Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
They used to be. When I went to college in Chicago, I think in 2007-08 I got $5 tickets on the regular to Hawks home games. Now preseason tickets are triple digits. Gotta love it.

Damn, if that doesn't make me feel old #
 
They used to be. When I went to college in Chicago, I think in 2007-08 I got $5 tickets on the regular to Hawks home games. Now preseason tickets are triple digits. Gotta love it.

True, i remember getting 200 level center ice tickets for 60 bucks a piece. *sigh*
 
Ok then...............

This doesn't make sense... "fan" is short for "fanatic". How can you call yourself a fanatic yet only watch the team when they're good?

It makes sense when you research the difference between the two words. A "fan" is derived from the word "fanatic" but has a completely different meaning. A "fan" is a supporter or an afficionado. A "fanatic" is defined by an excessive amount of zeal. Most fans are "supporters".

Nearly every fanbase is "fairweather". The Yankees saw attendance hits based on ticket prices when they weren't playing well. I suggest we drop the term fairweather, especially when you base the claim "fair weather" on attendance.

But please, do yourself a favor and look these things up before you call me out on an archaic definition of a word. I am a Bulls, Bears, White Sox, Fighting Illini, and Blackhawks fan. I have been able to attend zero of their games in the last calendar year. I refuse to watch a subpar product. I am a fan, not a "fairweather" fan.
 
It makes sense when you research the difference between the two words. A "fan" is derived from the word "fanatic" but has a completely different meaning. A "fan" is a supporter or an afficionado. A "fanatic" is defined by an excessive amount of zeal. Most fans are "supporters".

Nearly every fanbase is "fairweather". The Yankees saw attendance hits based on ticket prices when they weren't playing well. I suggest we drop the term fairweather, especially when you base the claim "fair weather" on attendance.

But please, do yourself a favor and look these things up before you call me out on an archaic definition of a word. I am a Bulls, Bears, White Sox, Fighting Illini, and Blackhawks fan. I have been able to attend zero of their games in the last calendar year. I refuse to watch a subpar product. I am a fan, not a "fairweather" fan.

Not to split hairs, but then what would you classify the term "A True Fan or Die Hard Fan" as... A true/die hard supporter or would you consider them a Fan?

So by your own definition, if the product is subpar and you do not go to the games to support that team, wouldn't that make you just a supporter? A fairweather fan will only go when the team is doing good. Yet you say you refuse to watch a subpar product but call your self a fan not a supporter?

And please tell me anywhere where I mentioned fan based on attendance?
 
Not to split hairs, but then what would you classify the term "A True Fan or Die Hard Fan" as... A true/die hard supporter or would you consider them a Fan?
A fan is a synonym for supporter, so they're essentially the same.

These terms are arbitrary, but IMHO a "True Fan" is someone who fits the culture of a team's fanbase. For example (these examples are NOT exhaustive), a working class Irish-American Bostonian is a "true" Red Sox fan. A north side of Chicago yuppie who lives down the street from Wrigley Field or a Chicago north sider in general is a "true" Cub fan. Immigrants on the South Side of Chicago are "True" Sox fans.

A true fan takes great pride in the success of their team because they are a part of their culture. It turns out that the more popular teams tend to have less true fans, for example, because the Cubs are on WGN, there are people in Texas who watch every Cubs game they can. These are not true fans, but they may be die hard fans.

A die hard fan is a cliche at this point, so it basically gets defined as a fan as well. One can say "I'm a die-hard fan" but in actuality haven't watched a game in six years.

So by your own definition, if the product is subpar and you do not go to the games to support that team, wouldn't that make you just a supporter? A fairweather fan will only go when the team is doing good. Yet you say you refuse to watch a subpar product but call your self a fan not a supporter?

This is the EXACT reason why "fairweather fan" should be eliminated. Many true fans genuinely suffer to watch their team be so bad. For example, I will watch the White Sox at least 20% of the time or when I can (I'm no longer in Chicago), but I can't watch the team if they are 20 games under .500. It's too hard to watch (to the point of it being painful). This type of fan is not worth belittling with the silly moniker "Fair weather fan", as they are truly anything but.

And please tell me anywhere where I mentioned fan based on attendance?
Attendance is really the number one metric to describe the frailty of a fanbase. I see empty seats in a stadium, but I don't see TV numbers and the like.
 
On topic. I'm an NHL fan. Been to a number of Blackhawks games pre Patrick Kane and saw them play at Dallas this season. I also follow the Stars as all their games are televised in Austin.
 
I'm a Hawks fan, mostly because when my uncle used to babysit me when I was little, he engrained "Chicago is the Best" into me.

When I was in college, I worked security at Nationwide Arena, since I was one of the only women who worked the hockey games, I got dibs on where I was stationed. I chose the "tunnel" all the time, I got to chat with Jody Shelley when I worked. I still support the Blue Jackets a little bit because they're the Home Town Team.
 
Blackhawks goaltending looks to be suspect. I doubt they're a SC favorite as a result.

Crawford has to be better.

He was actually pretty good last night. But in Edmonton, that was just embarrassing. That was Raanta though. Last time Crawford played, which was Thursday in Minnesota, he made like 40+ saves. So he's still pretty good. However, I'll admit he hasn't seemed as strong after the injury.
 
He was actually pretty good last night. But in Edmonton, that was just embarrassing. That was Raanta though. Last time Crawford played, which was Thursday in Minnesota, he made like 40+ saves. So he's still pretty good. However, I'll admit he hasn't seemed as strong after the injury.

I agree that he was good last night. Crawford has actually been pretty good this year. His only downfall was the return from the ankle injury which for a goalie is everything. Looking at his past 3 starts, he's been exceptional and back on form. Before the injury he was outstanding. Not sure why Crawford would be called out... nobody's really questioning his play.
 
Good thread to resurrect!

Was a long time fan of the Caps (lived in the DC area). Grew sick of their choke-tacular performance every year even before I moved away. Currently rooting for the Flyers. Coincidentally, they play each other tomorrow night on NBC. I hope the flyers stomp them.

I'll watch any hockey game though. NHL/AHL/College... doesn't matter. Most amazing sport to watch IMO.
 
Flyers fan living in Europe.

Btw if there is any American or Canadian who's willing to record and upload ( YouTube ) the first round of draft day show in a few days.. That would be great. From Europe it not possible to view this show because it's NBC and CBS ? restricted content only.
 
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.