Nah, I disagree with that. The Cubs have the fanbase they do due to the size of the city they play in, their longevity and, most of all, WGN TV and radio. Anyone who defines themselves as a Cubs fan by the team's futility is just the worst. It's not the futility, it's the desire to end the futility. If you were right, I would have been a fan of the Braves instead of the Cubs, because the Braves are on TV almost every day in the south, and have been for decades. Where are all the White Sox fans? Based on your criteria, wouldn't they have the 3rd or 4th largest fan base? I think they fall in the 20ish range? White Sox don't have national coverage and the Braves had national coverage for like a blip compared to what the Cubs have had between WGN TV and radio. Atlanta is also a much smaller market and city than Chicago and they've only had the Braves for 44 years. The drought is what makes the Cubs the Cubs. Its what gives the an international appeal. If it werent the case, and theyd won the series in say '69 or '84, wed likely still have a solid fan base, as the Cubs are a big market team. However, the 100+ year drought gives them an appeal and history that no other team has. If it werent for the drought, the Cubs would probably have a decent big market fan base like the Dodgers or Phillies, but nothing like it is now. Another reason that the Cubs and White Sox have such a massive gap between fan bases is the location. Wrigley and Wrigleyville attract a crowd themselves, incuding people who have no interest in baseball otherwise, as opposed the the White Sox, who may as well be the Gary White Sox, because they play in an area without the curb appeal of Wrigleyville. Keep in mind, before 2005, the Sox were on a 90 something year drought, and when they made the series, nobody gave a damn, making the Sox/Astros series the lowest rated World Series since the inception of televison ratings.