the problem with a lot of the threads at kingsfans.com these days is that philosophies are at odds without posters acknowledging such differences in philosophy. we have to start asking ourselves some very uncomfortable questions regarding our priorities. i am a graduate student at chico state, but i grew up in roseville, and i've been a kings fan my whole life. i should note, though, that i am not fond of my hometown, and i've never thought of the sacramento area as a particularly attractive place for me to live, so, as somebody who does not intend to tie myself to the area for the remainder of my existence, my opinion will be skewed away from the more popular opinions. however, i think there are still questions worth asking:
why does one support a professional sports franchise to begin with? because of the players? they come and go. because of the style of play? coaching staffs come and go. because of the win/loss record? wins come and go. because of the rivalries? those come and go. because of the city? teams come and go, and, more importantly, with 30 nba teams, and so many thousands of cities across the country, how does the rest of the population affiliate itself? its an old seinfeld joke, but truly, what an individual is rooting for is the jersey. and even those change. so what is there to really hold onto?
i think people wrap themselves up in sports far too much. its not just an american phenomenon, either. but beyond that rather large philosophical point of emphasis, people have a tendency to claim ownership of things that were never theirs to begin with. we want the kings to be "ours," but they were kansas city's before that. and rochester's before that. the team doesn't belong to us. it belongs to rich people who have nothing better to do. this reality couldn't be more clear than it is for sacramento right now. the nba--and all professional sports institutions, at that--is just a collection of very wealthy people showing off their wealth. government functions the same way. its often just powerful people showing off their power. so why should john and jane q. smith sports fans even bother attempting to align themselves with any of these self-interested individuals? they shouldn't. be autonomous, i say.
the maloofs own the kings as a franchise. the fans do not. they can hang a 6th man banner in the rafters, and that's a lovely gesture, but ultimately, the maloofs can do what they want with their team. is it fair to the fans? probably not, especially in anaheim, where there will be an incredible embarrassment of riches with the lakers and clippers right next door. but do the fans even matter in a business environment dominated by the filthy rich? probably not, as well. now is that fair? absolutely not. but that's capitalism. the maloofs may be bad businessmen, but so what? this is america. they have the right to be bad businessmen. what do the maloofs owe the city of sacramento? or you and i? the fans are paying customers, to be sure, and i believe you treat your market with respect. but truth be told, there are paying customers all over the place, and if viable nba business can't get done in sacramento, it'll get done elsewhere.
also, the 17,000+ that used to show up to arco arena nightly were hardly all coming from the city proper itself. a multi-purpose entertainment complex benefits the economy of sacramento, the CITY. there are some trickle-down effects in the direction of surrounding communities, where many of the fans exist, but mostly its the city of sacramento that benefits from a civic standpoint. roseville and lincoln, for example, aren't getting slices of that pie, but i know a lot of kings fans from both of those communities, so what of them? they could show up to arco arena and picket in an attempt to convince the maloofs to stay, but it all boils down to arena politics, and an arena won't be built because of a constituency that exists outside of the province of sacramento. again, its a question of ownership. its not our team, at a fundamental level. it is our team on an emotional level, but the dollar and reason are going to sway ownership so much more than the fan and emotion. if the team one roots for happens to be in a larger market that suits the nba's current business model, then good for those fans. they only have to worry about the win/loss record. the same goes for fans whose teams have insanely rich owners that can bleed resources to keep their team in what would otherwise be an unsustainable market with the nba's current business model. but it's just a roll of the dice. sacramento got the maloofs, who went to great lengths trying to bring a championship to sacramento in the early-2000's, lest we all forget. but, at this point, kings fans are, unfortunately, not among those who don't have to concern themselves with whether or not their team is going to leave.
that's life. the nba's current business model is just not sustainable in smaller markets with outdated arenas. the nba are the bad guys here, by the way. the league is considering contraction in some of its cities because it screwed itself over with a model that can't combat difficult economic times. and all business models in entertainment industries need to be prepared for difficult economic times, because entertainment is the first thing cut from every household's budget when the wallet begins to suffer. i am a kings fan. i am not a sacramento fan. i root for the kings because it was geographically convenient for a very long time. it won't be geographically convenient anymore, but does that matter? it wouldn't seem so, given the attendance at arco arena the last few years. the team's losing, so the fans don't show up. but that was one of my questions above. does one throw their support behind a team solely because of win/loss record? blame the economy, i suppose, but two plus two still equals four, last time i checked. everybody has known for quite some time that the maloofs have been considering relocating the kings. the pressure's been on for ten years, and low attendance was never going to convince the maloofs to stay. its a bummer of a reality, but fans needed to take advantage of all of the insanely cheap ticket deals and packages if the kings were ever going to stay. fans needed to pony up the cash they would have otherwise saved because of tough economic times. is it fair? once again, it is not. but business in america has never been fair. if sacramento kings fans in the sacramento area valued their team enough, there would be a dollar value attached to the emotional commitment, and the chances that the kings would stay would have been increased. but even then, it was no guarantee.
in general, small markets often have these tremendous inferiority complexes when it comes to professional sports, as if an entrenched kings team in anaheim wouldn't someday have a loyal following of die-hard fans worth just as much to their team as sacramento fans were to the kings at the turn of the millenium. we want to believe otherwise, but that's just the resentment creeping through. it takes some time for a franchise in a new city to cement a bond with their fans, but are oklahoma city fans any less deserving to have a team to rightfully or wrongfully call their own just because things fell apart in seattle? once again, sense of ownership is misplaced on the part of the fan. but i guess that's also part of being a fan: it drives the sensibility of the individual beyond reason. i will root for the kings until i have a reason to root for somebody else. what reason will that be? i have no idea. i guess that's up to me to decide. should i root for the warriors because they're now the closest game in town? or the blazers because portland is one of my favorite city's on the west coast. or the thunder because sam presti is "doing it right." or the boston celtics because they're a storied franchise who wins a lot? or the heat because they're the flavor of the season? or the knicks because they're the flavor of the month? it'll probably be for none of those reasons. it'll probably end up being something illogical, because that's the nature of sports fandom.
now, i understand why so many here are upset. its just fascinating to me that kingsfans.com seems so blindsided by all of this. how long has the "new arena" forum been open? years? how long have all of us known that the kings needed a new arena to stay? even more years? how many failed attempts at getting an arena deal brokered has kingsfans.com personally witnessed? how many appraisals has kingsfans.com witnessed of the likelihood of such an arena deal becoming a reality? how many of those more recent appraisals have determined an arena deal's simple lack of viability in sacramento in a recession? the answers to these questions are well known to all who have been committed to the issue for awhile now, and that doesn't mean that kings fans should give up hope that their team might stay. however, there always was very little that any of the little people could accomplish, beyond investing in the kings monetarily. some things are just out of our control. we can blame whoever we want. sometimes its useful to vent anger in the direction of some force of power that we don't interact with regularly. but i think its more useful to consider just what it is you are a fan of. if it's a team that is, at present, called the kings, then there's no reason to stop rooting for them. if it's a city called sacramento, then i suppose you'll just have to wait and see if another nba team rolls into town. if its a history called the sacramento kings as you've followed them for the last twenty-five years, then it might be time to start letting go, unfortunate as it is. memories don't change. attitudes do, but memories aren't going anywhere, and it is possible to make new ones, whether with a team in another city or with a new sacramento franchise, should the future dictate such a circumstance.
