#16
Posted 21 March 2012 - 09:35 AM
Either way, younger demographic, better transportation, and new factor will all help the Nets in Brooklyn early on.
"Obviously, I want to make a living (in soccer), to say the least," he said. "There's so much you can accomplish in the soccer world, and right now I'm focused on having a good season with the Red Bulls. Ultimately, our goal is to win the MLS Cup, and I see no reason why we can't." - #4 Tyler Adams
#17
Posted 21 March 2012 - 11:30 AM
I dont think the demographics are that much different. Having lived in both Hudson County and Park Slope/Prospect Heights Brooklyn. In fact while in Park Slope and surrounding 'hoods. I notice a more yuppified "family" types than I did in NJ. Both sides also had the same amount of transplants, specially when you factor in JC and Hoboken.My theory has to do with the large transplant population of Brooklyn as to the opposed born and raised crowd in NJ.
Either way, younger demographic, better transportation, and new factor will all help the Nets in Brooklyn early on.
The problem with the Nets has always been quality. Theyve always sucked except for a period in the early '00 and during those years the Arena was packed. They need to get rid of the losing team stigma that plagues them and its going to take time to shake that off and specifically some championships. I do however expect a rebirth of some sorts during the move, but how long that will last will be determined by wins and losses and not by location. If the Knicks with all their "history" and "perfect" location where playing to less than half filled houses prior to the Linsanity, then how can we expect the NETS to do well in a so called "worse" location with a history of sucking?
Soy Del Metrooooo, Del Metro soy yoooooooo!
FootballClubMaps.com :: High Quality Football Posters from around the globe. Get yours today!
#18
Posted 21 March 2012 - 02:51 PM
if the knicks win a title in the next few years the nets are screwed. New York was always the Knicks city. When 2 hockey teams within in the 5 bouroghs didnt work i thought that it would be obvious that the city only needs 1 team in certain sportsI dont think the demographics are that much different. Having lived in both Hudson County and Park Slope/Prospect Heights Brooklyn. In fact while in Park Slope and surrounding 'hoods. I notice a more yuppified "family" types than I did in NJ. Both sides also had the same amount of transplants, specially when you factor in JC and Hoboken.
The problem with the Nets has always been quality. Theyve always sucked except for a period in the early '00 and during those years the Arena was packed. They need to get rid of the losing team stigma that plagues them and its going to take time to shake that off and specifically some championships. I do however expect a rebirth of some sorts during the move, but how long that will last will be determined by wins and losses and not by location. If the Knicks with all their "history" and "perfect" location where playing to less than half filled houses prior to the Linsanity, then how can we expect the NETS to do well in a so called "worse" location with a history of sucking?
#19
Posted 21 March 2012 - 04:03 PM
I probably know more current full STHs, who are NOT following the Nets to BK.
So you know all FIVE current STHs? I have Nets tickets offered to me for free all the time, they can't pay people to go.
The bar is set really low at this point and I think if they do it right, they can succeed. Atlantic Center is a busy area, it would be really really hard for them to do worse than they are now.
#20
Posted 21 March 2012 - 05:24 PM
So you know all FIVE current STHs? I have Nets tickets offered to me for free all the time, they can't pay people to go.
Jake knows me, and I think his son (Bigger Jake) is a STH as well so that's 2 of the 5 he knows . I actually got season this year so I'd have first crack at the cheapest season ticket in Brooklyn (heard it's going to be $15 a game). They may draw decently at first but if the team stinks it will be like the Mets at Citi Field where nobody shows up.
#21
Posted 21 March 2012 - 06:17 PM
Jake knows me, and I think his son (Bigger Jake) is a STH as well so that's 2 of the 5 he knows . I actually got season this year so I'd have first crack at the cheapest season ticket in Brooklyn (heard it's going to be $15 a game). They may draw decently at first but if the team stinks it will be like the Mets at Citi Field where nobody shows up.
Except Citifield is in bumfuck and the Nets will be in the heart of an active area in Brooklyn.
#22
Posted 21 March 2012 - 07:28 PM
Just because the Nets will be in the AY doesnt mean anything. Newark is also a pretty active area, specially where the arena is located. I know because at one point I traveled through there to go to work. The Mets dont suffer from their location, while they arent in a "neighborhood" setting, theyre also not as far removed as Giants stadium. Theres a crappy but still functioning subway that goes there and the area is already a destination for families in the summer(Flushing Meadows). Granted AY has a whole hub of subways and trains, but so did Newark. I do think that they are going to have some renewed energy and interest will spike for the first year. But at the end of the day if they dont perform, no one will go.Except Citifield is in bumfuck and the Nets will be in the heart of an active area in Brooklyn.
Soy Del Metrooooo, Del Metro soy yoooooooo!
FootballClubMaps.com :: High Quality Football Posters from around the globe. Get yours today!
#23
Posted 21 March 2012 - 09:56 PM
you can also take lirr there as wellJust because the Nets will be in the AY doesnt mean anything. Newark is also a pretty active area, specially where the arena is located. I know because at one point I traveled through there to go to work. The Mets dont suffer from their location, while they arent in a "neighborhood" setting, theyre also not as far removed as Giants stadium. Theres a crappy but still functioning subway that goes there and the area is already a destination for families in the summer(Flushing Meadows). Granted AY has a whole hub of subways and trains, but so did Newark. I do think that they are going to have some renewed energy and interest will spike for the first year. But at the end of the day if they dont perform, no one will go.
#24
Posted 22 March 2012 - 01:21 PM
When 2 hockey teams within in the 5 bouroghs didnt work
When's the last time there were two hockey teams in the 5 boroughs - the 1940s?
#25
Posted 22 March 2012 - 02:59 PM
yes sir. and nobody gave a shit about the americans, and they shared the gardenWhen's the last time there were two hockey teams in the 5 boroughs - the 1940s?
#26
Posted 22 March 2012 - 03:23 PM
Apparently, I do!So you know all FIVE current STHs?
My point was that the STHs I know have not indicated any desire to follow the team from NWK to the BK. Good for you & your partial-STH friends, but that won't fill the house. I may even go to a game, to check the place out. IMO, the Nets fan base will have to rebuild virtually from scratch. Good luck to them. MLS has proven that it can happen, as most of its new franchises were built on a base of NASL nostalgia & active D-1 teams (Tor, Sea, Port, Van & now Mont), and even where there was no active base (Philly). I see no reason why NYC can'r sustain 2 NBA franchises, despite crappy management for both existing area teams.
We are good enough to beat the best teams, and bad enough to lose to the worst teams.
#27
Posted 22 March 2012 - 03:25 PM
That might be somewhat revisionist. The NY Americans pre-dated the Rangers, who were owned by the Garden, which squeezed the Amerks out.yes sir. and nobody gave a shit about the americans, and they shared the garden
http://en.wikipedia...._York_Americans
"they did prove a success at the box office; so much so that the following season Garden management landed a team of its own, the New York Rangers, despite promising Dwyer that the Amerks would be the sole hockey team in the Garden. ... the Amerks suspended operations for the war's duration. In 1945, a group emerged willing to build a sports arena in Brooklyn, which could house the Americans. However, in 1946, the NHL reneged on promises to reinstate the Amerks and canceled the franchise ... Dutton, however, blamed the owners of Madison Square Garden (who also owned the Rangers) for pressuring the NHL to not reinstate the Americans. Dutton was so bitter that he purportedly swore the Rangers would never win a Stanley Cup again in his lifetime. This "curse" became reality as for more than fifty years, the Rangers went without a Cup. The Rangers wouldn't win another Cup until 1994, seven years after Dutton's death."
We are good enough to beat the best teams, and bad enough to lose to the worst teams.
#28
Posted 22 March 2012 - 04:33 PM
they would have been ran out of brooklyn eventually. brooklyn was going down in the 60s and 70sThat might be somewhat revisionist. The NY Americans pre-dated the Rangers, who were owned by the Garden, which squeezed the Amerks out.
http://en.wikipedia...._York_Americans
"they did prove a success at the box office; so much so that the following season Garden management landed a team of its own, the New York Rangers, despite promising Dwyer that the Amerks would be the sole hockey team in the Garden. ... the Amerks suspended operations for the war's duration. In 1945, a group emerged willing to build a sports arena in Brooklyn, which could house the Americans. However, in 1946, the NHL reneged on promises to reinstate the Amerks and canceled the franchise ... Dutton, however, blamed the owners of Madison Square Garden (who also owned the Rangers) for pressuring the NHL to not reinstate the Americans. Dutton was so bitter that he purportedly swore the Rangers would never win a Stanley Cup again in his lifetime. This "curse" became reality as for more than fifty years, the Rangers went without a Cup. The Rangers wouldn't win another Cup until 1994, seven years after Dutton's death."
0 user(s) are reading this topic
0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users