Quote:Your attendance figures are pointless. 

 

The perception was out there that the fans weren't supporting this team, and when the prevailing view those outside of Jacksonville get is one of a half empty stadium, it perpetuates the stereotype.  5 years ago, the rumor mill was chalked full of reports that the team was for sale, and that there was a possibility based on the lack of attendance, and the blackouts that were occurring at the time, the city was in jeopardy of losing the franchise.  That stereotype and the stigma attached to it have only recently started to dissipate from the narrative in the national media.  That's my point about lazy journalism.  Once the perception was out there, the parrots took off and ran with it, and it took us years to shake it.  There are still those who think this team is a prime candidate for relocation, simply because they've never bothered to do a lick of research. 

 

The narrative that this team had a lack of fan support was a direct result of a string of blackouts, and half empty stadiums for home games.  It was completely justified because at the time, the fans weren't showing up.  They weren't buying tickets.  Toss in the overtures and subsequent denials at the time that the team was for sale, and it made sense that all of the relocation talk included Jacksonville. 

 

Was ESPN out of line for reporting on the ticket sales woes?  I don't think so.  And it was truly one of the only newsworthy things happening with this franchise at the time.  I was at those games, and it was ugly.  Why was this team singled out?  Because it plays in the smallest market in the league.  Ever since we hosted the Super Bowl, the media has in general had a bias against the city despite the fact that Jacksonville did a fantastic job in hosting the event.  If you talked to anyone in attendance who wasn't in the media, they loved the experience.  It was only the media that had issues with the smallest market in the league hosting a Super Bowl, and they allowed their disdain to taint their view of this city.  When the struggles started and blackouts piled up, this was just an easy target to take shots at us again.  I never took any of it personally.  I know every time a report would surface, there were the usual suspects who would pounce and complain about all the disrespect.  In the end, who cares? 

 

At the end of the day, all of that negative reporting about attendance that ESPN and other outlets did blew up in their face.  If they intended on getting a team plugged in out in Los Angeles, they failed.  It motivated the masses to wake up, get off their duffs, and start supporting the team no matter what.  As a result, we've seen a real change in fortunes here, and it's only gotten better since Khan took over as the owner. 

 

People get too wrapped up in negative stories about this team when they surface.  The fans in this town have some seriously thin skin, and they take this crap way too personally.  We're here.  We know exactly what's going on with this team.  We also know that negative reporting has zero negative impact on anything happening here.  You're more than welcome to feel slighted when a stinking column on one of SI's websites doesn't mention the Jaguars sufficiently to your liking.  I personally don't care. 

 

(Emphasis added)

 

 

The attendance figures are NOT pointless.  If we didn't have the worst attendance, why highlight our attendance issues?

 

Your stance seems contradictory.  You indicate the media ignores us because we haven't won, have no history, and that nobody cares about us and that teams with more of a history and a greater amount of success should get more coverage-positive or negative.

 

The Raiders have historically been one of the most successful franchises in NFL history replete with legendary players and a legendary owner.  They have won three Super Bowls and have been to five.  Their merchandise sells well (even if only among the gang bangers) have fans all over the country, and many who despise them and what they stand for.  But they had worse attendance than we have for a long time, and a much longer string of blackouts than we had.  http://deadspin.com/5982547/raiders-will...-blackouts

 

http://bleacherreport.com/articles/64136...attendance

 

In relevant part...

 

Quote: 

Since returning back to Oakland in 1995, the Raiders have had over 60 percent of their home games blacked out. Compare that to a team like the Buffalo Bills, who have had only two blackouts since 2006. Both teams have struggled to win games, but only the Raiders have struggled to sell out those games.

 

 

Even worse, they have had a history of stadium issues that persist to this day and a history of relocating.  If anything, that team fits your (plural) stated profile of the teams the national media want to cover.

 

If anything, ESPN should have run the attendance story on them, according to your logic. 

 

Instead,they run the story on the Jaguars-who generate no national interest according to you.  If the media is interested in running stories that generate interest, and the Jaguars are not an interesting team, why run that story?  They weren't the worst in attendance.

 

By your OWN ADMISSION, "the media in general had a bias against the city."

 

The gist of my message is that the media is biased against this team.  Your quote above acknowledges this.

 

After all of the allegations of inferiority complexes, after all of the lengthy arguments detailing why this is no big deal, after all of your twink digs, we agree on that point.

 

If we agree on that underlying principle, what's the basis of the argument? 

 

That the subject is of no interest?  That you don't care?

 

If that's true, you have an odd way of manifesting indifference/ambivalence.

---