(09-18-2019, 02:40 PM)Cleatwood Wrote:

(09-18-2019, 02:15 PM)StroudCrowd1 Wrote: Agree. I think the lack of player loyalty to a franchise impacts the emotional connection the common fan has with the team. It is so much more fun when you are a kid and don't understand how the business side of the sport works.

Players should be loyal to a franchise?! Why on earth should a player be loyal to the franchise when they could be cut at the drop of a dime or they get booed off the field?

Andrew Luck retired because he was emotionally and physically beaten by this game and he was downright booed off the field. 

I 100% agree with the bolded part. I haven't bought a jersey since MJD because players change teams all the time. Despite how passionately I want Ramsey to stay, I won't lose any sleep if he is traded. It's professional sports. Joe Montana played for the Chiefs. Favre for the Vikings. Gretzky on numerous teams and Jordan with the Wizards. Players change team and you can't get too invested on a specific player.

And if anyone wants to jump into hockey, come be a Washington Capitals fan!

I am just saying as a kid in the early years, star players seemed to grow old with their franchise and there was more of a sense of loyalty back then.  I grew up a Spurs fan and was able to watch world class superstars in David Robinson and Tim Duncan start and finish their careers with the same franchise. Same with the early days on the Jaguars. 

I know its an unreasonable expectation to expect loyalty from either side, but I guess my main point was the bolded part.

Times have changed.

---