OT: OT: 2018 Football Thread III: Well, the Giants suck, anyway!

[East Coast Bias]

My dad grew up in the Bronx but is a Jets/Mets/Rangers fan. Not common as all his friends are Yankees/Giants.

It builds character. I wouldn't have it any other way.

 

[sbjnyc]

It's an interesting conversation that's come up.

Years ago, the Jets were more closely associated with Mets (with whom they shared a stadium) and the Islanders because most people coming in from Nassau and Suffolk counties would venture into Queens, but not so much the Bronx and Jersey.

As a general rule of thumb those loyalties still hold fairly true, though not quite as prominently as they used to. I haven't looked at market data in a while.

There are tons of Jets and ranger fans on the Island. I take the train home from Long Island on Sundays fairly frequently and always tend to see people going to Ranger/Jet games (Giants Isles etc much less so). There used to be a connection between the Jets and Long Island but that's been gone for a long time now but I don't see why that would have anything to do with fans outside the Island.

Anyway, during my time, the Mets won 1 World Series vs the Yankees' 7. The Rangers won 1 cup vs the Isles and Devils combining for 7. The Giants won 4 super bowls while the closest the Jets got was hiring a coach with Bowl in his name. Let's not talk NBA. The idea of equating Queens to the island also has always irritated me and I grew up not far from you (Forest Hills near Metropolitan Ave). I inherited most of my teams from my older brother who was Mets Jets Knicks and Islanders. My Uncle had Islander season tickets and seduced my brother to the dark side of the ice and their dynasty just sucked the life out of my childhood.

 

[TheTimTamSlammerMan]

To be fair, I became a Giants fan in 2001, if I started following football a few years earlier I might have followed the Jets because I thought that the nickname "Gang Green" was a lot cooler than "Big Blue". I actually still think that. So good thing I didn't make my decision based on that.

Funny, I think it's the lamest nickname for a sports team. It's literally a nasty ass infection. I laugh every time I hear it.

 

[Edge]

There are tons of Jets and ranger fans on the Island. I take the train home from Long Island on Sundays fairly frequently and always tend to see people going to Ranger/Jet games (Giants Isles etc much less so). There used to be a connection between the Jets and Long Island but that's been gone for a long time now but I don't see why that would have anything to do with fans outside the Island.

Anyway, during my time, the Mets won 1 World Series vs the Yankees' 7. The Rangers won 1 cup vs the Isles and Devils combining for 7. The Giants won 4 super bowls while the closest the Jets got was hiring a coach with Bowl in his name. Let's not talk NBA. The idea of equating Queens to the island also has always irritated me and I grew up not far from you (Forest Hills near Metropolitan Ave). I inherited most of my teams from my older brother who was Mets Jets Knicks and Islanders. My Uncle had Islander season tickets and seduced my brother to the dark side of the ice and their dynasty just sucked the life out of my childhood.

It has shifted, as have demographics, but a lot of the loyalties tend to get handed down.

I want to say that the last time I checked was probably about 7 years ago and if I recall, there was still a substantial gap between the pairings. I can't recall specifics, but it was something like Rangers fans are twice as likely to be fans of the Yankees and Giants respectively than they were Mets and Jets.

I suspect there's probably movement since that time, but how much I couldn't say.

 

[nyr2k2]

As I said, I got the Mets and Jets from my father. He's from Brooklyn, and was a Dodgers fan until they left, and then became a Mets fan. He picked up the Jets because of the association with the Mets (through Polo and Shea) as others have mentioned. He was originally a Rangers fan as there were no Islanders to root for when he grew up, but once they were established he made the switch because a) it was easier for him to see them (he was by then living in Brookville) and b) he wanted to root for the Long Island team. So, that's how his fandom developed.

I picked up all that, except for the Islanders, for reasons I mentioned earlier. We lived on Long Island, but even back then, I feel like where we were at (Bayville) was a pretty even Mets-Yankees split, maybe even favoring the Yankees, and probably a slight tilt towards the Jets. Things were all mixed up. In my town hockey wasn't a big thing but I remember more Rangers fans than Islanders fans. Then we moved to Maryland, LOL.

The whole Mets/Jets/Islanders and Yankees/Giants/Rangers dichotomy, I don't think it exists the way it once did.

 

[sbjnyc]

It has shifted, as have demographics, but a lot of the loyalties tend to get handed down.

I want to say that the last time I checked was probably about 7 years ago and if I recall, there was still a substantial gap between the pairings. I can't recall specifics, but it was something like Rangers fans are twice as likely to be fans of the Yankees and Giants respectively than they were Mets and Jets.

I suspect there's probably movement since that time, but how much I couldn't say.

Those pairings have been quoted for as long as I can remember. Yanks/Giants, Mets/Jets, Knicks/Rangers - they all shared stadiums but I don't know how much that ever really factored into it (especially since all but Knicks/Rangers stopped sharing 35+ years ago). How do they measure the pairings anyway? It's not like it's part of the census.

 

[Edge]

Those pairings have been quoted for as long as I can remember. Yanks/Giants, Mets/Jets, Knicks/Rangers - they all shared stadiums but I don't know how much that ever really factored into it (especially since all but Knicks/Rangers stopped sharing 35+ years ago). How do they measure the pairings anyway? It's not like it's part of the census.

Market data - sales, subscriptions, purchases, etc. A sickening amount of data and tracking that only becomes more comprehensive with each passing year.

The amount of data that's out there is significant --- especially for larger organizations that have the money and resources to mine it.

For example, right now one of my clients is a Fortune 5 company. It's almost scary the profiles they can put together.

Obviously it's not fool-proof, and nothing is ever etched in stone. But one of the things I can remember learning about, even as an intern, is how enduring certain traits and preferences are --- especially in older, established markets.

So doubling back to your original question, even years later certain loyalties tend to remain. Maybe not quite as strong as they used to be, but still significant. (But again, I don't know what the latest data would indicate. I only suspect that it probably wouldn't be a monumental shift.)

 

[East Coast Bias]

Alright I laughed.

 

[NCRanger]

I've posted this before.

The New York Football Giants are very unique in terms of who the fanbase was through the explosion of NFL popularity. It's not as true today as it was 20-30 years ago, but back then, the average Giant fan was much more educated, much more wealthy, and had a higher income job than the average NFL fan in general. That has less to do with "New York" as it does with the growth of the actual fan base.

The NFL itself, wasn't that popular. There's all these stories out there about the good 'ol days of the NFL. Heck, back in the 60's, most teams were playing in half empty stadiums, and the TV contracts were paltry. Even the Giants were blacked out in New York. The 1958 Championship game wasn't on TV in New York. It just wasn't a thing to watch football all day on Sunday until maybe the early 1980's?

That led to who the average Giant fan was. The Giant fan was someone who had season tickets since the 1930's. Chances are they worked on Wall Street or in the industry. Tickets were passed around in that "world" and really didn't trickle down to the average person. With the games not being on television, and the games being more of an upper and upper middle class pursuit, those families passed tickets down generation to generation.

Go back 20-30 years. If you listened to a Giant game on the radio, the advertisers were not your typical NFL crowd advertisers. I remember expensive steak houses, Nat Sherman cigars, expensive cars, and the like.

 

[Gardner McKay]

It has shifted, as have demographics, but a lot of the loyalties tend to get handed down.

I want to say that the last time I checked was probably about 7 years ago and if I recall, there was still a substantial gap between the pairings. I can't recall specifics, but it was something like Rangers fans are twice as likely to be fans of the Yankees and Giants respectively than they were Mets and Jets.

I suspect there's probably movement since that time, but how much I couldn't say.

I ended up Rangers/Yankees/Jets.

 

[Edge]

I ended up Rangers/Yankees/Jets.

#Freak

 

[duhmetreE]

I ended up Rangers/Yankees/Jets.

I'm the exact same.

For some reason half my family switched to Yankees after the Dodgers left

 

[One Winged Angel]

I’m one of those pairing guys.

Although I will say that I don’t root against the Mets or Jets. I just don’t feel the rivalry, unlike the Islanders. It was just never there for me and when I started watching Baseball, interleague play was still a few years away from becoming a thing.

I rooted so hard to have that subway series in 99. I was beyond disappointed when Rogers walked in the winning run in game 6.

 

[Gardner McKay]

I’m one of those pairing guys.

Although I will say that I don’t root against the Mets or Jets. I just don’t feel the rivalry, unlike the Islanders. It was just never there for me and when I started watching Baseball, interleague play was still a few years away from becoming a thing.

I rooted so hard to have that subway series in 99. I was beyond disappointed when Rogers walked in the winning run in game 6.

I don't either with the Mets/Giants. As a matter of fact, I actively root for them... except for when they are playing the Braves or Falcons. Those are my #2 teams in each sport.

 

[sbjnyc]

Market data - sales, subscriptions, purchases, etc. A sickening amount of data and tracking that only becomes more comprehensive with each passing year.

The amount of data that's out there is significant --- especially for larger organizations that have the money and resources to mine it.

For example, right now one of my clients is a Fortune 5 company. It's almost scary the profiles they can put together.

Obviously it's not fool-proof, and nothing is ever etched in stone. But one of the things I can remember learning about, even as an intern, is how enduring certain traits and preferences are --- especially in older, established markets.

So doubling back to your original question, even years later certain loyalties tend to remain. Maybe not quite as strong as they used to be, but still significant. (But again, I don't know what the latest data would indicate. I only suspect that it probably wouldn't be a monumental shift.)

I don't know where data on this gets published. I know a lot of data is analyzed from buying habits and a result of this is that retailers can know a lot of things about its customers which is why consumer data is so valuable (anecdote - companies can know a woman is pregnant before she does). I don't want to discount the kind of information retailers and manufacturers have about us. Insurance companies have a similar process using Predictive Analytics though it's not mature in the same way as it is in retail. That said, it's one thing to use the data to determine preferences but it's another thing to glean changes in those preferences over time. This seems (this is my subjective opinion) less likely as the data is probably noisy and is based on certain implicit assumptions about a buyer rather than than explicit facts. You might buy a ranger jersey or tickets as a gift for family , friend, coworker or yourself. (I have Yankee tickets but I'm not a Yankee fan). You're buying socks and detergent for your family. You also have the problem of needing to adjust for glory supporters and people changing their "fandom" depending on how teams are performing.

When I was a kid I'd watch my teams and could only watch superstars from other teams during the all star games. With cable and streaming packages I can watch whatever game I want. It seems there's less loyalty to teams than to players in the younger generation (again, my subjective opinion). But what's changed over the years (in NYC at least) is the number of out of towners who work here. Maybe half of my coworkers (who follow sports) are fans of teams from outside the tri-sate area. We just hired a philly fan.

 

[East Coast Bias]

Looking at the draft order, maybe the Jets can entice the Jags to trade up for Haskins. Bucs and Giants pick right after them, so they may have to go get their guy if they want him.

You could still get a good DL at 7 and hopefully grab some extra picks.

 

[One Winged Angel]

I don't either with the Mets/Giants. As a matter of fact, I actively root for them... except for when they are playing the Braves or Falcons. Those are my #2 teams in each sport.

I assume you have some ties to Atlanta?

 

[Gardner McKay]

I assume you have some ties to Atlanta?

I live there.

 

[One Winged Angel]

I live there.

I figured that might be the case from the “southeast of disorder” part, but didn’t want to assume it was that.

 

[Edge]

I don't know where data on this gets published. I know a lot of data is analyzed from buying habits and a result of this is that retailers can know a lot of things about its customers which is why consumer data is so valuable (anecdote - companies can know a woman is pregnant before she does). I don't want to discount the kind of information retailers and manufacturers have about us. Insurance companies have a similar process using Predictive Analytics though it's not mature in the same way as it is in retail. That said, it's one thing to use the data to determine preferences but it's another thing to glean changes in those preferences over time. This seems (this is my subjective opinion) less likely as the data is probably noisy and is based on certain implicit assumptions about a buyer rather than than explicit facts. You might buy a ranger jersey or tickets as a gift for family , friend, coworker or yourself. (I have Yankee tickets but I'm not a Yankee fan). You're buying socks and detergent for your family. You also have the problem of needing to adjust for glory supporters and people changing their "fandom" depending on how teams are performing.

When I was a kid I'd watch my teams and could only watch superstars from other teams during the all star games. With cable and streaming packages I can watch whatever game I want. It seems there's less loyalty to teams than to players in the younger generation (again, my subjective opinion). But what's changed over the years (in NYC at least) is the number of out of towners who work here. Maybe half of my coworkers (who follow sports) are fans of teams from outside the tri-sate area. We just hired a philly fan.

Not really published, as it's a bit too boring for the average person, though in the past it has tended to jive with different polls and surveys that outlets and other entities have conducted. Generally speaking there's traditionally been a clear pattern from multiple sources, using multiple methods.

Now, could it all be bunk? Sure. But I've generally found it to be true and supported.

However, the way younger fans change the findings will be interesting. As you said, there are more options that ever before and there's also been a growing trend for younger generations to switch allegiances a little more often.

While there's always been an element of kids gravitating towards teams that were popular or successful during their formative years (say the Steelers, Cowboys, Bulls, Yankees, Michigan, Red Wings, etc.), we've been finding that there's more shuffling than there used to be. A lot of fans 35 and under have shown an increasing tendency to switch alliances and spending more than previous generations.

The way younger fans describe their experiences has also changed with sports and entertainment as well, with more fans expressing a desire to be part of an "experience" than necessarily being part of a grouping. In other words they enjoy going to the concert, more than they necessarily enjoy the band. They enjoy going to a game, and enjoying the festivities, more than they have a vested interest in the team or even the sport.

So in that regard, the way different leagues and companies approach their audiences will continue to evolve. What impact that has on more traditional groupings is still a bit of an unknown.

But it's important to note that sometimes these findings can be construed different ways.

For example, let's say that 60 percent of Rangers fans are also Giants fans, and 40 percent root for the Jets (yes I know the real percentages wouldn't be so clean, but this is for demonstrative purposes). You could clearly argue that the Rangers have more crossover with the Giants than the Jets. You can even (potentially) claim that the Rangers fans were 50 percent more likely to root for the Giants than Jets. But what gets overlooked is that the number of Rangers who root for the Jets is still a significant number.

So just because it's not as common to find a Rangers-Jets pairing, as it is a Rangers-Giants pairing, it's still not an uncommon occurrence. You're still talking about millions of consumers.

Just something for people to keep in mind when looking at the context of what we're discussing.

Now how those combinations are constructed is a bit more complicated. However, as of several years ago, at least in the NY market, there was still a significant carry-over from the old geographic allegiances and it was surprisingly resilient to team performances, geographic changes, and (at the time) technology and changes in how content was consumed. In short, the average fan was still primarily driven by family alliances --- some of which predated their existence. Someone born in 1986 would have no memory of the Islanders dynasty, or the Jets playing in Queens. But there's a good chance they were brought up in a household that remembered.

Fast forward 33 years later, and they have a kid who is 8 years old who roots for those teams based off events that were two generations before they were born. At least that's what different data has continued to point to thus far.

 

[SnowblindNYR]

Funny, I think it's the lamest nickname for a sports team. It's literally a nasty ass infection. I laugh every time I hear it.

I do too. But gang anything is a lot cooler than big.

 

[sbjnyc]

Thanks for that info - very interesting. I spoke to a buyer from Modell's maybe halfway into the season who gave me some info. I suspect, and as I've said this is just speculative on my part, I think a lot of it is how social media is changing the way we interact with our teams. For example, I think different generations (by that I mean age brackets not millenials vs boomers) react differently to social media. After all the bad press with OBJ during the season you listen to sports radio and even in this thread you'll hear complaints about him, how he should be traded, etc. OBJ was still the top selling jersey. Eli's jersey sales dropped like a brick while Saquon's jersey sales were also up there but at least at the time was not to OBJ levels (don't know the splits now). My speculation is that the younger generation doesn't really care about those kind of stories the way some of the older folks do but are attracted to the flashy one handed grabs and his unique hair style and they are the ones buying the jerseys. I don't know how true it is but it's my story and I'm sticking to it.

 

[sbjnyc]

I do too. But gang anything is a lot cooler than big.

Monsters of the Midway is by far my favorite.

 

[nyr2k2]

I have zero faith in Mac. I can easily see him trading down and doing really well. Then making a bunch of dumbf*** picks.

 

[sbjnyc]

I have zero faith in Mac. I can easily see him trading down and doing really well. Then making a bunch of dumb**** picks.

He's going to screw up the cap just like he did last time he had a ton of space if Trumaine Johnson is any indication. I'd almost rather get Idzik back.