I think your seriously underestimating the amount of fans the jets have. Putting Jersey,Long Island,and Queens aside, I believe the Jets have just as large a following in the rest of the boroughs as well. I might even make a poll on that to see if that myth really holds water.
Well i'm 16 now so i figure i got at least 65-70 years left so if they cant win a superbowl in 65-70 years then i need to seriously rethink the teams i root for
now same old has a pretty solid point. If the Jets cant win in 70 years, we better hope the franchise has moved on from NY by then, or we have changed teams. Because what is that drought? 110 years? God that would suck to be a lifelong Jets fan if that were the case.
Well you might be right. I really think the Jets are in the same position the Mets are in though: they've got a well-established regional rival that had locked up the majority of the serious fans before they came into existence. Yankee's fans outnumbered both Giants and Dodgers fans combined as evidenced by the attendance records between 1920 and 1958. The Mets inherited many of those fans but not all of them and they have consistently drawn fewer fans than the Yankees over their entire existence.
When we start winning those stats, and numbers will change. But, we have to start winning for real, not just little playoff runs. We got to start going to the big show. The comparisons you made between the mets and Yankees are legit, but it's not fair to compare both football, and baseball. 2 different sports. The Jets and giants may be far apart as far as age is concerned, but not winning. Because of this I strongly feel the Jets have the potential to become NYC #1 football team, very similar to the Yankees in baseball. The Jets were gaining a lot of momentum earning the allegiance of more Yankee fans, because of the NY vs Bos rivalry sparked tremendously by spygate. It was highly compared to redsox and yankees, therefore creating more interest not only in the greater New York area, but in the public spectrum as well.
I'm gonna say a slightly bigger parade. And if it isn't bigger, it will be more nuts and last longer because I think Jets fans are wilder and more "out there" than Giants fans are. Also, the fan base has been starving for a champion. We've all had to live vicariously through older Jets fans and the old reels of Namath holding up his finger after stunning the Colts. I think a Jets parade would be a carnival in the middle of Manhattan. I even think some Giants fans might participate. The Jets have a decent following in the 5 boroughs, but the G-Men do have a larger fan base overall obviously. Still, I think we'll have a huge outpouring of people. That's IF it ever happens. I so want it to happen. If the Jets - and Knicks - ever win championships in my lifetime, I could die happy. But then, I might be dead of shock seeing someone in a green and white uniform holding up the Lombardi Trophy.
That parade was an embarrssment, the YTanks get 4 mil anf the giants get a few hundred thousand? if it ever hgappened(which doesn't look likely) we'd get alot more than a few hundred thousand but I'd rather win a SB and have a gathering like they had than never win one and speculate.
It's true, the main reason they have such a large following though, is not because they are the older team, but because they are the ones with more recent success. through out the 70's it was evident to see just as many, if not more jet fans in the NY metropolitan area. Then SB21 happened and screwed it all up. But like I said we can change this. All the jets got to do is win.
Would love to see them win it again, and when better than 40 years on! Well I suppose you could argue 1 year on, 2 years on etc
Jet fans will never allow a super bowl to happen b/c they insist that we only fill our primary needs in FA/draft and refuse to allow us to upgrade positions/cores that maybe good but not great
If an average quaterback like Eli "Oreo Licker" Manning can win a SB, I think their is hope for us. Jets will win the championship in 2010, I hope my ticker can take it. I will be at the parade!
The big story in NY football in the 70's in my opinion was the Giant's fans dissatisfaction with how their team was performing. You had the people showing up with paper bags to wear over their heads and you had the banner guy who flew a banner over the field and you had the media just viciously excoriating the Giants as pathetic for most of the decade. Despite that that Giants outdrew the Jets both in viewer share on Tv and at the gate. The way successful NY football history looks at this point is like this: 1927-1946 Giants 1950-1951 Giants 1956-1963 Giants 1967-1969 Jets 1981-1982 Jets 1985-1986 Jets 1984-1990 Giants 1998 Jets 2004 Jets 2000-2007 Giants That's basically how it looks. Both teams made the playoffs in other seasons but the Giants have been by far the dominant team in the region with 4 super bowl trips in the last 21 years. Note that it was the Giants who actually finished off NY's run in the 80's with Super Bowl wins and it was the Giants who actually got to the Super Bowl in 2000 and won it in 2007 after the Jets just missed in 1998 and had a strong team in 2004.
Uh ... no - these two statements couldn't be more untrue. Any book on New York baseball would tell you that New York was always considered a National League city - the Yankees drew the celebrities, businessmen, and tourists because of the fame of the players, but the fans of the Dodgers and Giants were "true fans" (whetever that means). In any event, the Yankees NEVER outdrew the Dodgers and Giants together in ANY season in the entire time the three teams were in New York. The Mets outdrew the Yankees every year from 1964 through 1975 and 1984 through 1992 (that is, 21 of their first 31 years of existence). So much for the Yankees having "locked up" the majority of fans. The fact is that historically whichever team is better has had higher attendance, which is hardly a big surprise. The website http://www.super70s.com/Baseball/Teams/Background/Attendance/default.asp has all of these numbers.
There is no way New York was a National League city. If it was the two teams here would not have fled for other environs. Seriously, in a National League city the Dodgers and Giants BOTH moved to the west coast? The Yankees basically equalled the combined attendance of the Dodgers and Giants on a consistent basis with the odd year where that was not true. In 1951, which was not a high year for Yankees attendance by any means, the Yankees drew 1,950,107 customers while clinching the pennant a week before the season ended. The Dodgers and Giants drew 1,282,629 and 1,059,539 fans respectively while battling down to the wire in the tightest pennant race in history to that point, one which wound up in a 3 game playoff at the end.
The truth, of course, is that the Dodgers saw massive amounts of money in California and went and got it (and O'Malley duped Stoneham into going too, since the Dodgers needed a west coast partner to make it work). It had nothing to do with competing with the Yankees. The fact that the Mets outdrew the Yankees two-thirds of the first 31 years after they were born shows that the National League fans were always there, and outnumbered the Yankees fans by plenty. Many people have said that NY had always been a National League city, with little dispute (Stan Isaacs said it when discussing bringing the Mets back, Nelson Doubleday said it, Fred Wilpon said it, etc.) - try to find one person who ever claimed that it was an American League city. In any event, all of that is just people's opinions - the attendance figures are indisputable. Interesting how you've completely backed off the original statement that "Yankee's fans outnumbered both Giants and Dodgers fans combined as evidenced by the attendance records between 1920 and 1958" to now saying that they were "basically equal," but even that is not supported by the data. Here are the actual ratios of NL (Dodger plus Giant) attendance to Yankee attendance from 1923 (when Yankee Stadium opened) to 1957: 1923 1.37573 1924 1.57845 1925 2.06295 1926 1.31479 1927 1.28471 1928 1.47468 1929 1.66713 1930 1.68149 1931 1.71551 1932 1.21238 1933 1.55393 1934 1.36313 1935 1.85437 1936 1.35894 1937 1.41198 1938 1.50654 1939 1.92853 1940 1.74305 1941 2.05034 1942 1.97111 1943 1.82400 1944 1.62075 1945 2.35380 1946 1.33157 1947 1.56421 1948 1.20402 1949 1.24895 1950 1.05448 1951 1.20105 1952 1.27244 1953 1.28425 1954 1.47481 1955 1.24666 1956 1.23526 1957 1.12360 Until 1950 the NL teams outdrew the Yankees by at least 20% in EVERY year, and did so overall in all years but two; in 18 of those first 27 years they outdrew them by at least 40%; and in 9 of those 27 years they outdrew them by at least 70%. Together the two NL teams outdrew the Yankees by an average of more than 1/2 million fans from 1923 through 1957, and 12 times averaged more than 4000 people per game more (together). Recall also that for much of this time the Yankees were far more successful than either other team, and attracted a far wealthier crowd, and far more casual fans, as a result (there are loads of stories of Brooklyn kids listening to Dodgers games on the radio because they couldn't afford to go to the games). Even in the 1950s, when attendance for the Giants started dropping dramatically (other than in 1954, when they won the championship), the NL teams outdrew the Yankees by more than 20% in every year other than the last one. Even then, when everyone knew the teams were leaving, they outdrew the Yankees by 185000 people! I challenge anyone in the world to look at the numbers above and claim that the Yankees "basically equalled" the NL attendance (which is saying that those numbers are all close to 1) - that is a simply absurd statement. So, when you make a statement before about the Yankees consistently outdrawing the Dodgers and Giants together which turns out to NEVER have happened even once, you think you're right? And when you say now that they were basically equal in attendance which turns to rarely (if ever) have been true, you think you're right? And when you state that the Mets couldn't compete for all of the "established fans" that the Yankees had when they outdrew them in 21 of their first 31 years of existence, you think you're right? What any of this has to do with the Jets and Giants I can't imagine, but it would have been better if you had actually looked at the attendance figures before making these ridiculous statements.
