Chumps for change

Falcons fans are fickle, bur they're no suckers, either. They an example of how real power can be wielded a wallet. You have the power with your team, too.

Far be it from me to stuff a banana in the tailpipe of the Falcons' bandwagon, but did anybody else notice this team sold out only three home games tiffs season?

OK, there was plenty of doubt about their legitimacy in the first half of the season. Personally, I slapped the "for real" tag on them after they beat the Patriots 41-10 in Week 10. That wasn't enough evidence for some people, but who could doubt them after they beat the 49ers a week later?

Apparently, the people of Atlanta could--and did. The Falcons had about 17,000 empty seats in their next two home games after beating San Francisco.

That really doesn't come as a surprise, as Atlanta is about as far from being a first-rate pro sports town as you can get.

Withholding support for a resurgent Falcons team is just one example of the fickle nature of Atlanta fans; the Braves and Hawks have had trouble selling out playoff games for most of the '90s. If, say, the Eagles suddenly were 8-2 after beating the Cowboys in Week 11, fans would be piling on the bandwagon like Buddy Ryan on a cheese steak sandwich.

But in today's sports world, does that really make Eagles fans better than Falcons fans? Most people would say yes, but I'm not so sure.

Let's talk about that word "bandwagon." In my mom's generation, people who went out and supported a consistently losing team were admired, hearty die-hards who stayed loyal to their team through thick and thin. And if you suddenly started showing up after a team started winning, you were a bandwagoner, the bottom-feeders of the sports food chain. But I think that's starting to change--maybe not when it comes to supporting a team with your heart, but certainly when it comes to supporting a team with your wallet. Today, fans who consistently pay to watch a losing team are starting to be seen for what they really are:

Chumps.

The Falcons have been lousy for most of their existence. In the 1990s, Falcons fans lost Brett Favre and Deion Sanders and got Jerry Glanville in return. If it wasn't June Jones vs. Jeff George, it was Andre Rison vs. Lisa Left-Eye. Can you blame them for not handing over their money to a team that thought the nm-and-shoot would revolutionize the league? They might not be the most loyal fans around, but they're no suckers, either.

Contrast that with another team that has been lousy for a long time, the Cubs. Sorry, Cubs fans, but you're the biggest bunch of chumps in the sports world. It long has been my theory that as long as the sun was warm and the beer was cold, the Cubs could field a team of three-legged donkeys and still draw three million a year.

Cubs fans think their team is cursed. As A. Whitney Brown once said of the apocalypse, "When the small bears from the windy place take the flag, then shall ye know the end is near." But the Cubs don't bite because of any hex. They bite became their fans don't give the team's management any incentive to put a good team on the field. And since the team--gasp!--made the playoffs last season, management is free to raise ticket prices and not sign a single impact free agent. Cubs fans have plenty of power to wield, but they choose not to.

When TSN released the 1998 edition of its annual list of the 100 Most Powerful People in Sports, we received several letters from readers suggesting we omitted some of the most powerful people of all: sports fans. "Oh, please," I thought. Leagues have lockouts. Franchises switch cities. And fans continue to hand over their money.

That's power? I don't think so.

But after watching the way Atlanta treated the Falcons this season, forcing them to put a good product on the field, I'm starting to think fans might have a chance of gaining back some power. But there's a catch: It won't work unless we all work together.

Fans have tried to organize before. In 1977, consumer advocate Ralph Nader tried to form a fans union called F.A.N.S.--The Fight to Advance Nation's Sports. For membership dues of $9 a year, fans would have been part of a group to represent their interests to leagues, owners, even to Congress. Nice idea, but it flopped.

Hey, don't blame me; I was three years old at the time. Could a fans union work for our generation? Maybe. We have something they didn't back in '77: The Web. Fans want to unite, they just haven't found the mechanism to spread the word. Witness what happened in Cincinnati a few months ago. Fed-up Bengals fans tried to organize a second-half walkout, but only a handful of fans left the game. Suffice it to say Bengals president Mike Brown didn't get the message. Bruce Coslet and all his assistants will return next season.

A couple of users on THE SPORTING NEWS' website are trying to unite fans, and they're using the Web to do it. There are only a few members of this group, also called F.A.N.S., but it's one bandwagon we should all be quick to jump on.