KUER0%

With a taste of the playoffs, Utah Mammoth fans are now all-in on their team 74%

By Devyn Latorre0%

4/28/2026, 6:44:01 PM

BS Summary: This article contains 22 faulty reasoning types, including In-Group Bias, Anecdotal, and Availability Heuristic, with Post Hoc (False Cause) as the most egregious example at 22% saturation with 141 hits. Analysis detected 1,102 faulty-reasoning hits from 641 analyzed words, generating a BS Score of 65.5% and a BS Rank of 74% (5,877 of 21,886 articles). This article is worse (more manipulative) than 73.20% of the article peer group.

It was a sold-out crowd for the Utah Mammoth's first-ever home Stanley Cup Playoff game against the Vegas Golden Knights. 
But not every hockey enthusiast was at the Delta Center for that historic opener. 
Just a 40-minute drive away, Boneyard Saloon in Park City was filled with fans clad in black, blue and white, ready to bring 'Tusks Up' energy into a highly anticipated game. 
As soon as the first puck dropped, all eyes were glued to the TV. 
"They love it," said Boneyard Manager Regina Lucero. 
She said many of the fans who attended the bar's first official watch party at the start of the playoff series showed up to watch the first home playoff game as well. 
"They love the food, the atmosphere, it's amazing." 
For the first 12 minutes, the pressure in the bar mirrored the high-stakes energy of a Game 7. 
There wasn't a phone in sight  all the attention was on the game. 
Even the food on the tables seemed like an afterthought. 
Everyone held their breath to see who would score first, in hopes that the Mammoth would come out on top. 
And then it happened. 
Utah defenseman MacKenzie Weegar ripped a slapshot that bounced off the goalie and into the back of the net. 
The bar erupted in cheers, and groups high-fived each other as if they were at the Delta Center themselves, sporting big, relieved smiles. 
At the end of the first period, the Mammoth had taken a 2-0 lead, which brought the energy back to equilibrium. 
People remembered their phones and resumed their conversations. 
In the second period, Utah was up by four, and by then, many fans had paid their tab and trickled out. 
But a few stayed until the end, including Park City locals Debbie and Kurt Hultberg. 
The couple showed up repping their Mammoth gear, but their love of watching the NHL is rooted in the Midwest. 
They both grew up in Chicago, and Debbie said that in her twenties, she worked for a company that had season tickets for employees, so they attended "many games." 
"We were Blackhawks fans," Kurt said, explaining that they kept rooting for that team even once they moved out West. 
But once the Mammoth came to Utah, everything changed. 
"There's a lot of fans from other teams, but now we're starting to shift over," he said. 
"People are converting to be Mammoth fans." 
Now, the Hultbergs are Mammoth season-ticket holders, and even went to see the team in Las Vegas for the first two games of the series. 
For seven years, Vegas had the closest NHL franchise to Salt Lake City, growing a solid fanbase for the Golden Knights in the Beehive State. 
But after Utah established its NHL franchise in 2024, fans began trading in their gold for blue. 
Before the first home playoff game, Mammoth owners Ryan and Ashley Smith offered a one-time deal where fans could bring their Vegas jerseys to the Delta Center in exchange for a new Utah Mammoth home jersey, which can cost up to $250. 
Nearly 1,000 people showed up. 
"Everybody within Utah is really, you know, everyone's really behind the team," Kurt Hultberg said. 
"We're definitely looking forward to the future." 
Lucero, Boneyard's manager, said hockey has brought the community together. 
"Hockey has been one of the things that a lot of people love, and just for us to have something that's our own, I feel like it, it really makes people, like, happier, and kind of, you know, just want to be a part of it," she said. 
And with the best-of-seven series tied 2-2, there's even more ahead. 
Game 5 on April 29 is back in Las Vegas, where the puck will drop at 8 p.m. 
MT. 
Article reasoning-pattern comparisonThis article: 9.8%Devyn Latorre: 1.2%KUER: 2.8%Confirmation Bias9.8%This article: 0.0%Devyn Latorre: 0.4%KUER: 1.3%Anchoring Bias0.0%This article: 13.4%Devyn Latorre: 1.9%KUER: 3.4%Availability Heuristic13.4%This article: 7.6%Devyn Latorre: 0.4%KUER: 1.2%Representativeness Heuristic7.6%This article: 3.3%Devyn Latorre: 0.3%KUER: 0.5%Hindsight Bias3.3%This article: 0.0%Devyn Latorre: 1.6%KUER: 1.9%Overconfidence Bias0.0%This article: 8.9%Devyn Latorre: 3.3%KUER: 7.4%Framing Effect8.9%This article: 0.0%Devyn Latorre: 0.5%KUER: 1.3%Loss Aversion0.0%This article: 5.8%Devyn Latorre: 1.0%KUER: 1.2%Status Quo Bias5.8%This article: 0.0%Devyn Latorre: 0.5%KUER: 0.3%Sunk Cost Effect0.0%This article: 2.8%Devyn Latorre: 3.8%KUER: 4.4%Optimism Bias2.8%This article: 0.0%Devyn Latorre: 1.0%KUER: 2.4%Pessimism Bias0.0%This article: 3.7%Devyn Latorre: 2.9%KUER: 6.3%Negativity Bias3.7%This article: 3.9%Devyn Latorre: 0.8%KUER: 2.2%Self-Serving Bias3.9%This article: 0.0%Devyn Latorre: 0.0%KUER: 0.9%Fundamental Attribution Error0.0%This article: 0.0%Devyn Latorre: 0.2%KUER: 0.2%Actor-Observer Bias0.0%This article: 21.2%Devyn Latorre: 3.5%KUER: 1.9%In-Group Bias21.2%This article: 0.0%Devyn Latorre: 0.0%KUER: 0.6%Out-Group Homogeneity Bias0.0%This article: 9.5%Devyn Latorre: 2.0%KUER: 2.3%Halo Effect9.5%This article: 0.0%Devyn Latorre: 0.0%KUER: 0.1%Horn Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Devyn Latorre: 0.0%KUER: 0.0%Dunning-Kruger Effect0.0%This article: 1.7%Devyn Latorre: 1.7%KUER: 1.2%Recency Bias1.7%This article: 0.0%Devyn Latorre: 0.0%KUER: 0.3%Primacy Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Devyn Latorre: 0.0%KUER: 0.1%Blind-Spot Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Devyn Latorre: 0.0%KUER: 0.6%Ad Hominem0.0%This article: 0.0%Devyn Latorre: 0.0%KUER: 0.4%Straw Man0.0%This article: 0.0%Devyn Latorre: 2.6%KUER: 4.7%Appeal to Authority0.0%This article: 0.0%Devyn Latorre: 0.3%KUER: 1.7%False Dilemma0.0%This article: 0.0%Devyn Latorre: 0.2%KUER: 1.1%Slippery Slope0.0%This article: 0.0%Devyn Latorre: 0.2%KUER: 0.2%Circular Reasoning0.0%This article: 10.8%Devyn Latorre: 3.6%KUER: 4.1%Hasty Generalization10.8%This article: 0.0%Devyn Latorre: 0.0%KUER: 0.2%Red Herring0.0%This article: 1.1%Devyn Latorre: 0.7%KUER: 0.7%Bandwagon1.1%This article: 7.5%Devyn Latorre: 2.5%KUER: 5.6%Appeal to Emotion7.5%This article: 0.0%Devyn Latorre: 0.2%KUER: 0.7%Begging the Question0.0%This article: 22.0%Devyn Latorre: 2.1%KUER: 2.4%Post Hoc (False Cause)22.0%This article: 0.0%Devyn Latorre: 0.0%KUER: 0.1%Tu Quoque0.0%This article: 0.0%Devyn Latorre: 0.3%KUER: 0.4%Burden of Proof0.0%This article: 0.0%Devyn Latorre: 0.5%KUER: 0.2%Appeal to Nature0.0%This article: 3.1%Devyn Latorre: 0.3%KUER: 0.3%Composition/Division3.1%This article: 19.7%Devyn Latorre: 5.4%KUER: 3.1%Anecdotal19.7%This article: 0.0%Devyn Latorre: 0.0%KUER: 0.1%No True Scotsman0.0%This article: 7.0%Devyn Latorre: 1.1%KUER: 1.5%Ambiguity (Equivocation)7.0%This article: 0.0%Devyn Latorre: 0.0%KUER: 0.0%Gambler’s Fallacy0.0%This article: 0.0%Devyn Latorre: 0.0%KUER: 0.2%Middle Ground0.0%This article: 0.0%Devyn Latorre: 0.3%KUER: 0.1%Personal Incredulity0.0%This article: 0.0%Devyn Latorre: 0.0%KUER: 0.1%Special Pleading0.0%This article: 0.0%Devyn Latorre: 0.0%KUER: 0.2%Genetic Fallacy0.0%This article: 1.2%Devyn Latorre: 0.4%KUER: 0.8%Unattributed Quote1.2%This article: 1.2%Devyn Latorre: 0.5%KUER: 0.7%Quote-first Misdirection1.2%This article: 0.0%Devyn Latorre: 2.2%KUER: 2.2%Biased Writer Voice0.0%This article: 0.0%Devyn Latorre: 1.3%KUER: 1.6%Indoctrination0.0%This article: 0.0%Devyn Latorre: 0.0%KUER: 0.8%Politically Left Leaning Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Devyn Latorre: 0.0%KUER: 0.3%Politically Right Leaning Bias0.0%This article: 6.6%Devyn Latorre: 1.0%KUER: 1.0%Attempt to Sell a Product or S…6.6%

641 words analyzed.

Speakers

3speakers31%attributed speech440writer words
Voice mapSelect a segment to jump to its words
Writer's voice • 15 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 20 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 14 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 31 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 14 words • 0.0% coverageRegina Lucero • 8 words • 100.0% coverageRegina Lucero • 32 words • 0.0% coverageRegina Lucero • 8 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 18 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 14 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 10 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 20 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 4 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 19 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 23 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 21 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 8 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 21 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 15 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 20 words • 0.0% coverageDebbie Hultberg • 29 words • 0.0% coverageKurt Hultberg • 20 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 9 words • 0.0% coverageKurt Hultberg • 17 words • 0.0% coverageKurt Hultberg • 7 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 25 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 25 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 17 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 42 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 5 words • 0.0% coverageKurt Hultberg • 15 words • 0.0% coverageKurt Hultberg • 7 words • 0.0% coverageRegina Lucero • 10 words • 0.0% coverageRegina Lucero • 48 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 11 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 18 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 1 words • 0.0% coverage
Selected voice

Regina Lucero

100%flagged-word coverage
106 attributed words53% of attributed speech82% writer coverage
0%5.0%10.0%Attempt to Sell a Product -9.5 ptsWriter: 9.5%Regina Lucero: 0.0%0.0%Unattributed Quote+7.5 ptsWriter: 0.0%Regina Lucero: 7.5%7.5%Quote-first Misdirection+7.5 ptsWriter: 0.0%Regina Lucero: 7.5%7.5%

Attribution is sentence-level. Pattern percentages are calculated only from words assigned to that voice.

Loading…
Loading…
Loading…
Loading…
Loading…
Loading…

Analysis

Hover over highlighted words in the article to view the associated bias or fallacy analysis.