Soxtalk

[JLucky]

I thought it was funny as hell until I noticed the scoreboard shot. Whoever included that has no concept of human suffering and deserves the same fate someday - seeing the sum of his baseball hopes and dreams flushed in a matter of minutes.

 

There is nothing like that here at NSBB. WSI is as big a bastion of bastards as any other Sox board.

 

To each their own. I have no problem with the scoreboard, and would not if someone here posted something similar about the Sox.

 

However, I do see a lot of signatures regarding all Sox fans as trash, drunks, etc.

 

That sort of thing is just silly to me.

[Transmogrified Tiger]

I thought it was funny as hell until I noticed the scoreboard shot. Whoever included that has no concept of human suffering and deserves the same fate someday - seeing the sum of his baseball hopes and dreams flushed in a matter of minutes.

 

There is nothing like that here at NSBB. WSI is as big a bastion of bastards as any other Sox board.

 

To each their own. I have no problem with the scoreboard, and would not if someone here posted something similar about the Sox.

 

However, I do see a lot of signatures regarding all Sox fans as trash, drunks, etc.

 

That sort of thing is just silly to me.

 

A lot? I can recall one, that's a quote insinuating about Sox fans.

[BleedCubbieBlue81]

Road attendence rates so far this year:

 

Cubs are averaging 82.0% capacity - 3rd in the majors VERY close to Boston and New York

 

Cardinals are averaging 64.7% capacity - 20th in the majors

 

White Sox are averaging 59.0% capacity - 28th in the majors. The only teams that draw more on the road are the Royals and Tigers. :shock:

 

Wow I'm shocked by this, I would have thought the cards would do much better when their away. Not that I think your wrong or anything but I was wondering where you got these stats.

 

Sorry for the delay, I had a long weekend, so I wasn't able to post on here. But I get my stats from http://sports.espn.go.com/mlb/attendance.

 

I actually thought I put the link in my original post, but I guess I forgot. I normally never believe stats on message boards without a link or something to back them up, so that's my bad.

[vaball]

Interesting - well, I wouldn't neccessarily refer to the Cards fanbase as enormous .....maybe in few parts of the midwest and around St. Louis. Take a trip to the west coast and compare the amount of Cubs hats to Cards hats....I lived there for a long time, and never met a single Cards fan - yet ran into plenty of cub fans.

 

On a side note, I was talking to a buddy of mine the other day, who is a life-long diehard Cardinals fan. He was going on and on about he disgusted he was with the "bandwagon" cardinals fans......thought that was mighty interesting. Then, at last weeks matchup at Busch, I spent the entire game sandwiched between 2 ladies talking on their cellphones throughout the entire game.

 

"To say that Cubs fans are more devoted than fans in other cities with equally long baseball history is just self-promotion." - In retort to your statement I would have to say it takes ALOT more devotion to root for a losing team year in, year out than it does to root for one that wins all the time.

 

There were a ton of Cardinal fans at those Dodger games this weekend, especially yesterday.

 

The Cards fanbase is very large, not just a "few parts" around the mid-west and St. Louis. Include southern Illinois, parts of Indiana, southern Iowa, most of Arkansas, Oklahoma, parts of Tennesse, and the many people who get KMOX hundreds of miles away from St. Louis but had no local baseball team to root for when they grew up.

 

And I don't think Cubs fans want to start throwing stones over bandwagon fans. Where were all those loyal cub fans in the 50's, 60's, 70's, 80's, and most of the 90's? Definitely not at Wrigley. Prior to 1999 the Cubs averaged over 30,000 fans per game only twice, ever. They've only drawn over 3 million fans once, ever, in 2004.

 

I know there are plenty of absolute die hard Cubs fans out there, but for the past few years the Cubs bandwagon has been monstrous.

[Inthecards]

Interesting - well, I wouldn't neccessarily refer to the Cards fanbase as enormous .....maybe in few parts of the midwest and around St. Louis. Take a trip to the west coast and compare the amount of Cubs hats to Cards hats....I lived there for a long time, and never met a single Cards fan - yet ran into plenty of cub fans.

 

On a side note, I was talking to a buddy of mine the other day, who is a life-long diehard Cardinals fan. He was going on and on about he disgusted he was with the "bandwagon" cardinals fans......thought that was mighty interesting. Then, at last weeks matchup at Busch, I spent the entire game sandwiched between 2 ladies talking on their cellphones throughout the entire game.

 

"To say that Cubs fans are more devoted than fans in other cities with equally long baseball history is just self-promotion." - In retort to your statement I would have to say it takes ALOT more devotion to root for a losing team year in, year out than it does to root for one that wins all the time.

 

There were a ton of Cardinal fans at those Dodger games this weekend, especially yesterday.

 

The Cards fanbase is very large, not just a "few parts" around the mid-west and St. Louis. Include southern Illinois, parts of Indiana, southern Iowa, most of Arkansas, Oklahoma, parts of Tennesse, and the many people who get KMOX hundreds of miles away from St. Louis but had no local baseball team to root for when they grew up.

 

And I don't think Cubs fans want to start throwing stones over bandwagon fans. Where were all those loyal cub fans in the 50's, 60's, 70's, 80's, and most of the 90's? Definitely not at Wrigley. Prior to 1999 the Cubs averaged over 30,000 fans per game only twice, ever. They've only drawn over 3 million fans once, ever, in 2004.

 

I know there are plenty of absolute die hard Cubs fans out there, but for the past few years the Cubs bandwagon has been monstrous.

 

dont for get Kentucky...there are alot of Card fans here also :wink:

 

1st post here: I am a card fan and look forward to some good discussions

[JLucky]

I know there are plenty of absolute die hard Cubs fans out there, but for the past few years the Cubs bandwagon has been monstrous.

 

 

Thank you.

 

Get over the attendance thing, Cubs fans.

 

Bandwagoneers suck. Its fun, as a Sox fan, to know US Cellular is filled up now. But it sucks that its both hard to get good tickets, and when you do you're jam packed with people that know nothing of the team or the game.

 

I assume that most people on this board are real fans, by virtue of the fact that you're posting here.

 

But if you honestly think that the Cubs have more die-hard, real fans than the Sox, you're silly. Its even all around, and probably is along with most teams.

 

If Wrigleyville turned into a ghetto again, and the Cubs were losing year after year, you'd draw just like us (the White Sox). Its happened before.

 

I personally wouldn't care either way... I don't judge things on attendance.

[J.R.]

But if you honestly think that the Cubs have more die-hard, real fans than the Sox, you're silly. Its even all around, and probably is along with most teams.

 

That's the most ridiculous thing I've seen posted here in a long, long time.

 

If Wrigleyville turned into a ghetto again, and the Cubs were losing year after year, you'd draw just like us (the White Sox). Its happened before.

 

But you see, Wrigleyville won't be a ghetto so long as the Cubs continue to draw with any level of decency. The area has been on the up and up ever since Wrigley became a hotspot in the 1980s - despite many rotten seasons in the interim - and the Tribune is taking steps to make sure it stays a hotspot. You'll see the Sox rebuild their upper deck at least five more times before anyone in Wrigleyville sees burned-out crackhouses, that's for sure.

 

I personally wouldn't care either way... I don't judge things on attendance.

 

That's fine. Just don't pretend the Sox' fanbase can in any way compare with the Cubs'.

[wolf stansson]

most of Arkansas

Booyah son. We gots Arkansas! :roll:

 

But if you honestly think that the Cubs have more die-hard, real fans than the Sox, you're silly. Its even all around, and probably is along with most teams.

http://www.wmattmeyer.com/archive/image/crack-pipe6557.jpg

Stop it man. Crack kills. I'm from Central Illinois. I've probably met less than 10 people south of Joliet who are Sox fans.

[JLucky]

That's fine. Just don't pretend the Sox' fanbase can in any way compare with the Cubs'.

 

I didn't. I said die-hards. Real fans. Whatever you want to call them.

 

If the Cubs played in US Cellular, and had the pathetic marketing the Sox have had (admittedly), they'd be in the same situation as the Sox are.

 

If you consider fans that are only fans because of the bar-like atmosphere, or because of national marketing for decades... do you honestly consider them real fans?

 

I am not saying you should dislike them, but at least realize there is a distinction.

[Transmogrified Tiger]

That's fine. Just don't pretend the Sox' fanbase can in any way compare with the Cubs'.

 

I didn't. I said die-hards. Real fans. Whatever you want to call them.

 

If the Cubs played in US Cellular, and had the pathetic marketing the Sox have had (admittedly), they'd be in the same situation as the Sox are.

 

If you consider fans that are only fans because of the bar-like atmosphere, or because of national marketing for decades... do you honestly consider them real fans?

 

I am not saying you should dislike them, but at least realize there is a distinction.

 

You really think yuppies are the entirety of the difference between the two fanbases?

[JLucky]

That's fine. Just don't pretend the Sox' fanbase can in any way compare with the Cubs'.

 

I didn't. I said die-hards. Real fans. Whatever you want to call them.

 

If the Cubs played in US Cellular, and had the pathetic marketing the Sox have had (admittedly), they'd be in the same situation as the Sox are.

 

If you consider fans that are only fans because of the bar-like atmosphere, or because of national marketing for decades... do you honestly consider them real fans?

 

I am not saying you should dislike them, but at least realize there is a distinction.

 

You really think yuppies are the entirety of the difference between the two fanbases?

 

I don't know if "yuppies" encapsulates what I am saying, but yes.... bandwagon fans are how I would describe the difference.

 

If this were false, then you wouldn't see the shifts in the popularity of the teams over the past 20-30 years. And the shift will continue to go back and forth... Sox will be more popular someday, then the Cubs again, then back...

 

This isn't like the LA Lakers and the LA Clippers, where one will always be much bigger.

[J.R.]

That's fine. Just don't pretend the Sox' fanbase can in any way compare with the Cubs'.

 

I didn't. I said die-hards. Real fans. Whatever you want to call them.

 

If the Cubs played in US Cellular, and had the pathetic marketing the Sox have had (admittedly), they'd be in the same situation as the Sox are.

 

If you consider fans that are only fans because of the bar-like atmosphere, or because of national marketing for decades... do you honestly consider them real fans?

 

I am not saying you should dislike them, but at least realize there is a distinction.

 

Dude, there are probably more die-hard Cub fans in Iowa who have never set foot in Wrigley then there are die-hard Sox fans in the entirety of the other 49 states besides Illinois.

 

This isn't like the LA Lakers and the LA Clippers, where one will always be much bigger.

 

The White Sox will likely never lay claim to a national fanbase like the Cubs, Cardinals, Yankees or Red Sox. I don't think you're grasping the scope of the Cubs' reach ... so many people in so many places live and die with this ballclub, and they know nothing of the "bar-like atmosphere."

 

Why do you think long-distance fans aren't "real?"

[vance_the_cubs_fan]

Hey...whatever happened to Strife while I was away? I was enjoying his intellectual additions to this thread? (sarcasm fully intended)

[imb]

I've lived in Oklahoma my whole life (23 years omg), and for 18 years growing up, I never had a chance to get to Chicago and see the Cubs. I am such a huge fan that I went on a campaign for 6 months of my senior year in high school, to get our senior class to Chicago for our senior trip, just so I could watch a Cubs game at Wrigley. One game. If you don't want to count me as a real fan, go ahead.

[JLucky]

I guess you're not understanding my point, or I didn't make it well enough.

 

Yes, the Cubs have a lot of national fans right now. There is one reason for that, and that is the Superstation in the '80s-'90s, before many teams (i.e. the Sox) were also on cable/Superstations.

 

With the way mass media is today, I don't see one Chicago (or even midwest) team benefiting from that any more than another in the next 10-20 years.

 

So in the *future* count that out, and I was really talking about the past and future.

 

I don't see any reason why the Cubs (barring a World Series win, etc... which are all things that can happen to the Sox as well) will inherently continue this for 10-20 years. History shows this will not happen.

 

(The Yankees and Red Sox don't count in this argument. Their national fame is a completely different animal).

[JLucky]

Another caveat:

 

Lets say (and I know most of you don't think this will happen, but... just conceptually here :wink: ) that the White Sox take the World Series this year. And then again the next. And maybe the next.

 

Or, at least make it to the World Series 2-3 straight years.

 

And the Cubs don't make the playoffs at all. Maybe have .500 seasons.

 

Do you honestly think the Cubs would still outdraw the Sox after that?

 

I'd put any money on The Sox owning this city after that. And I'd put money on that changing in X number of years back to the Cubs for one reason or another.

[J.R.]

Yes, the Cubs have a lot of national fans right now. There is one reason for that, and that is the Superstation in the '80s-'90s, before many teams (i.e. the Sox) were also on cable/Superstations.

 

With the way mass media is today, I don't see one Chicago (or even midwest) team benefiting from that any more than another in the next 10-20 years.

 

There's more access to the Sox now, but access to the Cubs is still much more widely available. Despite the MLB-mandated cutbacks, the Cubs and Braves still have more games on free/basic TV than anyone else, by a wide margin.

 

The few Sox games that go national on WGN are so horribly done that they're actually like anti-infomercials for your franchise.

 

So in the *future* count that out, and I was really talking about the past and future.

 

I don't see any reason why the Cubs (barring a World Series win, etc... which are all things that can happen to the Sox as well) will inherently continue this for 10-20 years. History shows this will not happen.

 

See the Cardinals example. That empire was built on AM radio over 50 years ago, and their outposts are still standing for the most part. We'll all be long since dead and gone before things "even out" between the Cubs and Sox.

 

The Cubs' domination over the Sox within the greater midwest alone is enought to sustain the situation for decades.

 

Lets say (and I know most of you don't think this will happen, but... just conceptually here ) that the White Sox take the World Series this year. And then again the next. And maybe the next.

 

Or, at least make it to the World Series 2-3 straight years.

 

And the Cubs don't make the playoffs at all. Maybe have .500 seasons.

 

Do you honestly think the Cubs would still outdraw the Sox after that?

 

I'd put any money on The Sox owning this city after that. And I'd put money on that changing in X number of years back to the Cubs for one reason or another.

 

The Mets seemingly owned New York in the late 1980s, but they always were the second-class franchise there. A Sox run like you described would undoubtedly prove profitable for Jerry, but it wouldn't make millions of Cub fans up and vanish.

[J.R.]

Why do you think long-distance fans aren't "real?"

[vance_the_cubs_fan]

I question the intelligence of anyone who doubts the intensity of a fan based on his geographic location.

[JLucky]

The few Sox games that go national on WGN are so horribly done that they're actually like anti-infomercials for your franchise.

 

YOU may think so, but I see Hawk catching on alot more than the two Cubs vanilla network-like announcers. I know a Cubs fan would never enjoy him, I'd never enjoy Santo. But like it or loathe it, many of Hawk's sayings are becoming popular.

 

At the very least, its foolish to say its *negative*. Someone argued with me in another thread that Hawk was turning off people who may watch Sox games on WGN to see their teams play (i.e. a lot of Sox opponents don't have 162-game coverage from their local TV).

 

Which is it? He's a homer. He has a schtick. Excepting for Twins, Indians, Cubs fans... I think a lot of people like it.

 

 

The Mets seemingly owned New York in the late 1980s, but they always were the second-class franchise there. A Sox run like you described would undoubtedly prove profitable for Jerry, but it wouldn't make millions of Cub fans up and vanish.

 

But the Cubs are not inherently the Yankees by any stretch. There is a very distinct, historical reason why the Yankees own New York (and all of America.) That will NEVER go away, even with another winning team in their own backyard. (Also, note that the Mets had only one season where they were national stars.)

 

Right now the Cubs draw even when they're bad. That wasn't true 15-20 years ago, and I can't see any logical reason why that's bound to continue. Maybe it will, but the reasons for their marketing success right now go back such a short time, that logically its foolish to think it is guarunteed to stick around for that much longer.

 

The Cubs have a large fanbase because of good marketing, and because a national newspaper owns them. You can't ask for anything more than that. Great job. Its all good. I wish the Sox did/would do that. Etc. Etc. Etc.

 

But to assume its going to have longevity is foolish.

[JLucky]

I question the intelligence of anyone who doubts the intensity of a fan based on his geographic location.

 

I didn't mean to.

 

I meant a lot of it is based on mass-media marketing and having a media conglomerate own your team, and need a profit from your team.

 

EDIT:

Caveat...

 

Heck, i don't even think a lot of Cubs fans realize what a double-edged sword that is in terms of having a winning team on the field.

[wolf stansson]

I'm a gigantic homer who can't see past his bias.

I'm glad you were able to admit that. Rather big of you dude.

I've lived in Oklahoma my whole life(...)If you don't want to count me as a real fan, go ahead.

You've never been to Wrigley? Dang. I think it would be harder to be a fan of your team and never make the pilgrimage than to be the guy who lives walking distance from the stadium and goes all the time. That's dedication.

 

Also, what is up with all the highway tolls in your state? I didn't know they were there and had no change on me driving through. What a pain.

[JLucky]

I'm a gigantic homer who can't see past his bias.

I'm glad you were able to admit that. Rather big of you dude.

 

That's cute, how you used the whole QUOTE= thing to change my quote. That's what I call humor.

 

In all honesty, I am a Sox fan... I know Hawk is biased. Did you think I was arguing that he's not (considering the quote you changed of mind DID say he was)?

 

I just happen to have no problem with it, as well I think you'll find that a lot of people around the country like him.

[J.R.]

YOU may think so, but I see Hawk catching on alot more than the two Cubs vanilla network-like announcers. I know a Cubs fan would never enjoy him, I'd never enjoy Santo. But like it or loathe it, many of Hawk's sayings are becoming popular.

 

At the very least, its foolish to say its *negative*. Someone argued with me in another thread that Hawk was turning off people who may watch Sox games on WGN to see their teams play (i.e. a lot of Sox opponents don't have 162-game coverage from their local TV).

 

Which is it? He's a homer. He has a schtick. Excepting for Twins, Indians, Cubs fans... I think a lot of people like it.

 

Of course he's biased ... but that's not the problem. The man is boring/corny to the point of annoyance, and that's an opinion shared by many. It's embarrassing to have him on national television. You'd be much better off putting your excellent radio tandem in the spotlight.

 

But the Cubs are not inherently the Yankees by any stretch. There is a very distinct, historical reason why the Yankees own New York (and all of America.) That will NEVER go away, even with another winning team in their own backyard. (Also, note that the Mets had only one season where they were national stars.)

 

I wasn't speaking in terms of "national stars" in regard to the Mets. I thought we were speaking strictly in "owning the town" terms there.

 

There is a basis for the Cubs' place as THE Chicago baseball team from a historical perspective ... the Cubs were extremely successful during a period more or less bookended by the years 1876 and 1945, and had staked a claim to the city well in advance of the White Sox' assumption of the Cubs' discarded nickname in an effort to soak up some of the positives tied to it.

 

Later, the team was so popular that when Halas brought the Staleys to Chicago, he sought out an association with the successful Cubs franchise. The Sox' park was bigger, but it was left to host the Cardinals football club that would be run out of town in 1959, as the Sox nearly were 25 years later.

 

That's all ancient history, but it illustrates the fact that the Cubs and Sox have for the most part occupied a 1-2 order on the pole. Periods of overriding Sox popularity are an aberration IMHO, not the result of some imagined pattern of on and off city dominance.

 

It's all somewhat irrelevant now though, given that the Cubs' diehard and far-flung following insulates them from hitting rock bottom from an interest perspective. The Sox have no such cushion, and it's demonstrated when their attendance and fan peripherals go off the cliff whenever they struggle on the field.

 

Right now the Cubs draw even when they're bad. That wasn't true 15-20 years ago, and I can't see any logical reason why that's bound to continue. Maybe it will, but the reasons for their marketing success right now go back such a short time, that logically its foolish to think it is guarunteed to stick around for that much longer.

 

Why not? Wrigley Field is still standing, and efforts are underway to keep it that way. The games are still on WGN. Cub fans still have fun no matter where they gather, be it Wrigley, road parks or message boards like this one. Cub fans are still raising Cub kids. The kinship that bonds us all is still strong. All the stuff that sustains the fan base through thick and thin, through winning or losing is still in place ... I don't know why you think it's all going to go away.

 

The Cubs have a large fanbase because of good marketing, and because a national newspaper owns them. You can't ask for anything more than that. Great job. Its all good. I wish the Sox did/would do that. Etc. Etc. Etc.

 

It goes far beyond that. John McDonough is an excellent marketing man, but the fact is an idiot could look good in that office. For a wide variety of reasons, the Cubs are likeable when they should be despised and inspire passions that are completely and totally undeserved given the dismal performances of the last 60 years.

 

If generating popularity like that enjoyed by this team were a simple matter of marketing, you'd see it done all over the place. The Tribsters' marketing mavens are largely just along for the ride ... you give them far too much credit.

 

It doesn't take a ton of brilliance to see that keeping an awesome park in place and giving fans unparalleled access to games are good ideas.

 

But to assume its going to have longevity is foolish.

 

It would be foolish to underestimate us.

[imb]

I'm a gigantic homer who can't see past his bias.

I'm glad you were able to admit that. Rather big of you dude.

I've lived in Oklahoma my whole life(...)If you don't want to count me as a real fan, go ahead.

You've never been to Wrigley? Dang. I think it would be harder to be a fan of your team and never make the pilgrimage than to be the guy who lives walking distance from the stadium and goes all the time. That's dedication.

 

Also, what is up with all the highway tolls in your state? I didn't know they were there and had no change on me driving through. What a pain.

 

I've been to one game at Wrigley in my life. It took six months of convincing the school board to let my class take our senior trip to Chicago, but I raised the money by myself and convinced them to let us go. All so I could watch the Cubs play the Reds, once. I raised the money for all the tickets myself too.

 

As far as the tolls, tell me about it.