year, their is a lot of buzz circling with the Mariners. The Huskies mens team went to the sweet 16 in the tourney. It's been a pretty good sports year up here, a lot better than what was projected anyways. However I spend all of my time here following my beloved Chiefs because there just isn't another game, another team, or another passion that I have that could pull me away. Maybe that's just me though. As far as Mcan statement goes. I believe that to be true, but I'm 28 and I was only 10 when the first Nintendo came out. So I would say anyone 30 and under can relate to the video game theory.

Jesus. At 37 I have been here a LONG fucking time!

Guru
10-04-2014, 03:28 AM
Jesus. At 37 I have been here a LONG ****ing time!

Try 45 you young pup.

lcarus
10-04-2014, 05:48 AM
Jason's an idiot. The Chiefs aren't winners. It's not the 90's anymore.

Where'd you go Johnny Fever? :hmmm: