NFL's Black Monday 2014

[Mach]

I think in certain situations it's okay to give up your team. Moving to a new place, them hiring someone your old owner absolutely detested, anything to do with identity really. If what caused you to root for the team has drastically changed, what are you really rooting for anymore?

[HollywoodLeo]

I think in certain situations it's okay to give up your team. Moving to a new place, them hiring someone your old owner absolutely detested, anything to do with identity really. If what caused you to root for the team has drastically changed, what are you really rooting for anymore?

I personally think the only acceptable reason is if they move to another city. Otherwise you're completely contradicting the entire concept of being a fan.

Changing what caused you to root for them in the beginning? Give it enough years and that happens to every team. The Chargers are absolutely nothing like what they were like when I began rooting for them. Same with the Padres. Different owners, different uniforms, different approaches, different everything except for the nicknames and city they call home.

[HollywoodLeo]

I mean, don't get me wrong, everyone's free to root for who they like and change that based on their own personal whim. I just mean from a sports fan perspective unless the team moves you may as well not call yourself a fan if you're going to let dissatisfaction with the team change your loyalty.

But....to be fair, how long the Raiders have been out of it is kind of unprecedented.

[Mach]

I get what you're saying, for me, I picked the Raiders up from my Dad who picked them up in NY because of how they played and they were on TV all the time as the AFL game. Then it grew into their style, and Al, and their identity. I realize most teams don't personify their owner, but the Raiders did, and for me, that's what drew me to them. They were Al. There were good guys (namely Raiders) and bad guys like Marty, and Shanarat. Hiring a hated, more than rival even, I can't think of a better word, nemesis? going completely against what the Raiders stood for and were, you don't feel that connection anymore. At least when we were bad before, we were still the Raiders, the crazy dysfunctional unsavory bunch. Now, there's less and less in common with every passing year.

What you touch on though has kind of soured me on sports fandom in general. I don't root for teams based on geography really, and that's what most people usually do. I've seen all 3 of my teams change owners, and I don't feel as strongly about them anymore, and it makes you wonder why you root for them or what do you do when the fire's just gone out, ya know?

[Mach]

on the moving part, that doesn't bother me much, so long as the identity remains the same. If the Raiders kept everything the same and moved to San Antonio, I'd still likely be a fan. If they ever stopped being the Raiders, I wouldn't hang around.

[schisno]

I think changing who you root for based on who gets hired isn't a good enough reason, like Leo said only if a team moves then it's ok not to root for them because they are a different team. Just because they hire someone that the previous owner wouldn't have (even though he originally hired him and that's where the bad blood was built up) is nonsense. Especially when that owner is the one that sunk his team for a decade.

The original image of the Raiders disappeared after they lost to the Bucs, they're just one of the lowly laughing stocks of the league now. They have to become a winner again, but it won't be as the same Raiders of the past.

[Slyder]

Its just the principle of the matter of Shannarat, I doubt I'd give up fully on Raiders because eventually Shannarat will end up doing the same thing he did in Washington... getting fired and just hoping he doesn't have enough time to take the club to the knee of Derek Carr (who I really like) like he did to RG3 isn't compelling tv to me. Plus when was the last time a return of a coach ever amounted to anything? Shell, Gibbs, etc were all shells of their first tenures.

[Mach]

I think changing who you root for based on who gets hired isn't a good enough reason, like Leo said only if a team moves then it's ok not to root for them because they are a different team. Just because they hire someone that the previous owner wouldn't have (even though he originally hired him and that's where the bad blood was built up) is nonsense. Especially when that owner is the one that sunk his team for a decade.

The original image of the Raiders disappeared after they lost to the Bucs, they're just one of the lowly laughing stocks of the league now. They have to become a winner again, but it won't be as the same Raiders of the past.

is the way they are operated is completely different, are they not essentially a different team just masquerading as an old one? How is that less different than say, the Rams picking up and moving to LA, keeping the same front office and owner and even team name, with nothing changing? Then you weren't loyal to the team, just the geographical area.

[Mach]

I mean, in the same vein, if the Raiders ever signed Vick, I'd be done. There are just some things I find unacceptable. I used to kind of like the Eagles as an NFC team of sorts, but that was over when they signed Vick.

[schisno]

Its just the principle of the matter of Shannarat, I doubt I'd give up fully on Raiders because eventually Shannarat will end up doing the same thing he did in Washington... getting fired and just hoping he doesn't have enough time to take the club to the knee of Derek Carr (who I really like) like he did to RG3 isn't compelling tv to me. Plus when was the last time a return of a coach ever amounted to anything? Shell, Gibbs, etc were all shells of their first tenures.

Gibbs return wasn't as great of a run as he originally had, but he's been one of the more successful Washington coaches since Daniel Snyder's been owner. Art Shell is a guy who was out of the game for too long, and he brought his OC in from a B&B, so you know that was trouble from the start. At least with Shanahan he's been in the NFL recently. Some can argue the games passed him by, but if he surrounds himself with the right people and go beyond just his son who's to say he can't be successful as unlikely as it seems.

[Mach]

Barf.

[schisno]

is the way they are operated is completely different, are they not essentially a different team just masquerading as an old one? How is that less different than say, the Rams picking up and moving to LA, keeping the same front office and owner and even team name, with nothing changing? Then you weren't loyal to the team, just the geographical area.

If they moved geographically then they aren't showing any loyalty to their fans because they prove they don't care about traditions and most moves are for stability or more money. Of course that stems from putting up a terrible product for so long that there was never a strong sense of tradition, ie: the Atlanta Thrashers, they were just never going to succeed.

Teams are going to evolve and identities are going to change. Sometimes a team is going to be known for their defense or their offense, or off field distractions. As a fan we see the changes, whether they evolve or not into the modern game. Some of us become bitter of jaded because these aren't our same team (Raiders). They're still wearing the same colors and logo, but it doesn't mean they have to keep the same philosophy because those can change over a long period of time, especially when something isn't working. I'm sure Viking fans can talk to you about the Purple People Eater era to the Dennis Green high flying offense to the Cruiseship Era and they were all different from one another, yet they didn't change their allegiances because some notion that they weren't the Vikings.

[HollywoodLeo]

I get what you're saying, for me, I picked the Raiders up from my Dad who picked them up in NY because of how they played and they were on TV all the time as the AFL game. Then it grew into their style, and Al, and their identity. I realize most teams don't personify their owner, but the Raiders did, and for me, that's what drew me to them. They were Al. There were good guys (namely Raiders) and bad guys like Marty, and Shanarat. Hiring a hated, more than rival even, I can't think of a better word, nemesis? going completely against what the Raiders stood for and were, you don't feel that connection anymore. At least when we were bad before, we were still the Raiders, the crazy dysfunctional unsavory bunch. Now, there's less and less in common with every passing year.

What you touch on though has kind of soured me on sports fandom in general. I don't root for teams based on geography really, and that's what most people usually do. I've seen all 3 of my teams change owners, and I don't feel as strongly about them anymore, and it makes you wonder why you root for them or what do you do when the fire's just gone out, ya know?

Well, at the end of the day sports fandom really is silly if you think about it. But I also don't take it all that seriously, either.

It's not really about geography to me, though. I'd still be an LA Chargers fan, or even an Anchorage Chargers fan. But I also grew up a military kid and joined the military myself, so I'm not really tied to any geographical location. I can comprehend someone who's grown up in one city or area and lived there their entire life being tied specifically to the team that plays there and represents that city. (and thus can understand if they change loyalty if that team moves).

I do get what you're saying about identity, though. I just don't define that identity by things that naturally change (like ownership). To me, if the Chargers moved and changed their nickname it'd seem like a new team entirely anyway and I'd seriously consider changing allegiances.

So, in a sense, it's kind of the same thing you're saying I guess only with a different and possibly more silly criteria. But that's what sports is to me, something that shouldn't be taken entirely seriously anyway.

Truth be told, if Slyder changed teams I'd give him a little shit and move on...kinda like with Prynce. I don't seriously hate that he abandoned the Raiders, I just give him hell about it on occasion. But I still view him as a true Ravens fan because he really supports them.

The only real unfavorable fan is one who constantly changes allegiances based on who's hot at the time.

[Mach]

If they moved geographically then they aren't showing any loyalty to their fans because they prove they don't care about traditions and most moves are for stability or more money. Of course that stems from putting up a terrible product for so long that there was never a strong sense of tradition, ie: the Atlanta Thrashers, they were just never going to succeed.

So why should fans have that level of loyalty? Not that teams have any loyalty to their fans anyway, it's all about money.

Teams are going to evolve and identities are going to change. Sometimes a team is going to be known for their defense or their offense, or off field distractions. As a fan we see the changes, whether they evolve or not into the modern game. Some of us become bitter of jaded because these aren't our same team (Raiders). They're still wearing the same colors and logo, but it doesn't mean they have to keep the same philosophy because those can change over a long period of time, especially when something isn't working. I'm sure Viking fans can talk to you about the Purple People Eater era to the Dennis Green high flying offense to the Cruiseship Era and they were all different from one another, yet they didn't change their allegiances because some notion that they weren't the Vikings.

Sure, but if someone became a fan of a team because of a specific owner and a specific identity and such, that's a bit different. There's different phases and such, but the Raiders had one core belief, one that they carried with them when they moved to and from LA, and the new guy ain't really adhering to it.

[Mach]

Well, at the end of the day sports fandom really is silly if you think about it. But I also don't take it all that seriously, either.

It's not really about geography to me, though. I'd still be an LA Chargers fan, or even an Anchorage Chargers fan. But I also grew up a military kid and joined the military myself, so I'm not really tied to any geographical location. I can comprehend someone who's grown up in one city or area and lived there their entire life being tied specifically to the team that plays there and represents that city. (and thus can understand if they change loyalty if that team moves).

I do get what you're saying about identity, though. I just don't define that identity by things that naturally change (like ownership). To me, if the Chargers moved and changed their nickname it'd seem like a new team entirely anyway and I'd seriously consider changing allegiances.

So, in a sense, it's kind of the same thing you're saying I guess only with a different and possibly more silly criteria. But that's what sports is to me, something that shouldn't be taken entirely seriously anyway.

Truth be told, if Slyder changed teams I'd give him a little shit and move on...kinda like with Prynce. I don't seriously hate that he abandoned the Raiders, I just give him hell about it on occasion. But I still view him as a true Ravens fan because he really supports them.

The only real unfavorable fan is one who constantly changes allegiances based on who's hot at the time.

I think that all makes sense. I just don't get dropping a team because of changed location and superficial things like colours and nickname when that's a less tangible change than the culture and personality of the franchise (though I think it's perfectly valid, it just wouldn't necessarily be the thing to get me to jump)

I do think sports fandom is kind of silly all in all. These are people you'll likely never befriend or such whom you gain nothing out of it save potential enjoyment and bonding opportunities with other fans, and we pick these teams why? Usually from parents, or players, or colours, or playing styles, or team culture, and it's kind of silly all in all, but it's fun.