Its not an agenda, its basic freaking business. Agenda says they all sit around twisting their mustaches in an evil way, plotting the downfall of the team.

 

ESPN covers the all 50 states and wants to appeal to as many of the good ol' fat, beer drinkin', fair weather, couch potato sports fans in America and the world beyond as possible. The Jaguars are a bad team, from a relatively small town, with no star players and who appeal to a relatively small number of people so the coverage of the team reflects that. Why the heck would ESPN or any national media service cover us over Jonny Manzeil, Michael Sam, or the Dallas Cowboys when they all appeal to a much bigger number of people?

 

I agree with all of the above, it's a business, it's about ratings and ultimately revenue, networks like ESPN and the NFL Network will always cater towards the casual fan and large fan bases, there's a lot more casual fans than hardcore knowledgeable fans, it's just the way it is. I don't see it as a slight, ESPN/NFL Network etc.. aren't plotting against the Jaguars, to think so is incredibly ignorant, we're a small market without much national interest at this time. I'm a huge Milwaukee Brewer fan; it's the same for that organization as well, if one craves attention that bad, they should become a Jets fan.



 

---

Honestly who cares, the best thing in the world will be the naysayers turning into the well we knew the Jags were a potential playoff team flip floppers, All I want is for the lead Disney Sports mouthpiece to begrudgingly have to say Jaguars many times this season and many more to come

---

A good loser is a good loser

Honestly who cares, the best thing in the world will be the naysayers turning into the well we knew the Jags were a potential playoff team flip floppers, All I want is for the lead Disney Sports mouthpiece to begrudgingly have to say Jaguars many times this season and many more to come

 

This is what I don't think a lot of people get - if the Jaguars are having a great year ESPN will love it. They (the media) want a great story; they want something new and interesting. Thus Johnny Football; thus Michael Sam.

 

If the Jaguars come from no where and start contending you won't be able to read or see all of the positive reports. You don't think ESPN and other media wouldn't love to showcase Gus Bradley? You don't think The Rise of Blake Bortles isn't appealing?

 

There is an agenda; it's "Give me a great story!" If the Jaguars become a great story you'll get sick of seeing them on NFL Network or reading about them on PFT. 

---

The sun's not yellow, it's chicken.

This from today's MMQB mailbag...

 

 

<b>MY FAULT.</b> Why are the Buccaneers fans treated as second class citizens by The MMQB? Last Monday we were told because Peter was already over 9,000 words we had to wait until Tuesday’s column for items related to his camp visit because we didn’t make the cut apparently. Tuesday came and no mention again, this time an editor’s note apologizing that “news happened” but it would be included in next week’s Monday column. Well it’s Monday, and guess what? STILL NOTHING!!!! This time not even a cursory note providing a new date to break this promise once again. Do you believe after two promises it is now OK to just drop it and forget the whole thing?

<b>—G.W., Dunedin, Fla.</b>

Josh McCown has looked good at camp, but did not play well—two turnovers—in the Bucs’ first preseason game. (John Raoux/AP)
You are right. My mistake. This is something I should have written by now:

 

http://mmqb.si.com/2014/08/12/aaron-rodg...a-mailbag/

 

Question:  Were his omission of Tampa justified by the cold calculus of the marketplace, why would King offer an apology?

 

Why wouldn't his answer have been something akin to this?

 

Hypothetical Quote from King
 

I understand your angst, but the fact is, Tampa is not significant enough to generate clicks.  Your franchise is not as old as some of the other teams.  You shouldn't expect coverage from this website, even though you have an NFL team.  Despite the fact our website purports to cover the NFL in its entirety and we made an explicit promise to feature you in the next Monday column, frankly it was silly of you to expect anything.  Win some games first, them maybe I will mention you in the future.

 

The guy whose actions you are defending admitted he was wrong in his decision.  Does that mean anything?

---

 

Worst to 1st.  Curse Reversed!

I got to watch the first 2 series Manziel had in the 3rd Quarter live on Saturday.  I was highly under-impressed.  He looked like a poor man's Michael Vick out there.  And most of his passes were short yardage.  He had one decent scamble for like 10-15 yards.  But again, nothing compared to how Bortles looked.  

 

So on Monday morning I was interested in seeing how the World Wide Leader would describe Manziel's performance.  I felt like I was in the twilight zone.  He did OK, but they are talking as if there's a QB competition with Hoyer.  Now, I didn't see any of Hoyer's plays, so maybe Hoyer stunk up the joint.  

 

But man, Manziel didn't look anything special--AT ALL.  And there's ESPN pushing us to fall for the Johnny Foozeball hype.  I'm not buying.  And you can keep RGIII while you're at it!

 

As for the slight.  I like being a fan of a team that isn't hyped.  But I do see Bullseye's point.  

---

dang grow a pair op...

I'm still trying to understand the logic that leads to the conclusion that the perception of bias and commenting on that perception equates to a lack of testicles.

 

While I do not wish to delve in political commentary or debate, I find it interesting to note that Fox news was created to combat what some perceived to be a liberal bias in the media.

 

Did the conservatives who created Fox news lack testicles because they perceived a liberal bias in the media?

 

Do people like Rupert Murdoch, Roger Ailes, and Bill O' Reilly have inferiority complexes?

 

Did those who died in the Civil Rights movement for equal rights lack the requisites for maleness?

 

Did Gandhi need to grow a pair?

 

No, the stakes are not similar.  But we are not comparing severity of the bias or the stakes associated with it..  We are identifying bias and the responses to bias.

 

But lest you think these comparisons are inappropriate, consider...

 

Rush Limbaugh famously asserted McNabb is overrated because media types are rooting for black QBs to succeed. 

 

He commented on sports and how media bias impacts the perception of sports.

 

Did he lack self esteem, gonads, or both?  If all the media does is justified for pursuit of ratings, shouldn't he simply co-sign on what he perceived and went along with it?

---

 

Worst to 1st.  Curse Reversed!

I'm still trying to understand the logic that leads to the conclusion that the perception of bias and commenting on that perception equates to a lack of testicles.

I don't get that reaction either. I stopped caring about national coverage a long time ago, but I think it's perfectly understandable for folks who want "equal time" and get frustrated they don't get it.


For those people I'd just say that it seems like it's a bias against the Jags but it's actually just a bias FOR large market teams and/or superbowl contenders. Don't believe me, watch for coverage of the Bengals or Bills or Panthers. Their fans probably feel the same way.

---

I'm condescending. That means I talk down to you.

Yup,

 

It's all about ratings for the national media.  Manziel, like Tebow, gets ratings so they cover those types more than anything else.  If Bortles turns out like we all hope, we'll be getting more coverage. 

 

But Bortles doesn't appear to be a controversial type of person (thank goodness) so while I expect us over the next few years to be talked about more, we'll never see the type of coverage other things in the NFL will get.  

 

It's just the way the media works now...  After Manziel busts,there will be a new media lightning rod that will garner all the attention.  

 

In the last 3 years it's been Tebow, RGIII, and now Manziel...  Next year, it'll probably be Jamis Winston.  All I care about is that once we start winning we'll have some Sunday Night games that we'll be flexed into.

 

Imagine if Bortles becomes the man...  Luck V Bortles could potentially be the new Brady V Manning....  

---

Complaining about it will change nothing.


We got a lot of negative press when Weaver was the owner, Gene Smith was GM and Del Rio/Mularkey were coaching. Well guess what? We sucked.

 

Since Khan bought the team and brought on Caldwell/Bradley, the coverage I have seen has been mostly positive. Most people see the franchise's positive momentum. But we were still 4-12 last year. If they go out there this year and end up 8-8 or something close to it, the team will get more coverage next year.

 

You have to earn it.

---

;

;

Hey fellow jag fans i read everyone's comments on this issue and i hope i can bring my take on this situation. I agree with bullseye not only the media wants to ignore this team but they also have venom and a lack of respect for this team and city to the point they voice misinformation without any evidence to support it. For instance, we haven't had a blackout in years but we're still the face of it why because the media wants this team to wear the dirty S on our chest. Hell, even roger goodell undressed us as a franchise during the 2009 season at the superbowl but never done the same thing for other franchises like Tampa who were in similar or worse situations during their lack of fan attendance seasons. Yeah, teams like  the Bengals or Bills or Panthers receives the same lack of coverage like jacksonville but never receive misinformation or be treated with a double standard like this team. I never seen another franchise that gotten treated with such disrespect from the media than the jacksonville jaguars and it bothers me because as fans most of us are emotionally invested in our team. I wants this franchise to receive positive coverage because we love our team and it makes us feel good about the respect we receive from them. So in all reality that's why i care about the media coverage of our franchise because other teams fans form their opinion base on it and it angers me when i have to hear people speak garbage about our team and city base on the misinformation the media gives them.   

---

Hey fellow jag fans i read everyone's comments on this issue and i hope i can bring my take on this situation. I agree with bullseye not only the media wants to ignore this team but they also have venom and a lack of respect for this team and city to the point they voice misinformation without any evidence to support it. For instance, we haven't had a blackout in years but we're still the face of it why because the media wants this team to wear the dirty S on our chest. Hell, even roger goodell undressed us as a franchise during the 2009 season at the superbowl but never done the same thing for other franchises like Tampa who were in similar or worse situations during their lack of fan attendance seasons. Yeah, teams like  the Bengals or Bills or Panthers receives the same lack of coverage like jacksonville but never receive misinformation or be treated with a double standard like this team. I never seen another franchise that gotten treated with such disrespect from the media than the jacksonville jaguars and it bothers me because as fans most of us are emotionally invested in our team. I wants this franchise to receive positive coverage because we love our team and it makes us feel good about the respect we receive from them. So in all reality that's why i care about the media coverage of our franchise because other teams fans form their opinion base on it and it angers me when i have to hear people speak garbage about our team and city base on the misinformation the media gives them.   

 

Exhibit #1 why people think Jaguars fans are overly sensitive and paranoid.

 

Paragraphs, man, paragraphs.

---

The sun's not yellow, it's chicken.

Hey fellow jag fans i read everyone's comments on this issue and i hope i can bring my take on this situation. I agree with bullseye not only the media wants to ignore this team but they also have venom and a lack of respect for this team and city to the point they voice misinformation without any evidence to support it. For instance, we haven't had a blackout in years but we're still the face of it why because the media wants this team to wear the dirty S on our chest. Hell, even Roger Goodell undressed us as a franchise during the 2009 season at the superbowl but never done the same thing for other franchises like Tampa who were in similar or worse situations during their lack of attendance seasons. Yeah, teams like  the Bengals or Bills or Panthers receives the same lack of coverage like jacksonville but never receive misinformation or be treated with a double standard like this team. I never seen another franchise that gotten treated with such disrespect from the media than the jacksonville jaguars and it bothers me because as fans most of us are emotionally invested in our team. I wants this franchise to receive positive coverage because we love our team and it makes us feel good about the respect we receive from them. So in all reality that's why i care about the media coverage of our franchise because other teams fans form their opinion base on it and it angers me when i have to hear people speak garbage about our team and city base on the misinformation the media gives them.   

 

 

B)

 

My "conspiracy theories" about Goodell don't seem so off the more you read instances like this... ^^^

---

I'm still trying to understand the logic that leads to the conclusion that the perception of bias and commenting on that perception equates to a lack of testicles.

 

While I do not wish to delve in political commentary or debate, I find it interesting to note that Fox news was created to combat what some perceived to be a liberal bias in the media.

 

Did the conservatives who created Fox news lack testicles because they perceived a liberal bias in the media?

 

Do people like Rupert Murdoch, Roger Ailes, and Bill O' Reilly have inferiority complexes?

 

Did those who died in the Civil Rights movement for equal rights lack the requisites for maleness?

 

Did Gandhi need to grow a pair?

 

No, the stakes are not similar.  But we are not comparing severity of the bias or the stakes associated with it..  We are identifying bias and the responses to bias.

 

But lest you think these comparisons are inappropriate, consider...

 

Rush Limbaugh famously asserted McNabb is overrated because media types are rooting for black QBs to succeed. 

 

He commented on sports and how media bias impacts the perception of sports.

 

Did he lack self esteem, gonads, or both?  If all the media does is justified for pursuit of ratings, shouldn't he simply co-sign on what he perceived and went along with it?

 

 

All these people who saw an 'injustice' did something about it. In this case the 'injustice' is that national news outlets are not featuring one of the least popular major league sports teams in America enough.

 

To do something about it, you would need to start a media organization that focused mainly or solely on the Jags to counter this bias. Perhaps you could start a website which featured news, videos and comment on the Jaguars, maybe even interviews with coaches and players. Perhaps you could hire an editor and get him to do a daily Q&A with fans. You could run reports from training camp, OTAs and even games. Maybe you could call it www.jaguars.com

---

Just to be different, Bortles.

B)


My "conspiracy theories" about Goodell don't seem so off the more you read instances like this... ^^^

Was Goodell wrong?

---

 

To do something about it, you would need to start a media organization that focused mainly or solely on the Jags to counter this bias. Perhaps you could start a website which featured news, videos and comment on the Jaguars, maybe even interviews with coaches and players. Perhaps you could hire an editor and get him to do a daily Q&A with fans. You could run reports from training camp, OTAs and even games. Maybe you could call it www.jaguars.com

 

We disagree on this topic, but I gotta give credit where due.  Well played, sir. 

---

 

Worst to 1st.  Curse Reversed!

Hey fellow jag fans i read everyone's comments on this issue and i hope i can bring my take on this situation. I agree with bullseye not only the media wants to ignore this team but they also have venom and a lack of respect for this team and city to the point they voice misinformation without any evidence to support it. For instance, we haven't had a blackout in years but we're still the face of it why because the media wants this team to wear the dirty S on our chest. Hell, even roger goodell undressed us as a franchise during the 2009 season at the superbowl but never done the same thing for other franchises like Tampa who were in similar or worse situations during their lack of fan attendance seasons. Yeah, teams like  the Bengals or Bills or Panthers receives the same lack of coverage like jacksonville but never receive misinformation or be treated with a double standard like this team. I never seen another franchise that gotten treated with such disrespect from the media than the jacksonville jaguars and it bothers me because as fans most of us are emotionally invested in our team. I wants this franchise to receive positive coverage because we love our team and it makes us feel good about the respect we receive from them. So in all reality that's why i care about the media coverage of our franchise because other teams fans form their opinion base on it and it angers me when i have to hear people speak garbage about our team and city base on the misinformation the media gives them.   

 

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.  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. 

 

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.

 

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. 

 

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. 

---

Never argue with idiots. They drag you down to their level and beat you with experience.

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.

---

 

Worst to 1st.  Curse Reversed!

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.

 

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. 

 

I'm sure King was completely sincere in his apology, and he probably lost a good nights sleep when he realized he'd shown such disrespect to Tampa.  We should demand an apology for not saying enough about the Jaguars.  That should heal all the wounds people have suffered over the indignities of being snubbed by the media, right?

 

It's not an insult to say our fan base is among the least secure in the entire NFL, and that they take things way too personally in the media.  Your thread here confirms that better than anything I could ever say. Fretting over stuff like this is just a silly waste of time. 

---

Never argue with idiots. They drag you down to their level and beat you with experience.

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...

 

 

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.

---

 

Worst to 1st.  Curse Reversed!

Meanwhile, back at the ranch.......

---