I suspect many if not most of the nocal(I hate everything socal) contingent hates the Lakers more. Please don't morph everything into UCLA/USC..

burritos;332130 said:

---

I suspect many if not most of the nocal(I hate everything socal) contingent hates the Lakers more. Please don't morph everything into UCLA/USC..

---

What is the point?

We are the University of California and Los Angeles is part of California. The majority of our students, and thus our alums, come from Southern California. L.A. fans generally love the Lakers and Dodgers and hate the Yankees. The answer for most of them would be obvious, the don't hate the Lakers at all, they love the Lakers.

Our next biggest contigent is from Northern California, whose fans generally hate the Lakers and Dodgers and hate the Yankees somewhat less. Your question only makes sense if it is directed towards them.

We have very few students and alums from New York.

We all love the Cal Bears.

Red Sox.

I hate the Bank of New York Yankees far more then the Lakers.... their fans seem to think they are more entitled then any fan base I can think off...

LA Fakers

drunkoski;332140 said:

---

the funny part about this is that laker and dodger fans are far less bandwaggon than bay area fans.

---

When do bay area pro sport fans ever get a chance to jump on the band wagon?

drunkoski;332166 said:

---

ah i see. so your hatred is envy then?

---

Me? I'm from socal.

The only reason I can see to hate the Lakers more than the Yankees is if you just don't care about baseball. The Lakers are the dominant NBA franchise of all time (other than the Celts), but they don't do it by having a totally ridiculously unfair advantage, to the tune of being able to spend 5X what some other teams can on their roster.

Baseball's economics are so idiotic it blows my mind that it's still in place. It's totally destroyed any interest I have in the game. There's nothing impressive or interesting whatsoever about being able to buy up the best players from the other teams. I heard a stat recently that the Yankees in the last 10 years, I think, have by far the fewest major league at bats for players that were brought up through their farm system. If you take scouting out of the equation, where's the challenge?

The Lakers only annoy me more because I have to meet more a**hole Laker fans in my daily life than a**hole Yankee fans. If I lived on the east coast, I'd probably feel differently.

Lakers for sure. Talk about bandwagon...all of my so cal classmates didn't give a crap about the NBA until the lakers starting winning. Then they all went out and bought gear but coudn't even tell me who their starters were.

RoseBowlBears;332192 said:

---

The only reason I can see to hate the Lakers more than the Yankees is if you just don't care about baseball. The Lakers are the dominant NBA franchise of all time (other than the Celts), but they don't do it by having a totally ridiculously unfair advantage, to the tune of being able to spend 5X what some other teams can on their roster.

Baseball's economics are so idiotic it blows my mind that it's still in place. It's totally destroyed any interest I have in the game. There's nothing impressive or interesting whatsoever about being able to buy up the best players from the other teams. I heard a stat recently that the Yankees in the last 10 years, I think, have by far the fewest major league at bats for players that were brought up through their farm system. If you take scouting out of the equation, where's the challenge?

---

This is the problem with baseball. Certain teams like Kansas City, Pittsburgh, and others may be irrelevant forever. OTOH there are enough teams with dumb management-Cubs, Mets-to disprove the option that it is only money that buys success.

RoseBowlBears;332192 said:

---

The only reason I can see to hate the Lakers more than the Yankees is if you just don't care about baseball. The Lakers are the dominant NBA franchise of all time (other than the Celts), but they don't do it by having a totally ridiculously unfair advantage, to the tune of being able to spend 5X what some other teams can on their roster.

Baseball's economics are so idiotic it blows my mind that it's still in place. It's totally destroyed any interest I have in the game. There's nothing impressive or interesting whatsoever about being able to buy up the best players from the other teams. I heard a stat recently that the Yankees in the last 10 years, I think, have by far the fewest major league at bats for players that were brought up through their farm system. If you take scouting out of the equation, where's the challenge?

---

^^^^
Well said. I completely agree.

drunkoski;332180 said:

---

you hate everything socal, yet are from socal? i think this issue might be better discussed in therapy rather than on this message board.

---

burritos didn't say that he hated everything socal, but that the nocal contingent on this board does.

drunkoski;332180 said:

---

you hate everything socal, yet are from socal? i think this issue might be better discussed in therapy rather than on this message board.

---

You kidding? What have I said I've hated about socal? I think I've stated that I was a die hard Laker fan till magic departed the first time. While I'm not a hardcore Laker fan I'll root for them in the finals. Not a big Dodger fan but I'm an avid follower of the Angels(may Donnie Moore rest in peace). Hate SC, but that has nothing to do with socal. Not a big hater of Ucla(I was born in their hospital).

Mr. Frumble;332212 said:

---

burritos didn't say that he hated everything socal, but that the nocal contingent on this board does.

---

One reason we hate SoCal is because you insist on calling us NoCal as some sort of petty insult.

Also, Laker fans are HUUUUUUUUUUUUGE bandwagoners - see the Rudy T coached season when SUDDENLY everyone in L.A. was a Clipper fan! This applies to all L.A. teams - including USC football and UCLA basketball. Every city has a bandwagon following - but I've never seen so many people in one city jump off one bandwagon and jump on another so quickly as that season.

The Boston Red Sox

grandmastapoop;332219 said:

---

One reason we hate SoCal is because you insist on calling us NoCal as some sort of petty insult.

Also, Laker fans are HUUUUUUUUUUUUGE bandwagoners - see the Rudy T coached season when SUDDENLY everyone in L.A. was a Clipper fan! This applies to all L.A. teams - including USC football and UCLA basketball. Every city has a bandwagon following - but I've never seen so many people in one city jump off one bandwagon and jump on another so quickly as that season.

---

When you have 22 million people being represented by a few franchise teams, any small percentage of band wagoners is going to seem like a lot. College football even more so since there are no pro teams.

Didn't know nocal was an insult. When I correspond with my sister and bay area friends, they refer to themselves as the nocal(maybe it's norcal) contingent when they get together with us socal people. And we have absolutely no norcal/socal issues when we get together. It's more just this board.

Yes, NorCal is the preferred nomenclature. I'll take you at your word, but trust me when many SoCal people use "NoCal" as some sort of insult.


drunk: It's not just about attendance. But even so, the Lakers only outdraw the Clippers by about 1,000-2,000 per game.

As I said, everyone has bandwagon fans. Laker fans have been able to enjoy almost unprecedented success over the last 2 decades, though, and it is amazing to me how spoiled and unpatient their fans were for the 2 years when they were struggling after Shaq left.

I really wish everyone in NorCal who hates Socal would get over it, because it reflects badly on NorCal. When one side (NorCal) hates the other, but the other (SoCal) is more or less indifferent, conventional wisdom suggests the indifferent group are more secure and live in the better place.

As for the Yankees, there are plenty of reasons to despise them, but I have to say it was unusual living in NYC in the immediate aftermath of 9/11, during which the Yankees became sympathetic figures (as they made an unsuccessful run at a 4th straight title that ended with a WS loss to the Diamondbacks)

boston red sox

drunkoski;332226 said:

---

the lakers drew just fine under rudy T and the clippers never once outdrew the lakers (even with clipper tickets at half the laker price). the dodgers drew 2 mil the season they lost 100 games. the same cannot be said for the giants, As, raiders, stanford or Cal fans who all bailed en mass when their teams sucked.

---

Are you really saying that Laker fans are better than Cal fans?

Yes.

sycasey;332195 said:

---

The Lakers only annoy me more because I have to meet more a**hole Laker fans in my daily life than a**hole Yankee fans. If I lived on the east coast, I'd probably feel differently.

---

Haha, it's this with a bullet for me.

Something to chew on for Lakers fans - you come across the same way to people who don't like the Lakers (just to be clear, I'm a Warriors fan) as USC football fans to do people who don't like USC.

So bottom line, clearly the Lakers are a great franchise, yes they have a lot of great fans. But their fans annoy the sh*t outta me, and to say that there are no bandwagon Lakers fans would be a gross overstatement. Some large percentage of the girls who go to Lakers games are going for the scene, not the basketball. If the Lakers were ever bad for an appreciably long time (see for example the Clippers), those fans would be gone.

drunkoski;332226 said:

---

the lakers drew just fine under rudy T and the clippers never once outdrew the lakers (even with clipper tickets at half the laker price). the dodgers drew 2 mil the season they lost 100 games. the same cannot be said for the giants, As, raiders, stanford or Cal fans who all bailed en mass when their teams sucked.

---

Los Angeles has a larger population. Congrats for that.

Im a Northern California guy and while I don't particularly like either team (maybe akin to how I don't like Notre Dame), I don't care enough about MLB or the NBA to hate either the Yankees or the Lakers.

Hate is for Stanfurd.

drunkoski;332205 said:

---

so you went to college sometime in the late 70s?

---

Ha ha the ironic thing is that these bandwagon fans only came out when the lakers made the finals. Despite making the playoffs in previous years, my classmates didn't give a crap. Only when 2008 rolled around did they act like they cared. Talk about the epitome of bandwagon...

drunkoski;332256 said:

---

the bay area isn't exactly milwaukee

---

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Table_of_United_States_Metropolitan_Statistical_Areas

Los Angeles metro area: 12 million (almost 13)
San Francisco-Oakland metro area: 4 million (if you include San Jose/Silicon Valley area it's still only about 6 million)

L.A. has at least double the population of the Bay Area. It's not surprising that attendance would be better there, especially since you have no NFL teams.

I hate teh yankees. >

Lakers are okay though. Its their fans that i hate.

drunkoski;332252 said:

---

judging by our attendance during the holmoe era most fanbases are more loyal than cal fans. of course most fanbase teams don't suck as long as we did.

---

I wouldn't go so far as to say that. Like you said I don't think there is any team in the world, in any sport, who would have a "loyal" fan base if they sucked as much as we did. I'd say given our history, we have a pretty damn good fan base.

The reverse is true too, if you have a team that has experienced prolonged periods of success (Lakers, USC, Yankees, Red Wings, etc.), they're going to have a long line of fans (both bandwagon and die hard). It's just human nature to enjoy winning. I think the differences between fan bases are so hard to pin point because there are so many variables that are taken into account when rooting for your favorite team.

That being said, and having lived in LA for a few years, I think the culture of the city lends itself to a desire to associate with the glam and the glitz. Without generalizing too much, (some) people are unconsciously swayed by this which leads to the nature bandwagoning.

510Bear;332235 said:

---

When one side (NorCal) hates the other, but the other (SoCal) is more or less indifferent, conventional wisdom suggests the indifferent group are more secure and live in the better place.

---

Like how Arizona hates Mexico?

drunkoski;332259 said:

---

yeah i saw a lot of san jose sharks and warriors threads before they made the playoffs.

---

When did the Sharks last fail to make the playoffs? 02/03? You are saying that you remember an increase in Sharks-related threads on this board (or its predecessors) in 03/04 compared with 02/03?

Speaking of hockey, an excellent illustration of the bandwagon nature of LA fans is the increase in the popularity of the Kings after the Gretzky acquisition in 88. Not saying that there is anything surprising or wrong with this, and I am sure the same would have happened in most markets, but that doesn't change the fact that LA fans have displayed bandwagon tendencies.

drunkoski;332226 said:

---

the lakers drew just fine under rudy T and the clippers never once outdrew the lakers (even with clipper tickets at half the laker price). the dodgers drew 2 mil the season they lost 100 games. the same cannot be said for the giants, As, raiders, stanford or Cal fans who all bailed en mass when their teams sucked.

---

just to expand on DO's point, the lakers attendance was 97.5% capacity during rudy t's lone season as coach, when they were under .500 and missed the playoffs. coming off that disappointing year, they were at 97.9% capacity, which means that they drew less than about 100 people per game. even in the lakers worst season in decades (93-94), when they went 33-49 and had no superstar like kobe to mitigate the lousy team performance, they still drew almost 80% capacity. the thing that annoys most true lakers fans when it comes to other people's perceptions about them is that they mistake the johnny-come-lately celebrities and trophy wives for the true die-hard laker fans. the people who are priced out of the lower bowl of staples and instead have to sit in the 300s are as loyal and avid a group of fans as any other team's.

calgymnast;332266 said:

---

I wouldn't go so far as to say that. Like you said I don't think there is any team in the world, in any sport, who would have a "loyal" fan base if they sucked as much as we did. I'd say given our history, we have a pretty damn good fan base.

The reverse is true too, if you have a team that has experienced prolonged periods of success (Lakers, USC, Yankees, Red Wings, etc.), they're going to have a long line of fans (both bandwagon and die hard). It's just human nature to enjoy winning. I think the differences between fan bases are so hard to pin point because there are so many variables that are taken into account when rooting for your favorite team.

That being said, and having lived in LA for a few years, I think the culture of the city lends itself to a desire to associate with the glam and the glitz. Without generalizing too much, (some) people are unconsciously swayed by this which leads to the nature bandwagoning.

---

Not only that, but L.A. culture tends to be more about what's new, what's in, with not a lot of value on history and tradition (Part of the city's charm is that it is constantly reinventing itself). That said, any Angelino has to admit that L.A. goes for fads in a big way. Sports teams are just part of that. When the Kings got Gretsky, suddenly people in L.A. cared about hockey. Now L.A. hockey fans root for the Ducks. Lots of people in L.A. with no affiliation to the schools root for SC in football and UCLA in basketball. I grew up in L.A. and knew zero Angel's fans. When they started winning a bunch of people I know started sporting Angel's caps. The owner wasn't crazy with that "Los Angeles Angels of Anaheim" move. If the Clippers ever got it going, you would see a huge shift.

Mr. Frumble;332269 said:

---

When did the Sharks last fail to make the playoffs? 02/03? You are saying that you remember an increase in Sharks-related threads on this board (or its predecessors) in 03/04 compared with 02/03?

Speaking of hockey, an excellent illustration of the bandwagon nature of LA fans is the increase in the popularity of the Kings after the Gretzky acquisition in 88. Not saying that there is anything surprising or wrong with this, and I am sure the same would have happened in most markets, but that doesn't change the fact that LA fans have displayed bandwagon tendencies.

---

I'm not sure if anyone has ever created a thread about the LA Kings or Anaheim Ducks on this board. Ditto the LA Clippers. I'm not sure if posting about the Sharks "only" when they make the playoffs exactly proves anything about who is a bandwagon fan. Seems like the people who started the Sharks playoff threads were mostly people who also watched the team during the regular season.