Obviously this thread is for decades, but the state of Wisconsin is looking at a possible really, really good year. The Packers won the Super Bowl in February; the Brewers are in the NLCS (and I think the favorite due to home dome advantage over the AL, should they get to the WS); and the Badgers football team is undefeated, has a pretty easy schedule ahead of them, and then would just need to be better than LSU, Alabama, or OU for 60 minutes. On top of that, Green Bay sure looks like the best team this year, too. Ugh. I need to move.
But they don’t. People in New England are no different than people in the greater NYC area. Even though they root for the team, they understand that it’s a Boston team, as much as that means to anyone. It’s the Boston market, which happens to be the major media market for most of New England. That’s just the way it is. No one in Providence is under any illusion that the team is theirs.
Boston clearly had the best decade around of anyone, but I’ll submit another Detroit decade for consideration (ok 12 years) from 1945 to 1957 (no basketball team in the city during that time).
I understand your point, and to be honest this is the most I’ve cared about football since I was 12, but in the effort of full disclosure: I don’t consider the Giants, Jets, or Islanders NYC teams either. The Giants and Jets belong to the greater NY/NJ area and the Islanders are a Long Island team (in contrast to the NYC Rangers). I wouldn’t consider a championship for any of them a championship for NYC in particular.
I don’t think of the Panters belonging to one city (what the heck is their home city?) and I never thought of the Patriots as having a home city either.
They have legitimate claim to a regional following, as they played in Clemson, SC in their first season. The intention was always to move to Charlotte though. (Similar to the Titans playing a season in Memphis as the “Tennessee Oilers”).
Some of the city vs. region discussion is amusing to me as a Minnesota sports fan. The Minnesota Twins are the team most responsible for starting this trend. Before the Senators moved to the Twin Cities at the end of the 1960 season, the Twin Cities had two AAA teams: the Minneapolis Millers and the St. Paul Saints. The Millers actually played in Bloomington at the old Met, which is where the Twins originally played in Minnesota. The Millers and Saints had a heated rivalry (as did the cities in general). On holidays, doubleheaders would be split between the two team’s parks. Fights between fans of the teams were common.
When the Senators moved, owner Calvin Griffith was determined to make sure that St. Paul fans would follow the team, since they’d be playing in a Minneapolis suburb in the Millers home park (in a stadium built to lure the Giants, the Millers’ major league affiliate). He decided to name the team the “Twin Cities Twins”, and the logo on the team cap was the letters T and C. This fell through, and he chose Minnesota as a conscious rejection of using Minneapolis. They’ve recently revived the old “Minnie and Paul” logo that was designed to emphasize unity.
Soon thereafter, Minneapolis was granted an NFL franchise, which also played in Bloomington. Following the lead of the Twins, they took Minnesota as the team name as well. After that, the trend slowly started. (I think the California Angels were next, after they moved to Anaheim). And I have to think that regional naming is preferable to monstrosities like the “Kansas City-Omaha Kings” in the NBA. It makes a lot of sense when a team shares cities where neither one is really dominant. I know that isn’t really the case in New England, and it’s certainly not the case in Miami, to name one area that really shouldn’t be using regional naming.
Ha, people in Arlington, Virginia cheer for the Redskins (who play in Maryland), and you guys probably think they’re a DC team! What a bunch of maroons…
Well, see, if we’re going to be pedantic about the OP’s definitions, then the title would probably end up going to London, or some other city that can dominate its country’s professional sports leagues.
I doubt this would make the running for overall winner in the US, but I’d imagine Pittsburgh has some very solid decades. I know nothing about the Pirates, but the Steelers and Penguins have lots of good years.
[QUOTE=Mince]
Nitpick: Pro sports, but still a very good pro decade.
[/QUOTE]
There’s nothing pedantic about it. The title clearly states “pro.” I think all but a few recognize the definition to be the four major professional sports in America (North America). The OP is, of course, free to correct me if I’ve misinterpreted his definition. And, if I have, then I claim the 22 titles my high school won in my four years there to be unsurpassable, including volleyball, tennis, golf, field hockey, soccer, and shuffleboard.
I understood the OP perfectly, that’s why I separated the college teams out and focused on the pro teams. However, mkance and Kiros brought up college first, so I thought I’d include that dominant run that was concurrent with the pro teams for the same general area.
It is actually 2nd believe it or not and bigger than Providence or Hartford or Manchester, NH. Providence is 3rd. You can trick even most New Englanders with that trivia question. Worcester definitely has a PR problem when it comes to its stature in the region.
I live fairly close to Gillette Stadium and the Patriots are definitely a Boston team. There is no doubting that.
If you name the team for the nearby metro area, people will argue that you actually play in the suburb.
But if you named the team for the suburb, people will argue that nobody really cares about Tempe or Pontiac or Foxboro.
And if you try to make everyone happy by naming the team for a state or region, people will argue that you have no connection to said metro area.
