Quote:I don't see where anyone could possibly believe the media has "venom" toward this team.  That's just nuts.  Indifference?  Absolutely.  But, that's justifiable considering how long it's been since this team has been relevant in any way other than picking high in the draft. 

 

I don't see anyone out there who has genuine disdain for this team beyond the occasional snarky comment that's usually nothing more than the promotion of a stereotype based on old data. 1) To me, it's more about media types just being lazy when it comes to dealing with the Jaguars.  It's a small market team that hasn't won anything significant in several years.  So, why should we expect any different?  Because we're in the NFL?  Membership doesn't guarantee fawning media, especially if you're a small market team. 

 

2)Goodell "undressed" us after the Super Bowl in 2009, and his comments were accurate.  Nothing he said was incorrect.  The fans weren't buying tickets, and they weren't coming to the games.  What other impression should he have had?  Did he hurt your feelings when he made those comments?  If so, why?  Do you own season tickets?  Did you at the time?  He wasn't spreading misinformation about that team at the time.  He was speaking the truth, as hard as that apparently is for some of you to accept.

 

3)This entire thread is nothing but an opportunity for those who, for whatever reason, take everything that's not glowingly expressed in the media about this team as a personal offense.  Life is tough.  When the team starts winning more consistently, and they become more relevant in discussions about post season appearances and potential title possibilities, the same hacks in the media who really just don't bother to pay much attention to the Jaguars will be forced to do so.  Until the team does turn that corner, the majority simply won't care what is going on here, nor do I think it's mandatory that they should.

 

How the media covers this team does nothing for the success or failure of the franchise.  They're not going to expel much energy covering a team that is of little significance.  With the changes that have happened since Shad Khan took over as owner, it's only a matter of time before the media is forced to pay attention to the organization, and as the fortunes on the field improve, the reporting will follow suit. 

 

4)I always referred to the Colt fan base as the twinks because I thought they were amazingly soft as far as NFL fan bases go.  I'm beginning to think maybe that moniker is more deserving here in Jacksonville. 

 

1)  Yes, you can certainly argue that media laziness drives much of the coverage.  But ESPN sure wasn't lazy when they offered their OTL special on the Jaguars' attendance woes.  Do I deny the Jaguars could have done better attendance wise during that time?  Absolutely not.  But if nobody cares about the Jaguars as you assert, and ambivalence/indifference does not drive ratings, which drives the content decisions media entities make, why run a 30 minute show on the Jaguars attendance, especially when, during the season the show was aired, the Jaguars were not last in attendance?

 

2)  Again, the Jaguars were not last in attendance in 2009.

 

http://espn.go.com/nfl/attendance/_/year/2009

 

I reiterate I realize the Jaguars attendance was far below what the team is capable of drawing and should be drawing.  But I'm left to wonder if the team was not last in attendance, why single them out for derision for non support?  If there is an objective league standard for support, trash every team that fails to meet that standard, including-but not EXCLUSIVELY -the Jaguars.  I don't think that's too much to ask or being hypersensitive to require a supposedly impartial commissioner to do.

 

3)  For the record...for the umpteenth time...I do not require everything written or reported about the Jaguars to be "glowing" or "fawning."  Anyone who has read my posts over the years knows I haven't been that way when it has come to Gene Smith's picks, David Garrard's picks, the Jaguars' overall records, etc.  Just within the past few days, I've written about how atrocious the OL has been and have expressed concern about Joeckel.  But the articles in question promised coverage of three teams in yesterday's MMQB-Tennessee, Tampa and Jacksonville.  It delivered extensive coverage of Tennessee, gave two brief and marginally tangential blurbs about the Jaguars, and did not mention Tampa at all.  A Tampa fan-not a Jacksonville fan-gave similar objection to the oversight, and KING APOLOGIZED for it!  Now it's possible you think King's apology was disingenuous, patronizing or otherwise less than sincere.  But if he's capable of duplicity here, why isn't he capable of being biased, and why wouldn't that bias appear in his columns?  Perhaps it isn't about being hypersensitive.

 

4)  Insult is no substitute for logic.

---