Regardless of the argument about "bandwagonning," you can't just gauge the size of a team's fan base, or its degree of loyalty, by attendance at the ballpark. I follow my team all season long, root for them without question, and occasionally buy some merchandise, but I only go to one or two games a year. I don't have an impact on attendance figures, but I'm a loyal fan and I have been all my life. You've got to factor in people like me if you really want to measure this stuff.
Given this, I do think it's fair to assume that storied teams with long histories of ups and downs (e.g. the Phillies) have bigger and stronger fan bases than upstart teams (e.g. the Rays), and also to believe that dedicated fandom shows more character than the "newfound passion," "consumer choice" kind of fandom you're talking about—even though there's nothing wrong with the latter. But I'm also compelled to wonder why we should give a shit about such things, and people who complain about bandwagon fans need better things to worry about.
Much of the initial coverage about Fort Hood turned out to be wrong. Is there anything wrong with that?
The accountability imposed by another country for the CIA's kidnapping and torture reveals much about our own.
Fox News' morning show plays to type, talking about whether Muslims in the Army should face "special debriefings"
219 Democrats and one Republican join in favor of the legislation, which passed by a narrow margin
The survivor and author is upset about comparisons some on the right are making to genocide
Salon headlines in your mailbox