Star compares KU, MU, KSU fans

[KCPowercat]

Stereotyping either way seems pretty dumb actually.

[MoMan]

I know this isn't what you were getting at MoMan, so excuse me for the following spiel—

Except for Illinois, none of those institutions is at all comparable to the sort of big state school that tends to build a culture of college-sports fandom.  Georgetown, BC, and Miami are all private schools, so unaffiliated locals generally don't have any connection or interest in their affairs.  These universities also draw their students from far broader geographies than the KUs and MUs of the country, 90%+ of whose students are from in-state—by comparison, half of Miami's students are from outside of Florida, three-quarts of BC's are from outside Massachusetts, and almost all of Georgetown's students are from outside DC (and not many are from Maryland or Virginia either).  Then consider that Georgetown has about 7,000 undergrads, and BC and Miami have about 9,000-10,000.

So you have about a quarter, a third, or maybe half as many students at these sorts of schools as at big state schools, with commensurately fewer alumni.  These students come from, and after graduation, disperse to places all over the country.  Nobody except the schools own students and their families pays for, or votes on, or otherwise has any role in what goes on at these schools, which are often viewed as aloof (sometimes elitist) because they also generally have much higher standards of admissions than state schools.  So why should it be at all surprising that their sports teams don't have big local fanbases?  It's pretty obvious, even before you consider that many of these universities (Georgetown, for example) don't even field FBS football teams.

And, that, in my view is the main reason that college sports aren't as big on the East Coast.  A much larger proportion of people there attend private universities like Miami, BC, and Georgetown.  Partly as a cause, partly as a consequence, the East Coast also generally lacks the big state schools you find in other parts of the country. Rutgers and Penn State, and to a lesser extent UConn and a few of the SUNYs (which don't do big-time sports) are the only big state schools in the northeast.  So there's no big-time, rah-rah State U for the locals to latch on to, even if they were so inclined.

Yes, there's a higher concentration of pro sports on the East Coast, and that draws away some interest from college sports. But I don't buy a broad urban-rural cultural divide on college sports. There is a divide, but I think (a) it's overstated and (b) it's mostly a by-product of other cultural factors, like the lack of big state schools (at least ones that play big-time sports) in the DC-Boston corridor and the higher proportion of urban dwellers who go to private versus state schools.

I imagine anybody who's been to the Big East tourney at MSG or anybody who's heard the roar of the Rose Bowl during a UCLA-USC game would agree.

Absolutely correct, and I don't believe and haven't argued that interest in college sports isn't widespread across geographic and demographic boundaries. 

My point was simply that the widespread hysteria for college sports seems to reside primarily in the South and in less urban Midwestern states.  There are rabid Mizzou fans and Georgetown fans and Illinois fans and Cal fans, but that passion doesn't characterize the fan base generally the way it does for Louisiana State and Alabama and Oklahoma and Kansas.  Entire states just don't grind to a halt to watch a college football or basketball game outside the South and the agrarian Midwest.

Local fans of programs with a "passionate" fan base may get defensive at that observation, but they can take solace in the Star's hard-hitting expose revealing some of those fan bases are, on average, slightly higher income earners than their less fanatical neighbors.  Government farm subsidies rock! 

[TheBigChuckbowski]

We go to pro games all the time out here and I would say the fans are well off and well educated.  Shit, it cost $190 to sit in the lower level of a caps game and the skins get close to that.  The people that paid $20 to see some college game probably couldn't afford the parking.

The X-Factor MD

[KCPowercat]

A)Money doesn't not equate to class. B) hockey and football fans are rabid usually and people will save a lot to go to those games even if they don't have a lot. C)  very out of touch with what major college athletics sporting events cost.

This is getting sad.

[bobbyhawks]

This is getting sad.

Agreed.  I nominate this as the worst thread ever. 

[KC-wildcat]

My point was simply that the widespread hysteria for college sports seems to reside primarily in the South and in less urban Midwestern states.  There are rabid Mizzou fans and Georgetown fans and Illinois fans and Cal fans, but that passion doesn't characterize the fan base generally the way it does for Louisiana State and Alabama and Oklahoma and Kansas.  Entire states just don't grind to a halt to watch a college football or basketball game outside the South and the agrarian Midwest.

Your point was that small universities in "agrarian states" have more rabid college fan bases because they don't have the cultural attractions or other diversion that heavily populated, urban or coastal regions have.  This is why college sports are so much bigger in less cultured midwest states and the deep south than in a thriving, culturally diverse place like Missourah, for instance.   

Apparently, in your mind, Missouri is an institution much more akin to Georgetown, Cal and Boston College than it is K-State, KU, OU, or any other school in the Big XII, Big 10  or SEC.  I think this argument is laughable. 

Do you seriously believe that Missouri has more cultural attractions and other diversions than states like Michigan, North Carolina, Pennsylvania, Texas, Georgia, Virginia???  Why are college sports fans so crazy in these states? 

[MoMan]

Your point was that small universities in "agrarian states" have more rabid college fan bases because they don't have the cultural attractions or other diversion that heavily populated, urban or coastal regions have.  This is why college sports are so much bigger in less cultured midwest states and the deep south than in a thriving, culturally diverse place like Missourah, for instance.   

Apparently, in your mind, Missouri is an institution much more akin to Georgetown, Cal and Boston College than it is K-State, KU, OU, or any other school in the Big XII, Big 10  or SEC.  I think this argument is laughable. 

Do you seriously believe that Missouri has more cultural attractions and other diversions than states like Michigan, North Carolina, Pennsylvania, Texas, Georgia, Virginia???  Why are college sports fans so crazy in these states? 

Struck a very insecure nerve, didn't I Dorothy?

1. You need to leave your coccoon a little more if you think that Pennsylvania and Michigan shut down for college football or basketball games the way Alabama and Kansas do.
2. The rest of the states on your list are Southern states (or what's referred to in your  charming lexicon as racist, meth-addled backwaters).  I've already acknowledged that the South is one of the likeliest areas to find college sports fanaticism: Alabama, Texas, Mississippi, Kentucky.  The other hotbeds seem to be in Midwestern states without a strong urban culture and all the amenities that come with it: Kansas, Nebraska, Oklahoma.
3. Yes, states like Missouri, Minnesota, Ohio, and Illinois have exponentially more recreational and cultural diversity than, say, Kansas.

There are some fine Southern and agrarian Midwestern states.  In fact, some of those states even have moderatley higher average incomes than their less rural neighbors.

[GRID]

Yea, totally missing the point.

I'll try to simplify.  There are rabid fans everywhere.  That is not debatable.  College sports is well supported and popular everywhere.  That is not debatable.  There will be 20,000 fans in arenas in coastal cities and 70,000 fans in football stadiums etc just like they are in places like KS and OK.  I get that.

But once you leave that relatively small circle of fans and start comparing entire cities and states, it's a whole different world.  College sports are simply not a part of everyday lives and culture like they are in the midwest.

Why is it so difficult to accept that a much smaller part of the population is into college sports?  It doesn't mean they didn't go to college or the college they went to doesn't have high quality sports programs, it just means that people don't put college sports up as high in their lives as people in the midwest, south etc do.

I am in more traffic in one day than you would see in a week at 435 and Metcalf and I rarely, rarely so much as see a college emblem on a car.  In KC (mostly KS side), I would say it's like something crazy like 20-30% or even higher.  Same deal with wearing the clothing.  When you do see emblems and clothing, I would say more than half the time it's from fans of teams in the midwest and south, vs local stuff.  Transplants and tourists promoting their teams to their new areas (as if people cared). I say that because I think it accurately represents the interest overall, yet some people take it as a personal insult or something.

There is no noticeable obsession at all.

This is even true to a lesser degree in places like St Louis, Denver where pro teams are far more embedded in the communities than college.  Even Texas where college sports is crazy popular, the bigger cities interest is far less per capita.  That's why the big 12 does better in KC than it does in Dallas.

And no matter how well MIZZOU does, I think college sports will always be treated a little different there (second fiddle) than Kansas or Nebraska where it's part of the culture of a high percent of the population.

[KC-wildcat]

3. Yes, states like Missouri, Minnesota, Ohio, and Illinois have exponentially more recreational and cultural diversity than, say, Kansas.

I think you're intentionally missing the point.  Or I'm using too many words.  I'm not sure.  

There is a direct negative correlation between college fandom and culture.  Or, to put it differently, the more culture in a state, the less people care about college sports.  See California, New York, Washington D.C.... and Missouri.  gotcha.  You're point makes perfect sense.  

I'm simply confused as to why states like Michigan, Texas, Pennsylvania, Indiana, Ohio (not southern, not agrarian) care so much more about college sports than the cultural epicenter of the United States - Missouri???

Your only explanation is that places like Penn and Michigan don't care as much about college sports as Kansas.  

Are you f'n kidding me!???

Michigan: enrollment (42K) - football stadium capacity (110K)
Michigan State:  enrollment (47K) - football stadium capacity (80K)
Penn State:  enrollment (45K) - football stadium capacity (108K)
Pitt:  enrollment (30K) - football stadium capacity (65K)

You're seriously arguing that places like Michigan, Pennsylvania, Ohio, North Carolina don't go absolutely apeshit over college football and basketball??  


   

[KC-wildcat]

Why is it so difficult to accept that a much smaller part of the population is into college sports?  It doesn't mean they didn't go to college or the college they went to doesn't have high quality sports programs, it just means that people don't put college sports up as high in their lives as people in the midwest, south etc do.

I agree.  Outside of the midwest and south, college sports aren't as big of a deal.  Last time I checked, Missouri was squarely in the heart of the midwest.  The demographics and cultural diversity are no different than any other similarly populated midwestern state.  Missourah ain't Baltimore, Maryland.  

[GRID]

I agree.  Outside of the midwest and south, college sports aren't as big of a deal.  Last time I checked, Missouri was squarely in the heart of the midwest.  The demographics and cultural diversity is no different than any other similarly populated midwestern state.  Missourah ain't Baltimore, Maryland. 

Live in St Louis for six months dude.  Seriously.  Mizzou support is EXTREMELY diluted there.  It's way down on the list similar to Denver, Seattle etc despite having many local colleges.  Even people are more likely to jump on the SLU bandwagon than Mizzou because it's an urban college.

Rural Missouri and Rural KS might be similar, but it's still not like KS because sports fans have more to choose from.  Cards and Blues have as much or more influence in rural MO as MU does from Sedalia east and the Chiefs have a solid hold state wide.

Even in the KC area, there is a distinct difference between Lee's Summit and Overland Park.  You take 100 SUVs out of LS and 100 SUVs out of OP and honestly tell me which one will have far more college paraphernalia on their 100 SUVs!

Plus, Much of Missouri is urban and metropolitan where residents don't claim the state of MO as much as the city (except in the case of KCMO where people have to specific that they are not from Kansas).

St Louis people (like everybody in a 100 mile radius) claim StL as home not Missouri.  While Kansas people (even those that live in Metro KC) are more likely to claim the state over the city as home.

Different cultures.

[KC-wildcat]

Live in St Louis for six months dude.  Seriously.  Mizzou support is EXTREMELY diluted there.  It's way down on the list similar to Denver, Seattle etc despite having many local colleges.  Even people are more likely to jump on the SLU bandwagon than Mizzou because it's an urban college.

Well again, I get why MO (as a whole) may be different from KS.  demographics are completely different.  Still can't figure why MO appears to be so much more apatetic about college sports than similarly populated states in the Big 10, ACC, and SEC. 

To your point about STL, why is the culture that much different from KC?  Is STL that much more metropolitcan, sophisticated, cultured?  Is KC really just a cowtown compared to STL?  Or is there some other reason why STL doesn't care about MU?

[GRID]

Well again, I get why MO (as a whole) may be different from KS.  demographics are completely different.  Still can't figure why MO appears to be so much more apatetic about college sports than similarly populated states in the Big 10, ACC, and SEC.  

To your point about STL, why is the culture that much different from KC?  Is STL that much more metropolitcan, sophisticated, cultured?  Is KC really just a cowtown compared to STL?  Or is there some other reason why STL doesn't care about MU?

Lots of reasons.  First off Lawrence is part of metro KC, Columbia is not.  I think StL is more a part of Columbia.  (StL culture is huge there as the metro is by far the largest pool of students).

StL developed much earlier and developed a huge following of pro sports long before KC was really even a large city.

When KC did finally come along, it quickly became the hub of the the big 8 college sports world.  The NCAA was there, the city was a regular host of the final four and then you have the bistate thing which just keeps people interested due to the rivalry.

I don't think it's any less sophisticated or anything.  I think the KU fan base there is somewhat obnoxious, and if you are not into college sports the coverage and general obsession with it can get annoying,  but the city is still a fine city, it supports pro sports as well as it could or shoud, has a sophisticated arts scene, a decent night life scene etc.

My only point is that college sports are worshiped in KC and kind of ignored in many or most other major metros.

In many ways it's one of the cool things about KC.  You guys are just taking it personal.  I'm not into it, so I kind of like getting away from so it's not so "in your face" all the time.

[phxcat]

I know this isn't what you were getting at MoMan, so excuse me for the following spiel—

In addition to this, the case studies that were cited include schools with no real sustained success, for the most part since the 80's (Georgetown and UM) or schools that have had none (IU and BC).  In the meantime, I'm not sure where to start with professional success in Boston- the Red Sox, Pats and Celtics all have recent titles. 

Good post.  As I said before, the number of people attending college sport activities (primarily basketball and football) absolutely dwarves what the pros draw.  I'd venture to say that although games like the superbowl are more widely watched than the NC football game, the amount of people watching college ball on Saturdays is much greater than those watching the pros on Sunday.  Georgetown is actually a great example of fan support.  They are crazy about the Hoyas.  Even though they have a third the students that KU has, they draw between 10-12,000 to the Verizon Center for home games.  In a place like Washington where everyone is from somewhere else and went to college somewhere else, it's hard to inspire interest in college ball for a local team but they do a pretty good job. 

The idea that college sports aren't supported in large cities on the coasts is a myth.  I don't really think it's a good measure of sophistication at any rate.  Pro sports certainly appeal to a more redneck crowd than college sports which appeal to a more educated crowd so using that as a put down is pretty silly.  It's just that there are SO Many college teams that the interest in any one team gets more diluted and that's even accentuated in metros wher the populace is mostly from elsewhere.  You'd think in a place like Houston that University of Texas or A&M would be huge.  They are certainly a presence but not huge because so many people here are from elsewhere and earned their degrees somewhere else.  We outsiders all follow college sports, we just don't care for UT or A&M.  That's probably why KC is so big on their local college teams, most educated people in the city actually attended KU, KSU or MU.  That's not the case in a lot of larger metros.  Grid observes the same thing but he comes up with the wrong reasons to explain it.     

A lot of these cities that Grid is referencing are transient cities.  As a transplant from a MLB and NFL city, I could care less about the D-Backs and Cardinals.  I have yet to latch onto the Suns or Coyotes.  Everyone I know (and I know plenty) from Michigan or Ohio fly their Michigan/ MSU/ OSU colors first, and are secondary fans of their pro teams.  I would guess that places like DC, San Fransisco, LA (which can't even keep an NFL team) are the same. 

Now, Grid is changing what he is defining as sophistication from college sports to sports in general.  St. Louis is a huge sports town with onw of the premier baseball teams.  I was going to point out (though Grid beat me to it) that there are no real rivals for Mizzou in STL.  They have one non-conference game in basketball and football with Illinois, but that's it- no return game, no conference dynamics.  KC has a three way interconference rivalry- each team has two rivalry football games and four, potentially five or six, in basketball.  Everybody has friends or co-workers from the other two schools and when the other two are playing, most hope that both will lose.  On top of that, they all compete with each other in conference standings.  I don't think that this situation can be understated when it comes to college sports presence in KC- it is not a matter of wearing a KU shirt in DC to get attention, though it is probably a by-product, it is wearing your colors in KC where other people care and don't like it.  If all of KC was in Kansas and there was only one major Kansas school, you would see a lot less of it flying because there would be less incentive to show it off.

[pash]

.

[MoMan]

I'm simply confused as to why states like Michigan, Texas, Pennsylvania, Indiana, Ohio (not southern, not agrarian) care so much more about college sports than the cultural epicenter of the United States - Missouri???

Your only explanation is that places like Penn and Michigan don't care as much about college sports as Kansas.  

Are you f'n kidding me!???

Michigan: enrollment (42K) - football stadium capacity (110K)
Michigan State:  enrollment (47K) - football stadium capacity (80K)
Penn State:  enrollment (45K) - football stadium capacity (108K)
Pitt:  enrollment (30K) - football stadium capacity (65K)

You're seriously arguing that places like Michigan, Pennsylvania, Ohio, North Carolina don't go absolutely apeshit over college football and basketball??    

What you're apparently intent on saying is Wichita, Topeka, and the Flint Hills = St. Louis, Kansas City, and the Ozarks in terms of cultural and recreational punch.  Gotcha.  And apparently Oklahoma City = St. Louis, Omaha = Kansas City, the Flint Hills = Lake of the Ozarks.  I get -- they're all equally appealing.  Thanks for setting me straight.

The Rose Bowl and the Colosseum in Southern California are huge stadiums used by college football teams from universities with large enrollments.  Stanford and Berkley have large stadiums, too. Therefore, according to your helpful data illustrating how correlative stadium size is with all-encompassing statewide fanaticism, California is absolutely C-R-A-Z-Y about college football.  Again, thanks for sharing your wisdom!

Please just accept the central premise that Kansas, Alabama, and Nebraska are culturally very different from California, Pennsylvania, and Illinois.  And they have much less in common with Missouri, Illinois, and Ohio than you'd like to believe.

Your "arguments" are just desperate and betray a hopeless insecurity.

[KCPowercat]

Who cares grid, et. Al.?

Back to ksu fans being richer.

[pash]

.

[KCPowercat]

What context?

[WSPanic]

What context?

If you were as educated as the average KU fan, you wouldn't have to ask.