And I think it is reasonable to compare the excitement to college games. College crowds, at least here in New England tend to be a whole lot smaller than the Celtics crowd but I've been in the Dunkin Doughnuts Center, the Mullins Center, and the Matthews Arena for college games and the life of the crowds are palpable and you don't only have college kids there either. The crowds are smaller yet noisier and more vivid and full of life. There's no reason a pro crowd can't be like that. The crowds in Sacramento, Oklahoma City, and San Antonio are always pretty boisterous and the Fenway and Bruins crowds are a lot more fun and noisy than the Celtics crowd.
I was with you up to here nick. oklahoma city's crowds are horrid, and san antinio is calle dout every year (including this year) for not being as involved in spurs games as they should be.
The fenway omparision is also not true. I go to way mroe sox games than celtics games, due to a friend of mine being a season ticket holder. while it may be true that the pre 2004 fenway crowds were great, the 2004+ crowds are the DEFINTION of what you accuse the garden fans off. they are into the game "boistriosly" exactly 3 times.
1. Sweet caroline, annoyingly they now play this song regardless of score. one game i was at, we were down 12-2 and it played and the whole crowd sang along like happy idiots, the first time they had shown life in 5 innings.
2. pap's entrance music.
3. when a guy gets 2 strikes on the batter.
other than that, the fenway crowd is the very defintion of reactionary, which in my mind is fine, but you can't have it both ways. If the celtics crowd's main problem is that they only react, then the fenway crowd is 100 times worse, as they only go nuts at prescribed points. and trust me, outside of the bleachers, most of the fans could care less about anything but Homeruns and set piece songs. They don't get into pitching AT ALL unless its the generic "oh two strikes, stop text messaging and stand up hun"
Regarding Fenway, when I go I always sit out in the bleachers so maybe you are right but out there the crowds have fun and are into the game. Also, by it's very nature baseball is a slower game with a ton of down time. So of course it will seem that the crowds are less into the game and more reactionary but my experiences there have always been the opposite.
I've been going to Fenway since '75 and to the Garden since the early eighties. The old Garden crowds were loud and knowledgeable and a definite factor in every game. I've already stated my opinion on the current crowd. Fenway from the '86 season on has been a happening place and I think for baseball crowds they are one of the best anywhere since then. Again I've sat in loge or box seats, I think, twice in my life so maybe I'm getting a skewed view of Fenway but I've always found it lively and not reactionary only.
I can only go on what I have noticed on television when it comes to out of town crowds other than New Jersey and Cleveland, where I have seen games. Oklahoma City got written up in a couple of articles I read( her's one
http://www.usatoday.com/sports/basketball/nba/hornets/2005-11-22-oklahoma-city_x.htm ) as being an unbelievable crowd and home court advantage for the Hornets when they played there and that's when of the reasons Stern wasn't too much pro Seattle as it definitely appeared in the games they played there as being a city that would support an NBA franchise. Well, that and the guy that bought the Seattle franchise is an Oklahoman and has probably lined Stern's pockets quite well. My brother in law was stationed at Lackland AFB for two years and he said that the San Antonio crowd was off the hook. Maybe he just went to some big games but he said that city and that crowd were nuts for the Spurs and the atmosphere was awesome.
I could be wrong about those cities but I've heard and read they are great crowds.
Topic: Bob Ryan says C's fans only reactive (Read 10340 times)