An Analysis on Discontented Fandom

[jkutswings]

A question was posted to me in the AA thread, essentially asking:

'If you're so sure that the current and future status of this team is bleak...why bother investing anything into them anymore?'

I actually think this is a great question, which gets to the heart of how many fans feel, and is worth discussing.

Now to begin with, this isn't a right vs wrong kind of issue. I'm not trying to tell anybody how to be a family, and while the reality is that following a team is often an emotional phenomenon that doesn't necessarily obey logic at all times, I'd like to (try to) approach this topic as methodically and tactfully as I can. So here goes:

1) I have (quite possibly unreasonably) high standards as a consumer. This isn't just limited to the Wings; if I'm going to regularly watch anything on TV, I want a high return on investment. So I either love the show/series/entertainment product, or I don't bother watching very often. I fully admit (and even embrace) the nature of what some call a 'bandwagon fan' or something similar. Life is simply too short, with too many other more important things to do, to devote hours on end to what I deem unsatisfactory on the entertainment scale.

But this is juxtaposed against...

2) I have decades of history, with countless great memories associated with following this team. I grew up on Red Wings hockey, spending countless hours watching with my family and friends, bonding over the exciting plays, the tense moments, and the historic talent this franchise has been blessed with.

So it's complicated. Which leads me to:

3) My biggest frustration with the current team isn't the lack of success. It's that I view their approach as trying to fit a square peg in a round hole, year after year, and it feels like each repetition is just another wasted year, with another delay before any realistic chance at a return to greater success can return. Building a championship contender is like juggling sand; there's a million ways it can go wrong, and you not only have to put the right pieces together, but also within a short enough window to overcome the constant erosion due to Father Time. And I simply can't see this strategy putting enough talent together at once to do any real damage.

So why watch? Why even discuss the team? Why not just wash your hands of the whole thing forever (or at least until the product is more entertaining, according to your own definition of the word)?

4) On the one hand, I have. I'm done buying tickets, or merchandise, or even watching more than a handful of games on tv. It's just not worth it (to me) anymore. But on the other hand, it's not like I don't care if they're ever worth investing in again. So I voice my frustration, and I hope other fans do the same, and I hope that it behind to affect the bottom line of the franchise, because I think that a major profit loss is the only factor that will ultimately bring any significant changes.

Now if the philosophy continues, and the results don't improve, I'll probably keep sliding farther down the spectrum, until I'm fully apathetic. But I hope it doesn't reach that point. Even if the team never wins another Cup, I hope that Detroit can once again have a hockey team that's an extremely exciting form of entertainment for millions of fans.

Everybody has their own way to be a fan. I'm just a guy who fiercely wants a great hockey team in this town, and equally fiercely thinks the current front office can no longer make that happen, so I root for change, but from a distance. It's a weird dynamic, to be sure, but it is what it is.

So feel free to post your own thoughts on how you feel about being a Wings fan, despite not necessarily being happy with the product, as long as we discuss things (or agree to disagree) in a civil manner.

Click to read more...

 

[Lil Sebastian Cossa]

It is a good question. One I've pondered myself. As I said in the other one... I'm a fan of many many teams who I have no doubt will continue to be perpetual disappointments (i.e. no matter what the Lions do, I'm gonna watch them."). However, I always look at it kind of like a story that Dan Dickerson related during a Tigers radiocast after the JD Martinez trade.

It was from Ernie Harwell and he was asked how you can announce for a rebuilding/terrible sports team. Like how you stay interested. And Ernie's answer gets to the heart of what I feel I think. He said "You can have an amazing game between two really bad teams. You can see an amazing individual performance and/or something you've never seen before. And I guess I'm more interested in the microview for my teams. Like last year, I went and watched a 5-4 SO victory with my dad against the Bruins last year. On that night, it didn't matter that the team was in the midst of the worst season they've had in forever and it didn't even matter that they started out like crap that night. We left the game and it had everything you could want in a hockey game. A fight or two, a lot of back and forth hockey, 3-on-3 OT, and a shootout.

Call me an idiot that doesn't demand enough of my team, if you like, but as long as a team gives a professional effort and I can derive any enjoyment from it at all, I'll be interested.

E: To satisfy a little bit of the "I want excitement" but without having to watch the doldrums, I recommend awood40's highlight videos. Even in last year, the Wings had a bunch of pretty goals that they scored. They didn't score a heck of a lot in total, but for each of the guys that did, I'd say at least 25-50% of them are kind of a joy to watch. Also, Ken Daniels goal calls give me goosebumps sometimes. Love him as the PBP guy.

 

[njx9]

4) On the one hand, I have. I'm done buying tickets, or merchandise, or even watching more than a handful of games on tv. It's just not worth it (to me) anymore. But on the other hand, it's not like I don't care if they're ever worth investing in again. So I voice my frustration, and I hope other fans do the same, and I hope that it behind to affect the bottom line of the franchise, because I think that a major profit loss is the only factor that will ultimately bring any significant changes.

Completely this. I desperately want this team to return to the 90s/00s level of being a real contender every single year. But, given that I don't see it happening in the near future due entirely to management's choices, I can't justify giving them any of my money or my eyeball time. I still want them to change, and I'll still passionately advocate for what I think represents a return to what I see as Red Wings' hockey, but I don't intend to fund what I see as mediocrity.

That said, I don't begrudge anyone who still finds value in the small things and still wants to watch or buy tickets or whatever. I might disagree on what's entertaining, but after all, no one joins a sports message board on the internet just to agree with everyone else.

 

[Flowah]

I'm not trying to tell anybody how to be a family

But that's exactly what this is, right?

We care about the team in a way similar to the way we care about friends and family. We
typically don't abandon them when things get rough until they get really rough and there's no signs of change. Parents don't dump their kids as soon as their kid disappoints them. Maybe if the kid does drugs, never tries to change, steals from them, does that for years.

That's what this is for a lot of us. I love this team. I'm disappointed as hell in the direction of the team. I'm with you jkutswings. If the team looked like they were actually admitting what they needed to do and trying to do it the suckage would be a lot easier to handle. To continue the family analogy, the parent watching their kid acknowledge the need to study more and actually studying more is reason to be supportive and happy, even if the results don't necessarily follow. I don't get that sense from this FO.

And every time the apologists come in saying it's a business first and money comes first that just further solidifies things. They aren't trying to make a competitive team and even the apologists can't pretend they are. It's just about squeezing profits out of the team. Fine. I can acknowledge that. Just don't also pretend that such a strategy also produces a competitive team.

 

[Ezekial]

This is all fine and I have no problem with concerned fans voicing their opinion. What I do have a problem with its people who are admittedly not watching games trying to tell me about AA's contract situation without having seen the detrimental facets of his game and just blame and disparage Blashill/KH for his usage/contract situation.

If you tune solely into the game highlights and see a highlight reel play from AA every one or two weeks but not the other 12.5 minutes of his game of course you're going to think his value is higher than it is. You're not going to see that he is an elite transition player in the league but the longer he's in either end the weaker his game becomes.

 

[izlez]

Everybody has their own way to be a fan. I'm just a guy who fiercely wants a great hockey team in this town, and equally fiercely thinks the current front office can no longer make that happen, so I root for change, but from a distance. It's a weird dynamic, to be sure, but it is what it is.

It seems like so many people on here fiercely want to be RIGHT, rather than fiercely want a great hockey team. We are filled with people here wanting the team to be bad for the last several years (hey there tank avatars), rather than rooting for themselves to be wrong about what we have.

I'm not saying you have to blindly support the team (I'm very unhappy with Holland, despite constantly being forced to "defend" him for not intentionally tanking), but why must everyone root for last place because that's what they think is a good way to build a team? Why not root for Daley to be a perfect fit? Why not root for Helm to find a scoring touch on all those breakaways? Why not root for Rasmussen to be a dominating physical force, rather than be right about wanting to draft a "skill" guy?





And on another note, I always find it funny when people get upset and stop spending money on a team. I'm a diehard fan of the Red Wings and Lions. I haven't spent any money on them in years and years and years. I'm not trying to make some sort of statement. I never understood where fandom requires spending money on a team.....and the organization doesn't care either

 

[izlez]

And every time the apologists come in saying it's a business first and money comes first that just further solidifies things. They aren't trying to make a competitive team and even the apologists can't pretend they are. It's just about squeezing profits out of the team. Fine. I can acknowledge that. Just don't also pretend that such a strategy also produces a competitive team.

I will never understand this mindset of Wings fans.

They are only trying to make money.... by having a bad team?
Wouldn't the easier thing be to have a good team?

 

[Red Stanley]

It's not a question of what kind of fan you are or wish to be. Everyone is different and that's absolutely fine. I have an issue with the "if you're not with us you're against us" kind of attitude that some people adopt when it comes to their fellow fans who are of a differing opinion.

 

[Red Stanley]

I will never understand this mindset of Wings fans.

They are only trying to make money.... by having a bad team?
Wouldn't the easier thing be to have a good team?

Because "apologizing" isn't the right term. If someone offers a seemingly logical alternative to "the front office is incompetent", they get labeled as apologists (among other things). That's not a debate based on ideas. It's a dismissal of opinion using blanket labels and it happens way too often.

 

[jkutswings]

It seems like so many people on here fiercely want to be RIGHT, rather than fiercely want a great hockey team. We are filled with people here wanting the team to be bad for the last several years (hey there tank avatars), rather than rooting for themselves to be wrong about what we have.

I'm not saying you have to blindly support the team (I'm very unhappy with Holland, despite constantly being forced to "defend" him for not intentionally tanking), but why must everyone root for last place because that's what they think is a good way to build a team? Why not root for Daley to be a perfect fit? Why not root for Helm to find a scoring touch on all those breakaways? Why not root for Rasmussen to be a dominating physical force, rather than be right about wanting to draft a "skill" guy?





And on another note, I always find it funny when people get upset and stop spending money on a team. I'm a diehard fan of the Red Wings and Lions. I haven't spent any money on them in years and years and years. I'm not trying to make some sort of statement. I never understood where fandom requires spending money on a team.....and the organization doesn't care either

Speaking only for myself, I don't root for losses just because I want a #1 pick. I root for losses because I think one of the prerequisites for returning to playoff success is removing Ken Holland as GM. I honestly believe that he simply doesn't have what it takes to do this type of team building, and the sooner he's gone, the better.

Now that doesn't mean his replacement will be any good (see also Jeff Blashill). But if I'm convinced Holland will never get it right again, I'm not going to want his choices to result in his continued employment, at least in his current role.

And on a side note, I just re-read my original post. My apologies for several typos. Darn autocorrect on smart phones.

 

[ArGarBarGar]

Because "apologizing" isn't the right term. If someone offers a seemingly logical alternative to "the front office is incompetent", they get labeled as apologists (among other things). That's not a debate based on ideas. It's a dismissal of opinion using blanket labels and it happens way too often.

These mentions of the Ilitch family wanting to make money are used as a smokescreen for Holland, as a way to mitigate the criticism Holland is receiving. Though the only person I know that makes that argument on a regular basis is HiHD.

This is all fine and I have no problem with concerned fans voicing their opinion. What I do have a problem with its people who are admittedly not watching games trying to tell me about AA's contract situation without having seen the detrimental facets of his game and just blame and disparage Blashill/KH for his usage/contract situation.

If you tune solely into the game highlights and see a highlight reel play from AA every one or two weeks but not the other 12.5 minutes of his game of course you're going to think his value is higher than it is. You're not going to see that he is an elite transition player in the league but the longer he's in either end the weaker his game becomes.

I don't think the number of people who qualify for that group is very high. Less than 10, certainly.

 

[Frk It]

I'll go to their games in Pittsburgh and Buffalo every year regardless. I'll watch most of their games on TV regardless.

I just don't have much hope at the moment, unfortunately. Pretty apathetic towards this team and apathetic towards talking about this team at the moment.

I don't think they are prioritizing the right things, and I don't think they draft in a way that is going to change our direction anytime soon. Until changes are made, it's just going to be the same crap over and over until they can't turn a profit. And the worst thing is that it's kind of obvious that is how this will play out, but nothing will be done to address it sooner, so we will just waste everyone's time til then.

 

[jkutswings]

I will never understand this mindset of Wings fans.

They are only trying to make money.... by having a bad team?
Wouldn't the easier thing be to have a good team?

I'd say that it's all about risk management. If being aggressive about building a contender yields A level profits when everything aligns, but has a high chance of failing, which results in D level profits, that's overall not as desirable (in financial thinking) as being an average team, yielding B level profits, but having a very low chance at failing (with the associated drop in profit yield).

Essentially, it's preferring 100 rolls of the dice that always land between 5 and 7, rather than opening it up to include the occasional 10/11/12, but also at the risk of rolling snake eyes.

 

[Lazlo Hollyfeld]

It seems like so many people on here fiercely want to be RIGHT, rather than fiercely want a great hockey team. We are filled with people here wanting the team to be bad for the last several years (hey there tank avatars), rather than rooting for themselves to be wrong about what we have.

I'm not saying you have to blindly support the team (I'm very unhappy with Holland, despite constantly being forced to "defend" him for not intentionally tanking), but why must everyone root for last place because that's what they think is a good way to build a team? Why not root for Daley to be a perfect fit? Why not root for Helm to find a scoring touch on all those breakaways? Why not root for Rasmussen to be a dominating physical force, rather than be right about wanting to draft a "skill" guy?



And on another note, I always find it funny when people get upset and stop spending money on a team. I'm a diehard fan of the Red Wings and Lions. I haven't spent any money on them in years and years and years. I'm not trying to make some sort of statement. I never understood where fandom requires spending money on a team.....and the organization doesn't care either

I definitely agree that people tend to want to be right. It's a problem of forums and the internet in general.

On a game per game level, I will root for those things. Even if it were better for the team to lose, I can't actively root for that.

But on a global level there's still the existing problems Holland seems to have no plan to address. I've said this so many times I should probably make it my signature, but this team desperately needs a #1 Center, a #1 and #1 dman. I don't see a path where they can acquire those guys anytime soon. If everything goes well, they're first round playoff fodder again. So it's hard to be optimistic.

I just realized that I have "tanking" above my avatar, which I put up there a few years ago when I couldn't think of anything else. Meaning I'm tanking, not the team. But now I realize it probably looks like a strong endorsement of "The tank."

I'm not simply "pro tank." But the current path seems completely futile. And since there's no hockey to watch, there's plenty of time to beat dead horses.

But I've been a fan of the Wings since they were the Dead Wings. I will continue to be a fan, even if Holland continues to drop the ball. It's still less painful than being a Lions fan.

 

[Red Stanley]

These mentions of the Ilitch family wanting to make money are used as a smokescreen for Holland, as a way to mitigate the criticism Holland is receiving. Though the only person I know that makes that argument on a regular basis is HiHD.

It goes beyond that particular instance, though, doesn't it. If someone isn't as vocally displeased with the current state, they're not passionate enough. If someone doesn't want to tank for a #1 pick, they're content with mediocre hockey and don't like winning. If someone spends money on the team, they're part of the problem. If someone thinks there are reasons other than "Holland sucks" for things being the way they are, they're Kenny shills. It goes on and on.

 

[Ezekial]

I don't think the number of people who qualify for that group is very high. Less than 10, certainly.

They tend to make up our most vocal and disparaging detractors who also generally cannot be quelled with logical discussion. Everything sucks and you're dumb or a "Holland slappy" for not complaining about everything. It is the minority of this forum but plenty of discussion is based around them.

 

[ArGarBarGar]

It goes beyond that particular instance, though, doesn't it. If someone isn't as vocally displeased with the current state, they're not passionate enough. If someone doesn't want to tank for a #1 pick, they're content with mediocre hockey and don't like winning. If someone spends money on the team, they're part of the problem. If someone thinks there are reasons other than "Holland sucks" for things being the way they are, they're Kenny shills. It goes on and on.

I don't think this is a prevalent part of the discourse, either.

And some of these instances I have never seen on here.

 

[Red Stanley]

I don't think this is a prevalent part of the discourse, either.

And some of these instances I have never seen on here.

They're not and don't have to be, if the sentiment is prevalent enough, which I think is the case given the low number of people who post on a regular basis. The instances are all specific examples of what has been said sometimes more than a few of times.

 

[njx9]

It seems like so many people on here fiercely want to be RIGHT, rather than fiercely want a great hockey team. We are filled with people here wanting the team to be bad for the last several years (hey there tank avatars), rather than rooting for themselves to be wrong about what we have.

I'm not saying you have to blindly support the team (I'm very unhappy with Holland, despite constantly being forced to "defend" him for not intentionally tanking), but why must everyone root for last place because that's what they think is a good way to build a team? Why not root for Daley to be a perfect fit? Why not root for Helm to find a scoring touch on all those breakaways? Why not root for Rasmussen to be a dominating physical force, rather than be right about wanting to draft a "skill" guy?

I don't care about being right, but obviously I think I *am* right, or I'd have a different opinion. No one holds an opinion they think is incorrect. Therefore, I think 'blind hope that everything is actually perfect and I'm wrong about all of it' is ridiculous, and seems akin to asking a supporter why they can't just hope the team finally hits rock bottom so it can build itself back up quicker, and then wondering why you're so determined to be right that you can't see reason.

That said, I think anyone rooting for a recent draft pick to suck just because they want to be right about him sucking seems counter to literally any conceivable point of view about how this team can get better. No one is served by Rasmussen or Cholowski sucking, even if you think they weren't great picks.

And on another note, I always find it funny when people get upset and stop spending money on a team. I'm a diehard fan of the Red Wings and Lions. I haven't spent any money on them in years and years and years. I'm not trying to make some sort of statement. I never understood where fandom requires spending money on a team.....and the organization doesn't care either

As a fan/consumer, the only way you can tell an organization/company that you don't support what it's doing is by not spending money. If enough fans follow suit, the organization will change. The organization, as some folks here like to reiterate over and over, absolutely cares about how much money gets spent on them.

Additionally, if you watch them on TV, you're "spending" money on them via advertising dollars that are predicated on viewership. It's not just (or, really, even slightly) ticket sales that make up team revenues.

 

[jkutswings]

They tend to make up our most vocal and disparaging detractors who also generally cannot be quelled with logical discussion. Everything sucks and you're dumb or a "Holland slappy" for not complaining about everything. It is the minority of this forum but plenty of discussion is based around them.

I'll try this in a more tactful way.

All fans are a spectrum. The majority of them aren't vocal enough to post on the internet to begin with, so right off the bat, these forums are made up of a vocal minority.

Then, as the on-ice success declines, the tenor of discussion inevitably includes some measure of frustration more and more often.

And, within the population of forum posters, there's a further spectrum. Some will respond to this increase in frustration by remaining positive. Others will remain (or become increasingly) negative. Still others will simply walk away.

And I think this particular board has had a lot of folks walk away in the last few years, leaving the more extreme ends of the curve, so to speak. So when a potentially hot button issue comes up, you have the most vocal of the vocal constituting a significant percentage of the population, which leads to more frequent extreme conversations, which probably helps perpetuate the cycle of some of the moderates leaving.

 

[jkutswings]

I don't care about being right, but obviously I think I *am* right, or I'd have a different opinion. No one holds an opinion they think is incorrect. Therefore, I think 'blind hope that everything is actually perfect and I'm wrong about all of it' is ridiculous, and seems akin to asking a supporter why they can't just hope the team finally hits rock bottom so it can build itself back up quicker, and then wondering why you're so determined to be right that you can't see reason.

That said, I think anyone rooting for a recent draft pick to suck just because they want to be right about him sucking seems counter to literally any conceivable point of view about how this team can get better. No one is served by Rasmussen or Cholowski sucking, even if you think they weren't great picks.



As a fan/consumer, the only way you can tell an organization/company that you don't support what it's doing is by not spending money. If enough fans follow suit, the organization will change. The organization, as some folks here like to reiterate over and over, absolutely cares about how much money gets spent on them.

Additionally, if you watch them on TV, you're "spending" money on them via advertising dollars that are predicated on viewership. It's not just (or, really, even slightly) ticket sales that make up team revenues.

If they turn into great players, the team turns around. But if they only turn into decent players, but that in turn leads to a continued mediocre level of team success, I'd argue that that's a worse scenario than bottoming out and finally making major changes.

 

[Lil Sebastian Cossa]

I definitely agree that people tend to want to be right. It's a problem of forums and the internet in general.

On a game per game level, I will root for those things. Even if it were better for the team to lose, I can't actively root for that.

But on a global level there's still the existing problems Holland seems to have no plan to address. I've said this so many times I should probably make it my signature, but this team desperately needs a #1 Center, a #1 and #1 dman. I don't see a path where they can acquire those guys anytime soon. If everything goes well, they're first round playoff fodder again. So it's hard to be optimistic.

I just realized that I have "tanking" above my avatar, which I put up there a few years ago when I couldn't think of anything else. Meaning I'm tanking, not the team. But now I realize it probably looks like a strong endorsement of "The tank."

I'm not simply "pro tank." But the current path seems completely futile. And since there's no hockey to watch, there's plenty of time to beat dead horses.

But I've been a fan of the Wings since they were the Dead Wings. I will continue to be a fan, even if Holland continues to drop the ball. It's still less painful than being a Lions fan.

For stuff like needing a #1C, #1 and #2D, I feel those will come with the draft, wherever our picks land. I don't see the value in handwringing that we aren't getting a top 3 pick when if you pick correctly in the realm the Wings should be picking organically (5-12) has yielded a bunch of top pairing capable guys. Most of the guys we've been clamoring for in trades, actually. (Trouba, Myers, Fowler). 1C? Scheifele was 7th OA and similar.

The onus falls on making better use of our picks and getting more bites at the apple. And if we pick top 3 cause we won the lottery, that's a bonus. That shouldn't be the only plan. There are fantastic hockey players taken from 7-14 every year.

And hell, everyone has three or four guys they're interested in at the top of next draft anyway (Merkley, Boqvist, Dahlin, and Svech, and others.)

 

[jkutswings]

For stuff like needing a #1C, #1 and #2D, I feel those will come with the draft, wherever our picks land. I don't see the value in handwringing that we aren't getting a top 3 pick when if you pick correctly in the realm the Wings should be picking organically (5-12) has yielded a bunch of top pairing capable guys. Most of the guys we've been clamoring for in trades, actually. (Trouba, Myers, Fowler). 1C? Scheifele was 7th OA and similar.

The onus falls on making better use of our picks and getting more bites at the apple. And if we pick top 3 cause we won the lottery, that's a bonus. That shouldn't be the only plan. There are fantastic hockey players taken from 7-14 every year.

And hell, everyone has three or four guys they're interested in at the top of next draft anyway (Merkley, Boqvist, Dahlin, and Svech, and others.)

My problem is that I don't have any faith in the people making those choices, whether it's with #12, #5, or maybe even #1. Yes, great players CAN be had, but what if I think this front office and scouting staff aren't good enough to find them?

 

[izlez]

If they turn into great players, the team turns around. But if they only turn into decent players, but that in turn leads to a continued mediocre level of team success, I'd argue that that's a worse scenario than bottoming out and finally making major changes.

I guess I'm not sure what point you're trying to make here, but I can't help but feel like it frustrates the crap out of me.

It again seems like you want to be right...to not have these guys, and all of the other guys, be better than you expect because you want to be right and you want your way of building a team to be right?

I don't know. It seems like I guess you're going with what seems to be the prevailing attitude on these boards. "I want to be bad because that makes you good. Fire Holland because he's trying to be good"

 

[ArGarBarGar]

They're not and don't have to be, if the sentiment is prevalent enough, which I think is the case given the low number of people who post on a regular basis. The instances are all specific examples of what has been said sometimes more than a few of times.

But you have to acknowledge the difference between one or two guys who make up those instances and the majority of us who are pro tank and aren't that dismissive. I think most of the vocal anti-Holland posters drive discussion in a reasonable way, and most of the pro-Holland ones do so as well.

I think when you move the conversation to small samples or strawmen as a representation of most of the talk that goes on around here, you have lost the plot.