oh, please. if you want to blame del greco for the ravens' loss, fine. but all he cost them was a chance to play for the super bowl. to assume, had he made two more kicks, that tennessee would have beaten oakland and new york, or even held on to beat baltimore, is silly. tennessee could have cut baltimore's juggular early last year, but lacked the killer instinct, which is what marked the oilers' entire stay in houston, save for 1960-62. not relevant, but just an fyi. fisher's ultra-conservative play-calling was as much to blame as del greco's off day. when you hold onto to the football for over 40 minutes at home, there's simply no excuse to only have 10 points to show for it. and even if del greco nails both FG's -- 16 in that instance is inexcusable. they should have romped.
That wasn't the point. The point is, once Randall's buys up the remaining tickets, there's nothing more that can be done to make the sell-out legitimate. Houston a notorious walk-up town? Since when, and what does that mean? They've always been a bad sports town. I thought that was generally acknowledged. Were people walking up when the Rockets couldn't sell out a 2nd round playoff game on a Sunday? Or when the Rockets had the lowest attendance in the league last year, despite being in the playoff hunt? Were they walking up when the Astros had one of the best records in baseball in the 90s, yet one of the worst attendance records? Oh yeah, that's right..."football first". Does football first mean losing your team? If it's not rare, show us. Show me how many times other teams in the division, or with comparable records, weren't televised in their home town. And there was concern, I remember, because I was always concerned they wouldn't be on TV. Someone else has posted the same thing in this thread. TV ratings...you mean when they were actually on? A football team is always going to get more attention, no matter where you are because 1) there are only 16 games a year, and 2) the season is much shorter than baseball and basketball (and hockey). People don't get their fill of football, because there isn't enough of it. Therefore it is always going to be a hot topic. Houston turned its back on the Oilers because they never won a Super Bowl -- that's what fair-weather fans (and a fair-weather city) do. Do you really think it was Bud Adams? Those jerseys don't say Bud Adams on them, they say Houston Oilers. Houston barely kept the Astros and BARELY kept the Rockets--the Rockets would be gone right now if not for Jeff. That's what you call a PATTERN. A pattern of a city that doesn't support its teams. The NFL gave LA chance after chance just so Houston wouldn't get a team...it was pathetic. I'll call it silly when you post the numbers for other teams as well. If you're still looking for the reason the Oilers left, it's because this is the attitude the entire city harbored over the team while they were here. What have you done for me lately? No Super Bowl? See ya. I imagine you're pretty bitter over the Titans' promptly gaining a Super Bowl berth after leaving Houston--it shows in a lot of your posts. If there had been public sentiment to keep the Oilers, Lanier would've been forced to negotiate. Instead we get the mantra "No Taxpayer Money", and the Oilers are history. Sniff, sniff. Guess that taxpayer money was good enough for the Astros and Rockets though.
don't be ignorant. the oilers' fate was never put to a public vote -- NEVER. the city, read: the populace, had no say whatsoever. as for the randall's controversy -- if there was no bogus blackout rule, there'd be no need for randall's to step in -- get it? and then the team would have saturday and gameday to sell tickets. i mean, did you purposefully disregard the facts presented by madmax -- 110% capacity for 8 straight years. please tell me how not being completely sold out by noon thursday trumps that? you're reaching, and have been from the very start. houston is a bad sports town, yes, but it didn't use to be and it's never been a bad football town. sure, i'll get right on that, should be on espn.com under the astrodome's career stats... in the meantime, why don't you substantiate claims of randall's having to step in "every week." a) as an avid taper of oiler games during that time, i can't think of any home games that were blacked out that i had to miss; b) dallas is currently threatened by the blackout rule, and i know for a fact jacksonville had problems with it last year. again, it's not uncommon because the 72-hour rule is so bogus; c) 110% capacity, 8 years running. why am i even bothering...? your turn: please list the games blacked out during the '88-'93 era (discouting the strike year in '87). i don't think you'll find a single one. it's and unsubstantiated and misinformed opinion, and it completely disregards 110% capacity for 8 straight years. so it's your contention that the browns are a hotter topic than the indians? people in seattle are gaga over the 'hawks at the expense of the mariners? that jeff garcia is getting more bay area gloss than barry bonds? that fans in the windy city have turned their attention to the bears -- al because football is only 16 games a year and people haven't gotten their fill? give me a break. (sigh)... the nfl gave l.a. chance after chance because it's the second largest television market in the entire free world -- it had nothing to do with houston. this revisionist history of yours is growing more and more insulting. and houston didn't turn its back on the oilers because they didn't win a SB. in '94, they drew 45,000 a game despite three consecutive crushing playoff losses (read: no SB) and a 2-14 season. that's hardly turning your back on a team. they turned their back, and rightly so, when adams tried to take advantage of them one last time in 1995. or perhaps when some of the facts break your way? for a team to draw 45,000 during a 2-14 campaign... it's hard to argue this team wasn't supported. you're in over your head and desperate. i'd recommend bailing now to save as much face as possible, or else i'll keep pounding you with "110% capacity for 8 straight years..." neither mcclane nor alexander have ever stretched their relationship to the breaking point as many times as adams did. i don't think there's any question, when adams pulled his latest "build me a stadium or else" stunt in 1995, fans grew indifferent. i think it was one of those relationships that had run its course, and people were determined they could live without adams' shenanigans and the oilers' failures. and i think the vast majority of them were proven wrong. i regret lanier made it personal, and my feelings are mixed about their departure: i wish they had stayed, but at the same time, i'm enjoying the clean slate, and excited to see what the new team has in store. as for being bitter about tennessee -- i don't honestly care either way. i view them the same way i do the dolphins or chargers. i don't like them, i don't hate them. i don't care if they win and i don't care if they lose. i don't root for or against them. they're just another non-houston team to me.
Ric -- well stated....i'll take it a step further. Hell, yes I'm bitter!! I paid tons and tons of money for Oiler tickets and merchandise. Why?? Because they were Houston's team, and, thus, my team. When Bud made his little statement that "this is no longer Houston's team, it's just Bud Adams' entry into the NFL" that did it. And when the team moved, hell yes I rooted against them. Hell yes I hated seeing them make the Super Bowl. A championship parade in another city for a team you sweated year in and year out with is like watching your ex-wife pull up in the new Porsche her new husband just bought her after winning the lottery. I don't see many Baltimore Ravens fans in Cleveland. That's why it makes for a great rivalry...the bitterness is inherent in the matchup. That's what will make the Texans-Titans games so memorable. Ultimately, it's just sports. But to say I would root for the franchise of a man who shot his middle finger to my hometown is silly. I absolutely loved the Oilers....but the Oilers are dead...long live the Texans.
Ric, Max -- I loved the Oilers. I just can't get excited about another team. A lot of it probably has to do with me not living in Houston anymore. Having never been into college football, I'm trying to get into it now since I no longer have a pro team to root for. Since I went to UT and live in Austin, I'm really trying to learn about the team and other college teams this year. I figure this way I never have to worry about my team leaving, right? The good ole boy alumni facet of college sports has always rubbed me the wrong way, as well as the uncertainty of deciding who the winners are, but what choice do I have? I also blame the city and mayor for the Oilers' departure. The mayor will follow the public sentiment...that's just the way it is in politics. If there is public support for something, the politician will champion it. The public was just flat out apathetic about the Oilers' leaving, so the mayor could do whatever he wanted. Notice how the mayor didn't want anymore pro teams leaving the city on his watch, so he quickly dropped the "no taxpayer money" pledge, and actually tried to negotiate with the Astros and Rockets. It's just unfortunate that the city really never made a big deal about losing the Oilers. The attitude was more of "you never won anything, what do I care?". That just burns me up more than anything. Bud Adams is just an old man who will be dead in a few years. Why sweat him? Either you want football, or you don't. Bud Adams has done a few good things, I'm sure. Mickey Herskowitz wrote a good piece about that (MH has more credibility than Fowler in my book) around the time the team left. But who cares? Owners have a bunch of money, they want to make more money, that's just the way it is. Bud was just bad at P.R., and not many people liked him. In the end I don't think he's much different than most of the other owners out there. I can't find any numbers on NFL attendance. The only thing I could find was an article by some business journal about NFL attendance from '87 to '96. It actually ranks "fans" on several factors, including attendance. It has Houston last, and says they only filled the stadium to 82.3% of capacity during those years. Unfortunately, the fact that they included '96 really probably skews those ratings, so I can't give their ranking of Houston too much credibility...I concede that '96 should not be included. The interesting thing, though, is that Green Bay, according to the article, had the 3rd-highest capacity ranking, clocking in at 95.2 percent. This really raises doubts in my mind about the Oilers filling up the stadium at a 110 percent clip for 8 years, or whatever Mad Max said. Again, this is all I could find about NFL attendance. I welcome any other information on the subject. Here's the link to the article: http://sanantonio.bcentral.com/sanantonio/stories/1997/02/03/story8.html Peace to Mad Max and Ric, any die-hard Oiler (and in Ric's case, Toadies) fan can't be all that bad.
The Freak -- again, I don't think the public thought Bud was actually leaving. Sports radio 610 was brand new then and I remember caller after caller asking the hosts (Ed Fowler was one) whether or not they thought the Oilers were really serious about moving. Few thought they would actually leave. Ed said he couldn't imagine them leaving. We were wrong. But we didn't get much chance to remedy the situation. Bud signed an exclusive agreement with Nashville which didn't even allow him to begin to negotiate with Houston. Lanier offered him an open air stadium and Adams said no. That was the end. We never got a chance to vote. We never really got a chance to negotiate. The plan Adams brought was a joke (including indications the Rocks would share the facility with him despite the fact he hadn't even talked to the Rocks about it...and they weren't in the least bit interested in playing in a dome). When city leaders turned it down, he felt rejected and went elsewhere. He was not amenable to any solutions....and he hadn't made one friend in the business community who stood up for him and championed his cause. That's a reflection of the man. As for attendance numbers...the 110% capacity is cited in the Coopers & Lybrand report done at the Oilers' request to convince city leaders we needed a new stadium for football. I've seen that number elsewhere. I don't know if it's tickets sold or actual attendance. But the report went on and on about walk-up, day of game sales. Again...this was the Oilers report. This was the report's number one reason for a new stadium with a bigger capacity.
i would say that's a fair representation of how things went down -- fans were apathetic. at the same time, adams had, at best, an acrimonious relationship with the houston media, and the proposed domed stadium he wanted to share with the rockets was routinely scoffed at and rejected by the media as a whole. i don't doubt fans would have also likely been cool to the idea, but the truth is they never had the opportunity to voice their opinions. as for the SABJ article, its methods are suspect, and not only was '96 the lame duck year, but the bud dome and all the shenanigans broke out prior to the 1995 season, so that year suffered as well, not mention, the team was 2-14 in 1994. i suggest picking up john pirkle's excellent book, "oiler blues." in it, he addresses specifically your take on the team's support on page 316: "this erroneous opinion (that houston couldn't fill the dome) was based upon the oilers' failures to meet the nfl blackout deadline. in reality, the oilers averaged 61,000 tickets sold for the 40 regular season games from 1989-1993 (102.2% of capacity)." further, from don maclachlan, oiler senior vp of marketing, "we don't consider success on the basis of whether we sell out by the 72-hour blackout deadline. what's important is how many tickets are sold by kickoff. by that yardstick, the indisputable fact is that the oilers have been very successful." according to maclachlan, before the astrodome was expanded in 1989, the team had oversold five of the previous 10 seasons. they then oversold capacity for five straight years, beginning in '89 once the dome had been expanded. so from 1979-93, according to the oilers' senior vp of marketing, they oversold the dome in 10 of those 15 years. and when you consider they were 23-65 from '81-86, that's pretty remarkable. when asked what the team would do with a 75,000-seat complex, maclachlan said, "we'll do the same thing we've always done: sell them." and that's at the crux of all this -- if houston wasn't supporting the team, why was adams asking for 75,000 seats if he couldn't fill, according to you, 61,000? there's no logic behind that. adams made money hand over fist while in houston, every year. i don't blame him for moving -- nashville hung the moon for him. and i certainly understand the genesis of fan apathy at that time. but the bottom line is that the team was well-supported, and it looks like that trend is going to carry over to the texans.
