Nope. But--I did a poor job of answering the question (and you did ask it; my bad). I'm pointing out that it's here, and it's the same type of hate. But equal? No, not equal. Wow. I would submit to you that you are in a minority here. A lot of folks hate on Dallas as an entity, but I don't know a lot of people who just hate anyone who hales from there, just because he's from Dallas. Wow, man. Actually, that story points more to how the Dallas-hate could be a *lot* more football-centric than baseball or basketball, or "people who live there". With regards to hating those teams? No. But I will note that by the absolutes you employ (thanks for using that word; it's very accurate) you at least seem to assume you're always in a majority, and that other perspectives either don't exist or are fundamentally flawed. And yet, other than a Carl Mauck story from over 30 years ago, all you've offered in support of your argument is your own perspective. Come on, Ric. You're smarter than that. And you know what? I *matter*. You challenged, on a public bulletin board, whether *anyone* remembers *even one* moment with the Cardinals pre-1994. And in roughly a nanosecond (hyperbole intended), someone came back with half a dozen. All you have in response, of course, is to try to blow it off. But I am not the only voice here speaking of our rich NL history. That would lend you more credibility in general, I'd say. Hey, me too! Can you believe it? I grew up in Houston, read the Post and the Chronicle, and watched and listened to talk shows, and even learned to use the Internet in the late 90s! (via MSN, hence the long-standing handle). And somehow, unbelievably, I have a very different set of perspectives and remembrances than you do. Amazing, huh? Bully for you. I respected the Cards and really enjoyed my Astros playing them all through the late 70s and early 80s. I still enjoy that team and want to beat them, even though my Astros currently suck.
...or near proximity. Didn't have cable back then, so no. Hated them because they weren't very good, yet they always seemed to kick our asses. Pissed me off. but... but... they're not from Dallas! and there were no playoff battles! and both teams weren't good! there was no healthy, headed competition!
I am not going to get into this to extent you other folks are......but what I seem to be getting out of this is that a "rivalry" is basically based on mutual team hate. Sometimes that hate in based on high level competition between the teams, sometimes its comes from other factors such as two teams in close geographic proximity that hate each other already based on a type of city rivalry that may or may not relate to sports. But the keyword seems to be HATE. I used to hate the Bills and the Steelers cause the Oilers could never advance because of one or the other. I used to hate the Braves for the same reason. I hate the Yankees because of the way they build their team ($$$) and the elitism they carry in their attitude. I hate LeBron because of "The Decision". -------------------------------------------- For me, maybe not for all of you, but my hate in the above examples illustrates hate mainly originating from 2 things: 1) A team or person who gains the spotlight for what I consider the wrong reasons. 2) A team that becomes our nemesis come playoff time.
That's cool, Jim. Back in the 70s, there were no playoffs out of which to experience a nemesis for us Houston baseball fans! And there were only a couple opportunities in the 80s, so for me, I'll take your two and add: 3) teams that kick our asses a lot and I would also like to add: 4) team that left town after screwing over our Astrodome Honestly, I hate #4 way more than I hate the Cowgirls.
I agree with this - I'm talking about the entire history of the Astros. It took 40 years to develop all the hatred they have with the all the teams they have rivalries with. It won't take long to build *a* rival in the AL once they are competitive and get eliminated by somebody. To rebuild what they have now will take much longer - because there's not just history with 1 or 2 teams, but with several teams. The first time, it took 40 years and however many playoff appearances to get to where they are now with the NL teams. There's no reason it would take less time to duplicate that in the AL.
I very much hope it will not take 40 years for us to get to the playoffs again. At 89, I may not care any more But seriously, we are starting in quite a hole. Even if we stay in the NL, it may become such a long time before we have the opportunity to compete at a high level again, that what we consider rivals today may be no more than faded memories by that time. And even when that time finally comes, even if it is much sooner than 40 years, those teams that formed our rivalries may not be good anymore.
msn, I want to reset this... as often happens on message boards - different people start firing off different responses to different ideas, those ideas then fracture and shatter into a million pieces and you're responding here to this and there to that.... So (deep breath).... The primary, if not exclusive spark of any and every rivalry is competition (IMO): You dislike a team that has what your team wants. It doesn't even necessarily require you to be equals (for instance, I dislike the Colts - but the Texans have never, ever been their equal) and certainly doesn't require playoff match-ups, etc. Equality and consistent playoff clashes can obviously enhance the rivalry - but I would not argue it's a requirement. To that end, proximity can also play a role in enhancing a rivalry. Especially if said proximity has a built-in rivalry already. Easier access to enemy turf, media, etc. I assumed the Dallas-Houston rivalry had long been established and understood. I'm frankly stunned anyone *in* Houston would argue it's not deeply ingrained in our identity. Therefore, I don’t think it’s a leap to suggest that if the Rangers and Astros do eventually share a division, that the ensuing rivalry will be heated and charged with an additional undercurrent of an already well-established Houston-Dallas rivalry that simply doesn’t inform any other current (or past, for that matter) Astro rival.
OK, I tried to rep that post, but I most have repped you recently already, Ric. Your position is well-stated here and reasonable. I understand where you're coming from. I think where we part specifically is that the Dallas/Houston thing, for me, simply doesn't reach into baseball. Not even Dallas can undo or overtake four decades of pent-up vitriol I have for the Dodgers, 30 years of hate for the Cubs and Braves and Mets, some resentment for the Phillies, and 50 years of enjoying the ebb and flow of competition against franchises like the Giants and Cardinals for whom I have some respect. I don't expect you or anyone else to feel that way--but I observe that there are others who feel the way I do (and folks who are more on your side of this, too). Two more comments: so, so true! Established and understood, yes. Deeply ingrained in our identity? Maybe for some; not for me. You go to Dallas, and they barely know Houston exists. The whole good-natured ribbing, smack-talking, we-hate-your-teams thing is fun for a few yucks, but I don't want to identify myself as a guy, or a city, who hates on an entire city because, as you well put it: "You dislike a team that has what your team wants". That just seems kinda pathetic to me. Dallas is far more concerned with Washington, Philly, and NY than with Houston. In basketball, they're more concerned with SA and LA. In baseball, IMO, they're still at the "HEY THIS IS SO COOLL WE KIN PLAY BASEBALL!!!!!11" stage. No "rivalries" at all, just more the wide-eyed "bumpkin-sees-the-city-for-the-first-time" thing. Certainly not concerned with Houston, as they make their second consecutive WS run. So, for us to identify ourselves as "we hate Dallas" to me seems kinda pathetic. Yes, the rivalry is real, especially with "America's Team" (barf), but it's not ingrained in my identity. It's just fun. As far as my identity goes, I want to be known by what I'm for, not by what I'm against; and I want to be known by what I love, not by what I hate.
Well, gosh... I (mostly) agree. It didn't exist in basketball, either - until the Mavericks finally raised the stakes. The Rangers have been a terrible team far longer than they've been good and they've been terrible in a different league. BUT... I think you're shortchanging it a bit. Because of the Rangers' irrelevance, the Astros actually had (it's been five years for me) a decent following in Dallas. Local radio affiliates, spotlighted coverage in the paper, etc. And I think the battle over Austin, which has been a HUGE Astros town for years because of RR, is going to intesify. Plus, as little a history as the two teams have, there's always the Nolan Ryan undercurrent. They stole him from us twice. So I think there's enough wood on the pile to start a fire. I think it'll be interesting. Of course, the Astros have to stop losing 100 games/year first.......... That's what they want you to think - but they care.... during the Super Bowl in 2004, none of their writers could resist taking shots at Houston... Here's but one example, from Barry Horn, who is, literally, a rat: "If [ESPN] wanted to convey a true image of [Houston], it would have headquartered its Super Bowl set in front of a strip mall along the I-45 corridor." The most oft-heard line was something along the lines of, "Congrats for hosting one; in Dallas, we actually win them" etc., etc. They care.
Cannot argue with that. For me, it will be a long time before it means more than the Braves or the Dodgers, but that's just me and a few like me. Excellent, excellent, excellent point. Ceded.
http://blog.chron.com/ultimateastros/2011/10/10/jim-crane-has-constructive-meeting-with-bud-selig/ Spoiler
I had no clue that they had that many investors. With that many, maybe they'll go public. I'd buy a few shares of Astros stock and show up to vote my tiny slice at shareholder members.
Except if we stay in the NL there is already a basket of several teams that we have traditional rivalries with and its unlikely all of them will stink when we are good again at some point.
The Green Bay Packers are the exception to all of the rules about teams being "owned" by the public via stock. The 4 major professional leagues all have rules against teams being owned in that manner. The Packers stock sold is specifically non-voting stock.
I'm going to be sick. pgammo Peter Gammons Houston ownership change expected to go through in mid-November, w/ AL move.
this further distances me from sports, generally. i've been feeling this way for a while now...made worse by: 1. i'm in houston, where we have parades for a 9-7 season and/or a first round playoff series victory; 2. conference realignment discussion removing all illusions regarding college sports; 3. now watching my baseball team being forced into switching leagues, abandoning rivalries and 50 years of history I've identified with as an NL fan. add the NBA lockout to the mix as well.
