Comments on: The rise of the Chicago Bulls

By: Totally Disagree with Totally Disagree

Totally Disagree with Totally Disagree — Thu, 14 May 2009 02:10:24 +0000

The Bulls may be way up there in attendance, but I’ve been to a bunch of games at the United Center that are packed with less than exuberant fans. If you read the article carefully, he says that the game he went to was full of fans, they just didn’t seem to be as interested in the Bulls as he expected them too. Also, you call out the author for being a bandwagon fan but he never said he was a fan, he just claimed to take notice of their improved play in the playoffs. Read the article more carefully before you criticize it so much.

By: Totally Disagree

Totally Disagree — Thu, 14 May 2009 00:32:40 +0000

I’ve been a Bull’s fan since the late 80’s, and once Micheal left the team still ranked third in attendence throughout the NBA. You’re basing this on one game makes me question your credibility. And also you freely admit to being one of those band-wagoners, so you’re a joke fan to begin with. Chicago is and always will be a sports town. Are you silly enuff to believe that we held the number three spot in attendence for all those post Jordan years because a third of the crowd was showing up for the other team. What an irrelevant an factless article from a no nothing bandwagoner… I don’t believe self-professed bandwagoners should be allowed to discuss sports with us true-blue loyal types…

By: Jeremy Gordon

Jeremy Gordon — Wed, 13 May 2009 22:12:52 +0000

To clarify: The attendance I refer to is home attendance. In away attendance, the Bulls were ranked 7th in 2006, which is a decent metric of partly measuring national popularity, before falling to 15th or so in 2007 and 2008. If this newfound popularity really exists, then it seems to have only come out in the playoffs – translation: when the team is winning, people care. Will people care next year?

By: Jeremy Gordon

Jeremy Gordon — Wed, 13 May 2009 21:55:40 +0000

In 2004, the Bulls were 2nd in the league in attendance, 2nd in 2005, then were actually #1 in 2006 before dipping back to 2nd in 2007 and 2008. I don’t doubt that the Bulls got more popular on a national level this year following the emergence of Derrick Rose/them taking the Celtics to 7, but is this such a revelation – that a popular player in a big market was paid attention to, or that the near-take down of a popular/disliked team also merited a bunch of attention? I guess my umbrage, then, with the article, is that it doesn’t ask a more deconstructive question: How valuable is this new popularity? What does the bandwagon do for a fanbase? Does there really need to be a “Chicago Bulls Nation” like a Red Sox Nation? (My answers: Slightly valuable, it dilutes it, and not at all). If it’s a given that the Bulls have always been popular, then how does a small sample of Facebook statuses and the opinion of a few Illinois natives (not Chicago, as the article notes) indicate a greater or even worthwhile trend? This is more than I talked about earlier, which is why I repeat: While I love the sentiment and topic of the article (because I am, if nothing, a Bulls loyalist), I think the analysis is a little superficial.

By: Anonymous

Anonymous — Wed, 13 May 2009 21:22:28 +0000

Jeremy, while you’re right that people have cared for the Bulls for a few years, I agree with the author in that it’s really nothing like the fan base that the team had during the playoffs this year. The team may always have its diehard fans, but I know that many of my friends (i.e. casual Chicago sports fans) showed more excitement for the playoffs this year than they have ever shown for the Bulls in recent times. I think the point was just that the amount of attention the first round series garnered across the nation took the Bulls’ popularity to a height it hasn’t seen for a while, and I agree with that sentiment.

By: Jeremy Gordon

Jeremy Gordon — Wed, 13 May 2009 19:06:32 +0000

Oh, gosh, I love the sentiment of this article but some of the history is a little revisionist – the Bulls built up a ton of goodwill from 2004-2006, 3 years in which they consecutively made the playoffs before dropping a goose egg last year. I think the notion that people are starting to care this year rings a little false – Bulls fans have always existed in this city, which loves its basketball (I got back into the team during those Jalen Rose years), a lot of new fans are bandwagoners, whether they admit it or not (how many people saw John Salmons on the team for the first time and said, WHO??) and people cared across the country because everyone hates the Celtics. You also can’t discredit the home town’s apathy during that Suns game because it was already looking like a miserable season in which none our players gave a crap…so why should we? I’m glad people cared for those two weeks of the Celtics series, but will they care again next year? How about if the team gets off to a slow start? I’m all for public support of a team I love, but let’s actually get interested instead of waving bland platitudes (”LET’S GO BULLS!!!” “OMG RONDO SUCKS!!!”) that show nothing except maybe a passing look at TrueHoop.