NBA - Main

I reject the entire premise of the question. As a Warriors fan in the 90s and early 00s, we were the ones critical of the homerism of Fitz when he took over from Papa. He was an overeager apologist for a dysfunctional and absentee ownership. He was and remains a company man, which I can't fault as a survival strategy (that's obviously worked) but has undermined the integrity of the on-air product as far as listeners are concerned. In those days, Jim Barnett gave a perspective that wasn't mired in blind loyalty to ownership, was quick to praise the skill of opponents, and would critique the on-court decision-making of bad basketball in Warriors jerseys. He would often admit on air that the Warriors were lucky to get the break of a bad call. He was an advocate for the game, while Fitz was an advocate of ownership's brand. They did not get along, we have come to learn, and the company man won out, while the excellent Barnett was shown the door in stages. So I reject the notion that it's natural for Warriors fans to embrace homerism, when that has not historically been the case.