Even though the Bengals sold out the opener, they still have to win the fan's trust

by Josh Kirkendall on Sep 12, 2009 10:50 AM EDT in Analysis

Selling out Sunday's game was great. Of course, it wasn't really a sellout in the traditional sense. Over 4,000 fans didn't swamp the ticket window for the season opener against the Denver Broncos. Several area companies had to ride in and supplement where fans couldn't, for one reason (economy) or another (boycott). After much of the reported improvements in personnel this year, along with a good draft, expectations increased over the offseason from a team that finished 4-11-1 last year. Is this typical Bengals fan optimism where our excitement reaches its peak in August, or is there a reason to be optimistic? Was this one of the best offseasons during the Marvin Lewis era, or are Bengals fans like me simply reverting back to our annual expectation that "this team will be better than last year"? We could be worse? Either way, I believe that if the Bengals beat the Broncos convincingly and play the Pittsburgh Steelers competitively, there's a chance that Cincinnati starts out 3-2 at the very least, heading into their third home game of the year; both losses against the two AFC Championship game teams, Steelers and Ravens). If that's the case, then will the Bengals fans respond, making our storyline of home sellouts a one-time thing? If they start 0-5, then the Bengals won't sell out another game.

While the Bengals players and coaches and front office personnel are reminding us the benefit a packed house gives a football team a bit of an edge to beat opponents, they have to know that their season will depend on the first month of the season. They have to earn the Bengals fan trust again; or else there's no way Bengals fans respond. They have to come out of the gate firing. They have to beat the team's that they're expected to beat and take the games that they may lose into the final possession. If the team, most of whom feel really good about this year, follows through, then the Bengals fans will fall in step and do our part.

WDR responds to the "sellout", by writing, "If anything this helps our cause, as we don't expect the three hour commercial that Krogers and WKRC just purchased to be particularly enticing, given who the director was (and continues to be)." We're surprised that a boycott wasn't called against Kroger and Channel 12, and by extension charities and the military for accepting the tickets. But in truth, when the Bengals play on television, they dominate the ratings at that time slot. And Kroger makes sense also. Now fans can gather, grill out, drink beer, and cheer on the Bengals, whereas before, they would be less likely to do so. But I highly doubt either company does this a second time.

One Man Crimewave was prevented from ranting about fan loyalty and passion when the team announced that there would be a sellout Sunday, instead saying that WDR got the best of both worlds; "sorta" accomplishing their goal while being able to watch the game.

We'll avoid having to talk about a sellout during the second home game of the season against the Pittsburgh Steelers; it's already sold out. Sadly, the house could be filled with as many Steelers fans as Bengals fans.

Even though they made the Super Bowl last year, the Arizona Cardinals narrowly avoided being blacked out in their own market.

Tweet Comment 4 comments | 0 recs |

Do you like this story?

Comments

I'm going to say it.

I liked what WDR stood for in the beginning, but with every passing day or with each post they make, i hate them more and more. They take credit for the “almost blackout” when even the team that was 20 seconds away from winning the super bowl can’t sell out their stadium without help. That’s not to mention the other 4-6 cities that are actually going to be blacked out. They are pompous and a lot of what i’ve read from their followers and bloggers is some of the most ridiculous bullshit i’ve ever heard.

by brandone on Sep 12, 2009 5:28 PM EDT reply actions 1 recs

my problem with the whole wdr thing is that it’s being presented as a new idea or some kind of provocative revelation, but the “boycott mike brown” movement started in the mid-90s. and the fact is, the only thing a boycott would achieve is more cheapness from mike brown, followed by threats to move the team.

by Raging Clue on Sep 12, 2009 6:34 PM EDT reply actions

RE

I still appreciate what they stand for. Anyway, because of them, it prevents us from bitching about the front office so much and we can stick with the team on the field. My only thought is that I’m not sure a boycott will do much of anything. As you started pointing out RC, there were a ton of games that were blacked out because they weren’t sold out… and did he change?

Although, it took one personnel change to at least raise our level of competitiveness. That one person was Marvin Lewis. Even though we have only one winning season, we weren’t even that close. And the two .500 seasons before Lewis, but after Paul Brown, was achieved by Lewis in his first two seasons.

My fear is that if Lewis leaves, like many people have been calling for, then the Bengals will go out and hire another coach that can’t do much of anything — and Mike Brown has more evidence of that than not. You know?

With all that said, and my natural ability to go into tangents, this season is super-critical for Marvin Lewis, but more importantly, Bengals fans who think Lewis gives us our best shot at a winner because we’re terrified of Brown going out and hiring another incompatible head coach.

Blogger at CincyJungle.com -- SB Nation Cincinnati Bengals blog.

by Josh Kirkendall on Sep 13, 2009 11:32 AM EDT reply actions

agreed on all fronts. i’ll never say a bad word about marvin lewis, since i have a memory that goes beyond 2003; it’s also the reason i’m willing to give katie blackburn some leeway, since she’s the one who convinced her father to hire him.

you're all posers. i hated bratkowski before it was cool.

by Raging Clue on Sep 17, 2009 9:23 PM EDT up reply actions