Via Tom Ziller's SacTown Royalty, we find that our old friend Channing Frye (or as Daily News writer Frank Isola has taken to calling him lately, "Not Andrew Bynum") has a post in his blog about where he (and "most NBA players") rank the city of Sacramento:
"Hopefully he’ll make Sacramento a better city because right now it’s on the bottom of every NBA player’s list of road-trip cities."
Now, my first reaction was, well, yeah, that makes sense. Of course some of the Kings wonderful bloggers, notably Tom Ziller, had a bit of a problem with that classification. In fact, Ziller unbuttons his collar for once on this one, found in the comments section of Frye's post:
We’ll toss a note in the suggestion box regarding the discomfort of the visitor’s bench. Two hours on that thing must be rough.
Seriously, Sac’s getting ripped by the guy who went to school in Tucson? Maybe Channing’s getting stopped at the door at Avalon? No ballcaps, man! Buy some slacks!
Bring a cushion next time and maybe the bench won’t hurt your ass so much.
Well, we love seeing Ziller talk trash! And, in fact, we'll make a note to not provoke him too much in the future, lest he spit some of that vitriol at us.
But, all that aside... can you really argue that Sacramento isn't the worst "city" to visit on a road-trip for an NBA player? First off, I would give props to Frye for being diplomatic enough to use the word "city" to describe Sacramento. And I'm going to admit that, despite knowing more about geography than almost anyone in the blogosphere (I'll back my words up - I dominated the test for Carmen Sandiego so much when I was 11 that that they wouldn't have me on the show because I scored too high - absolutely true, you can score too high on those game show tests), I had difficulty even spelling "Sacramento", initially starting to spell it "Sacremento" before realizing that didn't look right.
Now honestly - what other "city" in the US do you think you might realistically have trouble spelling? Honolulu? Nope, got it right on the first try. It's actually really simple.
More importantly... who goes to Sacramento for "tourism"? Wikipedia's section on tourism in the US has a list of over 30 cities that are tourist attractions. It lists most NBA cities, and a few non-NBA cities, including the very touristy Las Vegas and Austin, plus a few major cities that don't have teams - Baltimore - and a few places that, sheeeet, aren't that great, but are apparently still better destinations to visit than Sacramento. Namely Louisville, Nashville, Toiletville, and Charleston.
Among the NBA cities listed on the tourism list: Salt Lake City (better than you think - Mormons know how to get down, even if they won't let you drink); Milwaukee (speaking of drinking), and Memphis (dodging bullets since the 1880's).
The only NBA cities not listed, and therefore the only possible competitors to Sacramento as the "bottom of every NBA player's road-trip city":
Toronto - does not appear on the list because it is not a U.S. city. However, in my experiences there, it is quite the party city. Just don't get tricked into going to Canadian Wonderland.
The NJ Nets - Currently in NJ, but close enough to NYC, and soon to be located in Brooklyn.
Indiana - I'm not sure why Indianapolis didn't make the list. I guess the Indy 500 isn't much of a tourist destination anymore? Well, I've been to Indianapolis, and while I admit its not a major city, it can hold it's own against the likes of Sacramento. You got a capitol? Sheeeet, so do Indy, baby! And they got a football team, too. With a Manning. And fans in NYC (right DJM?).
Houston - shocking not to see the fourth-largest city in the country not on the list. On the other hand, it is the fourth-largest city in the US. Sacramento is the 37th largest city in the US by population. In fact, if you listed NBA cities by population, Sacramento would have the lowest population of any city whose population was not devastated by, and forced to relocate due to, a hurricane in the past three years. Other than the Nets, of course.
Charlotte, for example (home of some team known as the Bobcats) is the 20th largest city in the US.
In fact, the only city that can really compete with Sacramento in terms of "worst road-trip city" is, of course, Frye's current home "city" of Portland (#31 in population). But he can't really talk trash about his hometown, right? But the rest of us can. So to Tom Ziller and his legion of Kings fans, I offer two options:
1. Kindly remind Channing Frye that Portland ain't exactly The Hotness, or
2. Wait until the Oklahoma City SuperSonics arrive to take the crown from ya'll.
Leave a comment
|
8 Comments
Comments
I've been to a lot of places in this country, and Sacramento has got to be near the top on my list of the worst. Everything was closed by about 9 pm (not that I'm a party animal, but sometimes a late dinner is in order) and I never saw a soul on the streets. Boise is ten times more fun than Sacramento, and that's saying something.
Also, if you ever watch a Kings game, pay special attention to how poorly lit the Arco Arena is. I went to see the Spurs play there once, and I didn't even know I was near the arena until I was literally in the parking lot. There appears to be one light, and it says "Arco", so I just assumed I could stop and get some gas.
Oh, and people often have trouble spelling Albuquerque. I don't, but some do.
And, for the record, Portland is gorgeous and can be a fun place to visit.
Wow, first of all, downtown Sac has gone a bit of a revitalization in terms of restaurants over the last five years. That nine o'clock stuff is an old stereotype of the city. I've been to Boise, and Sac KILLS it.
Second, those population numbers you use are not accurate. The actual physical area of Sacramento city is not that big, hence what looks like the lowest pop in the NBA. Sac's metro population, which is the true measure of the size of a city, is over 2 million. The TV market is also the 20th largest in the country.
For example...the city of Atlanta's population is also very small, and barely bigger than Sac's...why? because the actual city is not that big. Atlanta's metro pop is over 5 million though. Sounds like you've never even been to Sac, my friend....Details, details.
I've been to just about every NBA city, and there is no way that Memphis, Milwaukee, Ok City, Cleveland, Orlando or Salt Lake City come close...
Pete: You bring up a good point, in that Sacramento does have a large surrounding "metro area". Which is to say, it has a bunch of suburbs and strip malls. Sort of like Raleigh-Durham. Those places are never any fun to visit as a tourist/on business... you have to know "where to go" to even find anything, as Erin said, open after 9. Or to find the "cool bars". Since visiting players aren't staying in the surrounding area, but in the actual city proper, I have to say that Channing had a valid point.
We'll take OKC out of the equation (like I said at the end of the article, it will take the crown from Sac), but come on... Orlando? Orlando is one of the favorite destinations of NBA players (you think they don't love cheesy amusement parks? They are mostly in their early 20's, right?). Cleveland and Milwaukee are cities with decent city areas to go check out and hang out in.
I'll give you Memphis and SLC as the closest to Sactown.
I was in downtown Sacramento in December 2004. If it's changed since then, my apologies. But based on what I saw, it would take a hell of a lot of revitalizing to make it even marginally better than it was three years ago.
Erin--to be honest, it really has changed a bunch in the last five/four years. There has been a real trend to move back downtown. They had two massive 50-story condo projects that were in the process of getting built before the housing market shelved everything. That being said, you were right, five years ago the late night dining in this city consisted of Carrows and Lyons...it's changed. Is it NYC? Nope, but much better.
I'm not just saying this to add to my argument, but I worked in the NBA, and traveled with several teams. Orlando is definitely not a favorite....
What these guys are looking for is exactly what you said. Proximity to clubs and bars and or strip bars (despite what Frye said, he's in the minority on this one), and restaurants close to the hotel. Sac is exactly like 10 other NBA cities in that regard. You could throw them all in a bag. Is it the worst? No way, the weather single handedly prevents that.
To be honest, Sac is a city you need to live in to appreciate. Hell, Chris Webber came to love the place. He spent his weekends here the last year while he wasn't playing
Sacramento blows. There's nothing there. There's a reason all those fans were able to get cowbells that quickly. That place sucks.
There, I said it.
/native Californian