The Houston Rocxkets are the most successful team in Town, Why does the Houston Chro

to be fair, mr. blinebury also picked the Rockets to beat the Knicks in the NBA Finals before the 93/94 season ever started.

 

Learned something today. I had no clue they won in 60 and 61. I was negative 23 but its still crazy that I never heard of this before.

 

Correct me if I'm wrong, but I don't think it's basketball season...

 

OK this next statement is coming from a caucasian almost native Houstonian.

I seriously believe this town and especially its media are a huge conglomeration of the GOOD OL' BOY NETWORK!

If you go to rockets games you will see a larger ethnic diverse crowd than you do at MMP and Reliant.

I just don't think deep down that the good ol' boys are going to shell out money and attention to a sport that does not cater to their culture.

This is a football state first and foremost and every other sport comes second.

Teams that win get support. This is a fair weathered bandwagonning sports town unfortunately.

I would say the rockets are third on the list of Houstonians sports menu.

I do not believe it is a race issue but a culture issue. There is a lack of basketball knowledge in this city because basketball was not most adults sport of preference growing up in Houston, it was football and baseball.

The sport of basketball has not been around as long and changes so quickly that is hard for a casual sports fan to fully appreciate the sport.

Therefore the Rockets lack of attention is excentuated when its the off season and they are not winning.

 

yes sir

 

please kill me, plz

 

dare I say two sandwiches is onto something?

 

Truth, justice & the American way!!!

 

I think he needs to go eat a couple of more sandwiches.

 

The Houston Aeros (back in the Gordie Howe days) had a pretty good record as well and also won two major league hockey championships.

 

Exactly. The press follows the sport, not the record. When the Comets won their 4th straight championship out of 4 with their 4th different lineup, I wrote a piece called "The Best Team in Sports." And they were the best team, as measured against their sport, but people laughed it off, because they didn't care about the sport.

You can be the worst NFL team in the world, but you're still #1 at home.

 

I don't see what's the big deal... Houston is simply following what EVERY OTHER MAJOR NATIONAL CITY DOES, in terms of interest in sports teams.

In the cities with all thre major sports, its NFL/MLB >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> nba.

On ESPN, its NFL>College sports>MLB>>>>>>>>>>>nba(and they're supposed to be hyping it up more since they broadcast it).

I challenge anybody here to name ANY city that has all three sports, where the NBA team is the biggest name/garners the most attention... oh hell, I'll do it myself (in the end, I found only one that was clear-cut... try to guess without looking at the list):

Atlanta - Falcons (NFL)
Boston - Patriots (NFL), Red Sox (MLB)
Chicago - Cubs (MLB), White Sox (MLB)
Cleveland - Browns (NFL)... Lebron could change this.
Dallas - Cowboys (NFL)
Denver - Broncos (NFL)
Detroit - Red Wings (NHL)... this was probably a toss-up, b/c of the Pistons recent success, but they don't call it hockey-town for no reason. Also, the tigers are making a serious comeback in a town they once owned.
Oakland/San Fran - Raiders (NFL), 49ers (NFL), Giants (MLB)
Houston - Texans(NFL), Astros (MLB)
Miami - Dolphins (NFL)
Milwaukee - Packers (NFL)
Minnesota - Vikings (NFL), Twins (MLB)
New Jersey - Devils (NHL), Jets/Giants (NFL), Eagles (NFL)
New York - Yankees (MLB), Mets (MLB), Giants/Jets (NFL)
Philadelphia - Eagles (NFL), Phillies (MLB)
Phoenix - Suns (NBA)... but the D'backs are the most "successful"
Seattle - Seahawks (NFL), Mariners (MLB)
Washington - Redskins (NFL)


Thus, out of the 18 big cities that have the three major sports (plus some with hockey), 13 of them favor their NFL team the most... with certain cities like Boston and NY possesing baseball teams that garner just as much attention as well.

Its not an issue with just Houston... its widespread. The NBA just doesn't have the "hype" around it that it used to in the 80's-mid 90's.

 

And the Dynamo have won 2 titles in this century. Granted they were the San Jose Earthquakes at the time, but it's the same franchise...

Look, the fact is that the Rockets and basketball in general is on a downturn from where it was in the 80's and 90's. We don't have the Jordan's, Bird's, or Magic's any more. There are some great personalities in the game (Yao & Lebron), but people are tired of the NBA. The game has taken a turn for the worse in the quality of play. You have to expect that people are going to recognize that and the casual fan is going to leave. Therefore, they get less coverage.

As far as the Rockets go, as many of you have said, they haven't done crap since the 90's. in the early 90's, the Rockets were the toast of the town. The Astros have taken the mantle by winning many division titles and getting to the World Series. The Texans are a football team. That's all they need to be in Texas.

It's a cycle. Eventually, the Rockets will start winning again and people will come back. The coverage will come with it.

 

I was definitely a bigger Rockets fan, but maybe that's because i've played basketball all my life. I guess it hurt more because i could understand better why the Rockets would lose as opposed to the Oilers.

 

Maybe, I'm missing the point, but I'm not so sure that I understand your point. Winning is the hype! Fans are always going to be more attracted to a winner. The Media is always going to follow a winner, unless of course you're the '94 Rockets and Sports Illustrated decides to ignore you and put the friggin' World Cup on the cover.

I think if you honestly polled Chicago, Boston, LA, Philly, Detroit, Houston, etc. and asked them their favorite team of all time, most would say that one of their basketball teams was their favorite. Sure the Pats won it a few times, but do you honestly think the majority of fans in Boston think higher of the Pats in the 2000's than the 16 time Champion Celts of the '60-'80's? Seriously, in Boston, is Tom Brady more popular than Larry Bird? I doubt it.

Pudge or the Paper Lions over Isiah, Dumars & Rodman or the Wallaces and Billips? The '85 Bears (and personally, I love Da Bears) over MJ & the Jordanaires? Do you really think the Dolphins are a hotter ticket than the Heat?

Do you think LA thinks higher of the Rams, that never even won a Super Bowl than the Lakers? (Hell, they couldn't even stay in LA). The T.O. Eagles over the '82 Moses, Dr. J., Champion 76ers? The Non-Bush drafting Texans over the Rox of '94/95? Do you remember the city in '94/95? There was Rox stuff everywhere and no sign of Astro or Oiler merchandise. Any city will follow a winner.

How many White Sox fans did you know before last year? How many Sox hats, shirts, etc. do you see now? The Red Sox, Cubs, NY Giants, & Mets fans are the exception, they follow their team no matter how bad they suck, but most cities don't. Professional sports is far to expensive to waste money on teams that suck

Yes, I know there is a level of "What have you done for me lately?", but in Houston, you can say what have you done for me AT ALL? And only the Rox can say they have actually delivered.

People are always going to be attracted to victory, unless you couldn't care less about the team in general (a la the Comets... nothing personally against the Comets as I think it's great they won. I've just never watched a game and wouldn't be heartbroken if they lost.

Although, the Rockets are my favorite sports team, I'd gladly trade a Rox postseason appearance that didn't result in a NBA Championship for a Astros Championship.

I guess considering the teams are all playing at an even level, quite possibly the NFL would be favored over MLB over NBA, but I believe that winning trumps everything and that most average fans would trade a ticket-in-hand to see the Texans for a ticket to see the Astros in the WS or the Rox in the playoffs, thus proving the point that the NFL is not necessarily more popular in itself, but that winning itself is.

 

I am not a Houstonian, but I can tell you the Chron coverage/reporting on Rockets is awful. Before I joined this site, I used to get my Rockets post game recap and analysis from Chron. Usually I had had to wait for hours before I saw an article written by Jonathan Feigen on Chron's website. The LA Times, however, seems to be much much more enthusiastic about their Lakers or even Clippers.

Shame.

 

I don't think the race of the crowd has anything to do with it. First of all, baseball has the cheapest tickets and is by far the most diverse in terms of attendance. Second, while you could argue that the race of the athletes may matter to some fans (hence the popularity of the token 12th/15th man white guy in basketball v. paucity of blacks on the Astros), the Chronicle is about selling papers, and what sells paper is success. There's no need to begrudge other Houston sports teams, which the vast majority of people on this board are probably fans of.

 

technically if you count NCAA than the UH golf team (16 national titles) is the most successful team in town.

 

Only out of fear of receiving more of my letters!

 

If you break down number of games and importance than NFL football is the best deal period.

I went to the Astros game the other day and sat in a $47 seat that's a whole lot to spend for a meaningless regular season baseball game.

Texans games and Rockets games seem almost all white while I do see a diverse crowd at Astros games.

I will say this I think over the last ten years Rockets games have become more diverse but if you ain't white you seem to stick out at Reliant IMHO.