As if its baseball and football franchises haven't been on the national stage competing for a championship three times in the last 6 years.
Apparently, you aren't reading major sports publications like Sports Illustrated or CBS Sports and so on, because it's almost as if the Chiefs didn't win the Super Bowl or even exist!
Albert Breer's columns almost always focus on the Patriots and the Belichick tree and there's very little info from week to week about the Chiefs on any other news or sports site. One of those writers recently said that he thinks that "We're taking the Chiefs for granted", without delving any deeper into it.
Also, I've said it before and I'll say it again, people nationally just don't care about the Royals 2014 and 2015 seasons. It's never mentioned in sports publications that the Royals were WS champs. CBS had a ranking of the best World Series in the past decade and the 2015 Royals came in at #8 out of 10.
Point being the Kansas City area could most certainly use more exposure. [Reply]
Originally Posted by DaneMcCloud:
Apparently, you aren't reading major sports publications like Sports Illustrated or CBS Sports and so on, because it's almost as if the Chiefs didn't win the Super Bowl or even exist!
Albert Breer's columns almost always focus on the Patriots and the Belichick tree and there's very little info from week to week about the Chiefs on any other news or sports site. One of those writers recently said that he thinks that "We're taking the Chiefs for granted", without delving any deeper into it.
Also, I've said it before and I'll say it again, people nationally just don't care about the Royals 2014 and 2015 seasons. It's never mentioned in sports publications that the Royals were WS champs. CBS had a ranking of the best World Series in the past decade and the 2015 Royals came in at #8 out of 10.
Point being the Kansas City area could most certainly use more exposure.
Well for one, by and large nobody cares about baseball save for their own local team so that's a different discussion.
As for your main point.. Colin Cowherd, for as much as what he is, nailed it in describing his standpoint thus: draw a 'U' shape across a map of the CONUS starting from Seattle, head south to California, bend east through central Texas then curve north up along the Atlantic seaboard all the way to Boston. Teams in the cities touching that 'U' matter and the rest don't.
That reality is reflected in coverage by SI, ESPN, the Athletic, whoever.
No amount of 'exposure' will change that. Not for KC or any other city you can think of that lies within the 'U' shape. [Reply]
Originally Posted by Discuss Thrower;15307377[i:
No amount of 'exposure' will change that.[/i] Not for KC or any other city you can think of that lies within the 'U' shape.
If the Raptors or any other successful NBA team moved to Kansas City, there would be at least 40 nights in which the city would be featured on ESPN, TNT and/or ABC, giving the metro area far more national exposure than exists today.
When I mention Kansas City to new people I meet, whether it's parents or doctors or just about any walk of life, the first thing that always comes up is the BBQ. And believe it or not, there are people out there that have never seen Mahomes play, let alone, know that he was the Super Bowl MVP.
I think that will change as his legend grows in the post-season but your U-shaped analogy does make some sense, although we disagree with the premise that an NBA team wouldn't provide great exposure for the city. [Reply]
Originally Posted by DaneMcCloud:
If the Raptors or any other successful NBA team moved to Kansas City, there would be at least 40 nights in which the city would be featured on ESPN, TNT and/or ABC, giving the metro area far more national exposure than exists today.
When I mentioned Kansas City to new people I meet, whether it's parents or doctors or just about any walk of life, the first thing that always comes up is the BBQ. And believe it or not, there are people out there that have never seen Mahomes play, let alone, know that he was the Super Bowl MVP.
I think that will change as his legend grows in the post-season but your U-shaped analogy does make some sense.
The analogy came from someone talking privately with Cowherd. The rest of the line is "I only care about what's in that 'U' shape because people there like to get laid." So that's something.
I wish I would have saved my source on this but alas.
But putting KC aside since (ostensibly) we both have a positive bias, think of how relevant Chicago is. They get constant exposure through representation in every major pro sport.. but I dare say the random jerkoff in New York, Miami, Dallas or Los Angeles will associate Chicago with the Bulls (who have largely sucked for two decades), the Cubs and then the Bears if you'd ask said jerkoff. Maybe they'll throw in their take on the casserole that is Chicago style pizza, idk.
They're the third largest city in the country and prior to the Cubs finally winning a WS and the Blackhawks taking three Stanley Cups in the last 10 years yet the association the average American might make with Chicago is Jordan's Bulls... which speaks more of Jordan than it does the Bulls. [Reply]
Originally Posted by Discuss Thrower:
Well for one, by and large nobody cares about baseball save for their own local team so that's a different discussion.
As for your main point.. Colin Cowherd, for as much as what he is, nailed it in describing his standpoint thus: draw a 'U' shape across a map of the CONUS starting from Seattle, head south to California, bend east through central Texas then curve north up along the Atlantic seaboard all the way to Boston. Teams in the cities touching that 'U' matter and the rest don't.
That reality is reflected in coverage by SI, ESPN, the Athletic, whoever.
No amount of 'exposure' will change that. Not for KC or any other city you can think of that lies within the 'U' shape.