PDA

View Full Version : Cubs/Sox empty seats.


roylestillman
06-22-2011, 08:12 AM
I know we all despise attendance threads on this here board, but I think we have to ask the question about why these games are not selling out. Speculation has centered on the both teams record this year, the switch to weekday night games, and the fact that the novelty has worn off. From personal experience here's my answer: "Dynamic Pricing."

I had tickets for the Monday and Wednesday games which were priced at $ $46 for lower reserved ( this is the season ticket price, the published price was $54.) When I heard tickets were available for Tuesday night's game, and given that I was going to be in the area anyway, I figure what the heck I'll go online and get them. The same lower reserve tickets were on sale on the Sox website for $89. The site said this was due to "dynamic pricing," in other words in- house scalping. I didn't buy.

Well it backfired on them. Not to say that all 5000 or so empty seats would have been sold, but to publish a price (an already inflated price for this series) and then charge another is just stupid. The Sox should declare dynamic pricing a failure.

doublem23
06-22-2011, 08:20 AM
From the Sox's perspective, however, if dynamic pricing can get you the same amount of money from 35,000 as 40,000 then, at least from a business point of view, you'd take the 35K, that's less overhead for you (less vendors, security, etc.) and the same pull at the gate.

I know that when these attendance threads pop up, the magic number everyone looks at is butts in seats, but the real number that matters to the front office is $$$ those butts paid. From a simplistic perspective, if the Sox average ticket price was $20 and they drew 30,000 per game ($600 K/game), they'd be better off raising ticket prices to $30 if it meant only averaging 20,000 per game. Same $600 K/game but a lot less money spent on manpower inside the stadium.

I think I read somewhere that if you weight attendance against average ticket price, the Sox doing well above average compared to the rest of the MLB.

LITTLE NELL
06-22-2011, 08:25 AM
I know we all despise attendance threads on this here board, but I think we have to ask the question about why these games are not selling out. Speculation has centered on the both teams record this year, the switch to weekday night games, and the fact that the novelty has worn off. From personal experience here's my answer: "Dynamic Pricing."

I had tickets for the Monday and Wednesday games which were priced at $ $46 for lower reserved ( this is the season ticket price, the published price was $54.) When I heard tickets were available for Tuesday night's game, and given that I was going to be in the area anyway, I figure what the heck I'll go online and get them. The same lower reserve tickets were on sale on the Sox website for $89. The site said this was due to "dynamic pricing," in other words in- house scalping. I didn't buy.

Well it backfired on them. Not to say that all 5000 or so empty seats would have been sold, but to publish a price (an already inflated price for this series) and then charge another is just stupid. The Sox should declare dynamic pricing a failure.

I for one believe that a major league game is a major league game and the price of the ticket should be the same price for every game.
I know others on this board don't agree but I'm entitled to my opinion.
Attendance is down everywhere except for a few places like Philadelphia, Boston and SF. The fans, what with the economy in the tank, are starting to rebel against these astronomical prices that make owners and players rich fat cats.

SI1020
06-22-2011, 08:31 AM
I for one believe that a major league game is a major league game and the price of the ticket should be the same price for every game.
I know others on this board don't agree but I'm entitled to my opinion.
Attendance is down everywhere except for a few places like Philadelphia, Boston and SF. The fans, what with the economy in the tank, are starting to rebel against these astronomical prices that make owners and players rich fat cats. :thumbsup: If I was in Florida I'd buy you a drink.

russ99
06-22-2011, 08:32 AM
I for one believe that a major league game is a major league game and the price of the ticket should be the same price for every game.
I know others on this board don't agree but I'm entitled to my opinion.
Attendance is down everywhere except for a few places like Philadelphia, Boston and SF. The fans, what with the economy in the tank, are starting to rebel against these astronomical prices that make owners and players rich fat cats.

I have to agree. Ticket prices are a big reason why attendence is down this year.

Dynamic pricing is in effect for the Nationals series this weekend too.

I'm not about to pay $50-60+ fees for a lower deck seat, much less to see the Nationals.
Heck, Stub Hub is cheaper.

34rancher
06-22-2011, 08:42 AM
I for one believe that a major league game is a major league game and the price of the ticket should be the same price for every game.
I know others on this board don't agree but I'm entitled to my opinion.
Attendance is down everywhere except for a few places like Philadelphia, Boston and SF. The fans, what with the economy in the tank, are starting to rebel against these astronomical prices that make owners and players rich fat cats.

:thumbsup:
I have too much respect for the game to think that a team that spends more in new York or Boston deserves more of my money than a team that has young talent. It's a farce, and I haven't gone to a game in a few years over it. I used to go to between 40-50 games a year. They just ticked me off. And truth be told, I don't like going to these "premium" games just to deal with more drunks.

Quentin08
06-22-2011, 08:48 AM
Personally, it's always a lot more fun watching Sox games, whether at the Cell or on tv, when there's a full house. It's much more electric and exciting, and I think the players feed off that energy.

The empty seats for this series are likely the result of dynamic pricing and a fed-up fan base. Even though we're only 3 games under .500 and still in the race, it's been one of the most maddening seasons imaginable. I imagine a lot of fans are deliberately tuning out this season because they can't take it anymore.

Surprisingly, attendance up to this point is virtually identical to last season (http://www.baseball-reference.com/leagues/current_attendance.shtml), but the fact we're not selling out the crosstown classic is a huge eye opener. This isn't supposed to happen.. and hopefully it results in some changes (getting rid of dynamic pricing and taking Pierre out of the lineup)

doublem23
06-22-2011, 08:48 AM
I for one believe that a major league game is a major league game and the price of the ticket should be the same price for every game.
I know others on this board don't agree but I'm entitled to my opinion.
Attendance is down everywhere except for a few places like Philadelphia, Boston and SF. The fans, what with the economy in the tank, are starting to rebel against these astronomical prices that make owners and players rich fat cats.

You're certainly entitled to your opinion, however, that doesn't make it correct. I've had to post, for years now, the numbers that show the higher priced games on the Sox schedule are also the ones that draw the best crowds. I'm sure if I had time to look back on this year it would be no different. The Sox are in a business of making money and providing their fans with the best product they can afford, not pretending like it's 1952 and that nothing has changed since then.

Also, across the Major Leagues, attendance is down less than 500 people per game compared to this point in the season in 2010. Great rebellion.

http://www.baseball-reference.com/leagues/current_attendance.shtml

johnnyg83
06-22-2011, 08:50 AM
From the Sox's perspective, however, if dynamic pricing can get you the same amount of money from 35,000 as 40,000 then, at least from a business point of view, you'd take the 35K, that's less overhead for you (less vendors, security, etc.) and the same pull at the gate.

I know that when these attendance threads pop up, the magic number everyone looks at is butts in seats, but the real number that matters to the front office is $$$ those butts paid. From a simplistic perspective, if the Sox average ticket price was $20 and they drew 30,000 per game ($600 K/game), they'd be better off raising ticket prices to $30 if it meant only averaging 20,000 per game. Same $600 K/game but a lot less money spent on manpower inside the stadium.

I think I read somewhere that if you weight attendance against average ticket price, the Sox doing well above average compared to the rest of the MLB.

There's truth to that, but you also don't get the concession/ merchandise/ revenue either.

My company's Royals seats were $27.50 in 2008 before they renovated. They're now $80 for regular games and $90 for premium. That is just absurd. And the team is awful and has been for 17 years.

stacksedwards
06-22-2011, 08:52 AM
I have to agree. Ticket prices are a big reason why attendence is down this year.

Dynamic pricing is in effect for the Nationals series this weekend too.

I'm not about to pay $50-60+ fees for a lower deck seat, much less to see the Nationals.
Heck, Stub Hub is cheaper.
I was going to buy for Sunday. Why the Nationals? is this price based solely on the fact they thought Steven Strasburg was going to pitch one of the games?
I was at last night's game. Thats the most empty seats I've ever seen for Sox/Cubs. I have a feeling that they wont be doing these games during week anymore.

doublem23
06-22-2011, 09:02 AM
I was going to buy for Sunday. Why the Nationals? is this price based solely on the fact they thought Steven Strasburg was going to pitch one of the games?

Weekend games on summer are always expensive

russ99
06-22-2011, 09:04 AM
Personally, it's always a lot more fun watching Sox games, whether at the Cell or on tv, when there's a full house. It's much more electric and exciting, and I think the players feed off that energy.

The empty seats for this series are likely the result of dynamic pricing and a fed-up fan base. Even though we're only 3 games under .500 and still in the race, it's been one of the most maddening seasons imaginable. I imagine a lot of fans are deliberately tuning out this season because they can't take it anymore.

Surprisingly, attendance up to this point is virtually identical to last season (http://www.baseball-reference.com/leagues/current_attendance.shtml), but the fact we're not selling out the crosstown classic is a huge eye opener. This isn't supposed to happen.. and hopefully it results in some changes (getting rid of dynamic pricing and taking Pierre out of the lineup)

Not so sure about the fed-up fanbase, as not all Sox fans are as fed-up as some of us on this board.

But there's surely something to be said about how fans may not be especially happy with quality on the field - when they're paying premium prices to see it.

IMO, Jerry bit off more than he could chew. To be able to kick up the payroll so high, they had to implement these increases, more premium/prime games and dynamic pricing. Now we have an underachieving club along with premium prices.

LITTLE NELL
06-22-2011, 09:08 AM
Here is a pretty good take on the situation.

http://baseball.about.com/od/newsrumors/a/Top-5-Reasons-Why-Mlb-Attendance-Is-Down-In-2011.htm

DumpJerry
06-22-2011, 09:09 AM
The weather reports going into both Monday and Tuesdays' games did not make people think it would be a good night to take in a game. During the rain delay last night I posted on Facebook that I was glad I sold my tickets for the game.

The weather reports are a bit more optimistic for tonight and we have Peavy on The Hump. Maybe it will be the big crowd game.

hawkjt
06-22-2011, 09:12 AM
If either team was 5-10 games over.500 and the attendance this week would be normal. The Sox have played poorly at home this year(I am 1-4 in games attended),and that sucks the life out of the experience.

I wish I had been out there last nite as those are the kind of games that are fun,feeling like you are part of a hardcore crew that sticks it out til the end and getting the payoff.

I think attendance is a reflection of three factors: team play, weekday series,and economy.

dickallen15
06-22-2011, 10:22 AM
The weather reports going into both Monday and Tuesdays' games did not make people think it would be a good night to take in a game. During the rain delay last night I posted on Facebook that I was glad I sold my tickets for the game.

The weather reports are a bit more optimistic for tonight and we have Peavy on The Hump. Maybe it will be the big crowd game.

Most years, there are only a few hundred tickets available. This year there were several thousand. One thing that really hurt was the Sox playing so poorly. They didn't sell the Ozzie plans or other season ticket plans for which they were holding most of these seats .

BainesHOF
06-22-2011, 11:04 AM
"Dynamic pricing" is "scalping."

The Cubs used to be the only team in town to scalp their own fans. Now the Sox and the Bulls do it. The Bulls held back tickets for the Heat playoff series when the public onsale started and then released them for sale a couple hours later at scalper prices.

I hope the scalping teams choke on their unsold tickets.

34rancher
06-22-2011, 11:16 AM
If either team was 5-10 games over.500 and the attendance this week would be normal. The Sox have played poorly at home this year(I am 1-4 in games attended),and that sucks the life out of the experience.

I wish I had been out there last nite as those are the kind of games that are fun,feeling like you are part of a hardcore crew that sticks it out til the end and getting the payoff.

I think attendance is a reflection of three factors: team play, weekday series,and economy.

I could not disagree with parts of this more.
Poor play: in the past decade, these tickets have sold out long before the season started (usually within an hour of going on sale), thus poor play would have had not impact on this. in fact, with sox anticipation being high, I would have expected aa sell out unless other factors were at play.
Weekday: this series has been played During the weekdays before with there never being a whiff of this conversation.
Economy: agree 100% this has an impact. I think that the "premium prices" just scare people off economically even more
Weather: again, this does not help, but the sellout factor would have not influenced this.

My take : economy, people pissed at the cost of the game, and people just don't care about this rivalry much anymore, especially cub fans. Has anyone really heard anything from any of their cub friends?

The last reason? My opinion is the resurgence of the bulls, bears, and hawks. I think people have spent their discretionary income the past few months on those other teams which have been far more exciting and people have spent their money there. In the recent economy, who do you think people would rather see? Playoff teams or this pathetic crap?

mrfourni
06-22-2011, 11:26 AM
"Dynamic pricing" is "scalping."

The Cubs used to be the only team in town to scalp their own fans. Now the Sox and the Bulls do it. The Bulls held back tickets for the Heat playoff series when the public onsale started and then released them for sale a couple hours later at scalper prices.

I hope the scalping teams choke on their unsold tickets.

This is actually worse than scalping. When the demand isn't there, scalpers will usually lower their prices. If this were scalping, the price for tickets to most Sox games with "dynamic pricing" would be much lower than face value.

The Immigrant
06-22-2011, 11:41 AM
Judging by the makeup of the crowds at the first two games, my impression is that scores of Sox season ticket holders sold their seats on the secondary market, which significantly decreased the demand for sales at the box office. I don't recall ever before seeing so many Cub fans in the ST sections at the Cell.

tacosalbarojas
06-22-2011, 12:10 PM
Here is a pretty good take on the situation.

http://baseball.about.com/od/newsrumors/a/Top-5-Reasons-Why-Mlb-Attendance-Is-Down-In-2011.htm
Great take - I go to a ton of games...I mean in the neighborhood of 30 every year, but I go to many fewer on impulse day of than just a few years ago - due to many of these reasons, but when you throw the hi-def option at home in to the mix, it's just a such a disincentive to go.

harwar
06-22-2011, 12:14 PM
Here is a pretty good take on the situation.

http://baseball.about.com/od/newsrumors/a/Top-5-Reasons-Why-Mlb-Attendance-Is-Down-In-2011.htm


I thought that Norman Chad ( there's a link in that article) was really interesting ..

hi im skot
06-22-2011, 12:23 PM
My take : economy, people pissed at the cost of the game, and people just don't care about this rivalry much anymore, especially cub fans. Has anyone really heard anything from any of their cub friends?

This is their World Series. I'm the last guy to beat my chest and brag about a Sox victory (over anyone, really), but that didn't stop my co-workers from bombarding me all day yesterday asking "what happened to your Sox Monday night?"

The knowledgeable Cubs fans know their team is going nowhere this season, so they'll celebrate winning games against their biggest non-NL rival, and the loudmouth Cubs fans will take any opportunity they can to rub anything and everything in your face.

DSpivack
06-22-2011, 12:56 PM
"Dynamic pricing" is "scalping."

The Cubs used to be the only team in town to scalp their own fans. Now the Sox and the Bulls do it. The Bulls held back tickets for the Heat playoff series when the public onsale started and then released them for sale a couple hours later at scalper prices.

I hope the scalping teams choke on their unsold tickets.

I would guess that every team in every sport is now doing this.

Sports teams are businesses first.

thomas35forever
06-22-2011, 01:13 PM
Count me as on the boat that says people just don't care. The Cubs are going nowhere fast and the Sox aren't doing a good job of establishing themselves as a contender right now. Pre-2005, this would have sold out regardless. As time has gone on, I've come to realize that the Sox winning the World Series changed the game. Another poster on here has pointed out that the Blackhawks, whose base is made up of fans from both teams, have played a big role in this since they won the Stanley Cup last year. With Cubs fans finally having their first major championship to celebrate since 1998, they got the picture that you can't settle for mediocrity on a yearly basis. That's why attendance is down at Wrigley this year as well. People are sick of bad baseball in this town and that's why these games aren't selling out.

roylestillman
06-22-2011, 01:43 PM
Comments on a few points:

I have nothing against the Sox pricing games differently based on the expected demand for tickets ( premium, prime or regular depending on the opponent and weekend vs. Weekday,) but when you put them on sale when the single game sets go on sale, don't tell people they are sold out and keep 5000 in your back pocket. If scalpers want to buy them up then they become the risk takers, not the Sox.

The economy issue is big. In all my years of going to games, it wasn't until last year that I started noticing the large number of tickets that were being sold on the 500 level when large sections of the 100 level are empty. Previously the lower bowl would fill up before any measurable number of seats upstairs woul fill. Price is becoming a determining factor as to where to sit as well as going at all.

As for season ticket holders, for the partial hit and run plan I got two Cub/sox games this year. In past years I got one game. That's a large investment of both money and time. I think a number of STH's decided to put them up for sale and yes the number of Cub fans was greater this year.

I agree with all that have said that the 2005 WS, the Hawks winning the Cup and the recent Bulls success has raised the bar and I applaud Chicago fans for that.

billcissell
06-22-2011, 02:17 PM
There just doesn't seem to be the usual "buzz" about this series. There are probably a lot of factors driving down attendance at the last two games, but we've been doing the crosstown thing since 1997, and I think the novelty has worn off.

Granted, neither team has fared well so far this year. But the intensity and animosity that used to define this series seems to have worn off.

Bad economy, high prices, weekday games, threatening weather all have an effect. But overall I just don't feel the excitement that defined this series just a few years ago when both ball clubs fielded more competitive teams.

Sure I want to beat the Cubs for city bragging rights. But I REALLY want to beat the Twins and Tigers so we can gain some ground in the division race.

Just my take on the Crosstown Classic sponsored by an enormous corporate energy company with a tainted reputation.

Soxfest
06-22-2011, 03:48 PM
Early week series does not help, Cubs get the weekend series no suprise there. I know people who will not go because they dislike BP. Both teams under .500 also does not help matters. The White Sox also have the MOST expensive parking in MLB at $23.00.

hi im skot
06-22-2011, 03:51 PM
Early week series does not help, Cubs get the weekend series no suprise there. I know people who will not go because they dislike BP. Both teams under .500 also does not help matters.

Really?

Soxfest
06-22-2011, 04:00 PM
Really?
Yes I know about 200 Die-hard fans I know that will not go for that reason alone.

hi im skot
06-22-2011, 04:28 PM
Yes I know about 200 Die-hard fans I know that will not go for that reason alone.

Silly.

skobabe8
06-22-2011, 05:23 PM
Yes I know about 200 Die-hard fans I know that will not go for that reason alone.

I dont even think I know 200 people.

Quentin08
06-22-2011, 05:33 PM
Early week series does not help, Cubs get the weekend series no suprise there. I know people who will not go because they dislike BP. Both teams under .500 also does not help matters. The White Sox also have the MOST expensive parking in MLB at $23.00.

Yes I know about 200 Die-hard fans I know that will not go for that reason alone.

Do you work for Greenpeace?

Steelrod
06-22-2011, 05:44 PM
I had tickets for the Monday and Wednesday games which were priced at $ $46 for lower reserved ( this is the season ticket price, the published price was $54.) When I heard tickets were available for Tuesday night's game, and given that I was going to be in the area anyway, I figure what the heck I'll go online and get them. The same lower reserve tickets were on sale on the Sox website for $89. The site said this was due to "dynamic pricing," in other words in- house scalping. I didn't buy.

If it makes you feel any better, bleacher tickets for Sox games at Wrigley were priced at $116 at the beginning.

TomBradley72
06-22-2011, 06:11 PM
There's a new "normal"- count me among those that think the economy is the #1 reason- while MLB has done little to reduce the costs to attend games (not just ticket prices, but parking, food, etc. as others have mentioned).

For the people that do have jobs- they are often working in an environment where the staff was laid off in the worst of the downturn a few years ago- some of the business/work has come back- but none of the staff was re-built/re-hired- so they are working harder and working longer- people are ****ing tired and ****ing stressed out.

So dropping a few hundred dollars to see the millionaires play doesn't have the same attraction it did a few years ago. They'll still go to some games- but not as many- and will not overpay for the city series between 2 mediocre teams.

Soxfest
06-22-2011, 07:33 PM
I dont even think I know 200 people.
Get out more.

Soxfest
06-22-2011, 07:34 PM
Do you work for Greenpeace?
I did not say I would not go Sunshine.

Soxfest
06-22-2011, 07:35 PM
Silly.
Your opinion alot have family in New Orleans not silly to them.

doublem23
06-22-2011, 08:55 PM
Your opinion alot have family in New Orleans not silly to them.

If there were 200 people in New Orleans who were going to come to a Cubs/Sox game in the middle of the week but refused because BP sponsors some trophy that nobody cares about, yeah, that is a little silly.

soxfan1965
06-22-2011, 09:19 PM
They have to do what they have to do to pay for some of these awful contracts they are stuck with.

jaguiar2
06-22-2011, 11:04 PM
Yes I know about 200 Die-hard fans I know that will not go for that reason alone.

:scratch:

Crooked Number
06-23-2011, 12:07 AM
:scratch: Looked pretty full to me tonight.

Nellie_Fox
06-23-2011, 12:42 AM
Yes I know about 200 Die-hard fans I know that will not go for that reason alone.That's just stupid. Not attending a baseball game doesn't affect BP one iota.

HomeFish
06-23-2011, 12:53 AM
I no longer live in Chicago, but I do keep tabs on the Sox, and their ticket prices are laughably high. Still, there are ways around this. When I was still in Chicago during the summer of 2010, I refused to pay face value: I bought tickets from scalpers at below face value on the day of the game.

I go to a lot of Nationals games now, and for me it's like being a kid and going to Sox games back when attendance was terrible. The seats are still cheap, but there is absolutely no enforcement against sneaking into a better section (and the crowd is so sparse that many good seats are empty). Give them a few years of success and this too will disappear, I bet.

LITTLE NELL
06-23-2011, 05:54 AM
I dont even think I know 200 people.

Not to change the subject, but how do some people have 800 friends on Facebook?

Quentin08
06-23-2011, 08:14 AM
I did not say I would not go Sunshine.

Sunshine? :D:

I wasn't inferring that you wouldn't go. I was wondering about the 200 people you supposedly know who won't go just because of the sponsorship with BP. It was a joke.

bridgeportcopper
06-23-2011, 09:08 AM
Not to change the subject, but how do some people have 800 friends on Facebook?

I just checked & I have 742, and 95% of them are legit. I have a few that I follow like Joe Cowley or Erin Andrews or Tom Skilling, but for the most part, I'd say knowing 700 people is not that hard. I have many friends from grammar school, as a matter of fact most of our graduating class is linked up by facebook (that's about 60), high school (another 200) college (let's say another (200 or so) my job (about another 100) and then randoms I've met along the way. Really not that hard. Not to mention now I have most of the parents from my daughter's school, t-ball, soccer teams as friends for photo exchanging purposes and such, really not that hard.

skobabe8
06-23-2011, 10:49 AM
Get out more.

I did not say I would not go Sunshine.

Your opinion alot have family in New Orleans not silly to them.

Multi quote can be your friend.

ode to veeck
06-23-2011, 12:06 PM
"Dynamic pricing" is "scalping."

The Cubs used to be the only team in town to scalp their own fans. Now the Sox and the Bulls do it. The Bulls held back tickets for the Heat playoff series when the public onsale started and then released them for sale a couple hours later at scalper prices.

I hope the scalping teams choke on their unsold tickets.

I am with Little Nell on this one and will never pay for dynamic priced seats ever. On having 35k fans make the revenue for 40k you have to also consider the lost additional revenues from parking, food and bev and sox paraphanalia sales. Premium pricing is an insult to the fans pure and simple....I will pay a real scalper before ever paying an MLB team for premium priced games. Playoffs are the only reasonable exception, but even there, the owner should be careful not to screw the fans (as in the 50th all-star game fiascos, a similar situation). In the current economy, the buyers have the advantage to be choosy.

ode to veeck
06-23-2011, 12:08 PM
I just checked & I have 742, and 95% of them are legit. I have a few that I follow like Joe Cowley or <...>

You lost me and all credibility at this point...

TommyGavinFloyd
06-23-2011, 12:20 PM
Count me in as someone who is not a fan of the dynamic pricing. We tried to get an extra ticket for a friend in the UD for the Thursday Oakland game, they wanted 40 something for it. Got it on StubHub for 5. It seems the dynamic pricing has no problem going up but for some of these games it should be going down a lot more than it is.

doublem23
06-23-2011, 12:28 PM
On having 35k fans make the revenue for 40k you have to also consider the lost additional revenues from parking, food and bev and sox paraphanalia sales. Premium pricing is an insult to the fans pure and simple....I will pay a real scalper before ever paying an MLB team for premium priced games. Playoffs are the only reasonable exception, but even there, the owner should be careful not to screw the fans (as in the 50th all-star game fiascos, a similar situation). In the current economy, the buyers have the advantage to be choosy.

I am sure the Sox and their accountants have figured this out, I'm sure there is a happy medium between the lost additional revenue from food, parking, etc. and the amount saved by not having extra staff there.

Anyways, as for the bolded point, well, you lost me and all credibility at that point.

Law11
06-23-2011, 12:32 PM
Pricing is crazy as well as the time and effort to get down there. Weeknight games, Forget it for me anyway. Taking 90 minutes to get down there from the NW burbs anyway I cut is insane especially after a long day at work. My priorities arent like they were even a few years ago. The kids are now the priority and the Sox can sit in that extra back row of the mini van behind the car seats. Ill watch them on my ipad slingbox from the next birthday party we have to attend.

MP#3
06-23-2011, 12:52 PM
23 bucks before I even get out of my car is what is keeping me away this year.

Quentin08
06-23-2011, 01:21 PM
I used to park at 35th and Michigan for free, but now they have No Parking signs posted all along Michigan. Now that I can't find free parking, I've pretty much decided to stay home this season. 23 bucks for parking is ridiculous..

Soxfest
06-23-2011, 02:24 PM
23 bucks before I even get out of my car is what is keeping me away this year.
Parking should be $10.00 tops EVER and at $23.00 If something happens to your car at all Sox are not liable it is right on the parking ticket stub. Nice racket If you can get it.

BigKlu59
06-23-2011, 03:02 PM
:D: Ticket prices have hit the wall in this economy. Sure you will have a few that will pony up at a point in their lives where they have what used to be called discretionary income... ya, and cable used to be 9.99 a month and 25 bucks got you 3 rows from the field...

The cash flow of Joe Lunchbucket isnt there anymore to plop down a C-Note for a Decent seat, Parking and Grub at the game..

Hell whippersnappers, I'm surprised alot of us old coots dont have a grabber after pricing the privilage to attend these games.. I know Its come along way from a .50 cent bleacher seat, 1.50 and 3.50 seating and a .25 program with free pencil stub...

I guess it must cost more to water the field these days...


BK59

chisoxfanatic
06-23-2011, 04:06 PM
Is the dynamic pricing only effective for Ticketmaster sales, or does it also apply to the box office? I've noticed most games on sale for more than what I remember the actual price of those tickets are on TM.com's website.

DumpJerry
06-23-2011, 06:04 PM
23 bucks before I even get out of my car is what is keeping me away this year.

I used to park at 35th and Michigan for free, but now they have No Parking signs posted all along Michigan. Now that I can't find free parking, I've pretty much decided to stay home this season. 23 bucks for parking is ridiculous..

Parking should be $10.00 tops EVER and at $23.00 If something happens to your car at all Sox are not liable it is right on the parking ticket stub. Nice racket If you can get it.
You do realize there are plenty of alternatives to parking near the game? You can take one of three trains (a fourth if you count the Orange Line) to the game. Park your car on the street near a station and hop the train.

Soxfest: $10.00 parking, huh? Maybe in the 1980's. It costs much more than that to park downtown. As far as the liability disclaimer is concerned, have you ever noticed the same language is on the $40 parking receipt you get downtown? Also, there are ways around the liability shield depending on the circumstances.

DumpJerry
06-23-2011, 06:07 PM
Is the dynamic pricing only effective for Ticketmaster sales, or does it also apply to the box office? I've noticed most games on sale for more than what I remember the actual price of those tickets are on TM.com's website.
If I lived walking distance to the ballpark, I would never even give Ticketmonster the pleasure of my internet click (the more hits they get on their sites, the more $$ they make). If there was a game I'm interested in buying a ticket for, I would walk or ride my bike over there when there isn't a game (or during a game when the windows are not too busy) and talk to a live person behind the window to see what tickets the Sox did not release to Ticketmonster.

LongLiveFisk
06-23-2011, 06:17 PM
I used to park at 35th and Michigan for free, but now they have No Parking signs posted all along Michigan. Now that I can't find free parking, I've pretty much decided to stay home this season. 23 bucks for parking is ridiculous..

Parking should be $10.00 tops EVER and at $23.00 If something happens to your car at all Sox are not liable it is right on the parking ticket stub. Nice racket If you can get it.

People in other cities must think Chicago is nuts. It's $5 to park in St Louis right by the park, from what my sister told me. She was there two months ago.

ChicagoG19
06-23-2011, 06:24 PM
I have definitely reduced my attendance because of the pricing of tickets. Charging $45 for tickets in the outfield on weeknight against the Royals is outrageous. I don't know what is going on. The Rockies and Angels have tickets for $5. Why can't the Sox do that?

manders_01
06-23-2011, 06:30 PM
People in other cities must think Chicago is nuts. It's $5 to park in St Louis right by the park, from what my sister told me. She was there two months ago.

Parking at Coors Field in their lots is $13. But being that it's downtown, there are lots of non-stadium lots very close. Depending on the opponent, weekend vs. weekday and importance of the game (opening day, playoffs), they range from $5 to $60 (yes, I've seen that). On Sundays the meters downtown are off so if you do things right, you can park for free with only a short to walk.

Brian26
06-23-2011, 07:16 PM
Parking should be $10.00 tops EVER and at $23.00 If something happens to your car at all Sox are not liable it is right on the parking ticket stub. Nice racket If you can get it.

This thread has become obnoxious.

Seriously?

The Sox are so supposed to be "liable" for something that might happen to your car. You don't carry insurance? You want the Sox to have to organize a separate legal wing or hire additional outside counsel to help fight false parking lot damage claims coming from the scumbags that would try to milk money from the team. That's what a "racket" is.

Brian26
06-23-2011, 07:21 PM
Pricing is crazy as well as the time and effort to get down there. Weeknight games, Forget it for me anyway. Taking 90 minutes to get down there from the NW burbs anyway I cut is insane especially after a long day at work.

Most people are in the same boat as you. Bottom line, though, is that US Cellular Field is pretty centrally located. The Sox didn't force anyone to move out to the outer ring suburbs.

tony1972
06-23-2011, 08:08 PM
Back in 2009 the first game vs. the Dodgers the weather was beautiful and a bunch of us at work thought about going to the game that night (there were 5 of us).

We went to the Cell during lunch (we work in the South Loop) and were shocked at the Premier prices for the Upper Deck.

We ended up not going.

For that series I think the premier pricing backfired as well as even Hawk commented during one game about he low attendance for the interleague game.

It's not 2000 anymore..it's 2011. People are really watching their finances and if teams continue to do this..even the more popular series will see more and more empty seats...

doublem23
06-23-2011, 08:24 PM
People in other cities must think Chicago is nuts. It's $5 to park in St Louis right by the park, from what my sister told me. She was there two months ago.

Coincidentally, St. Louis is a ****hole.

doublem23
06-23-2011, 08:28 PM
Most people are in the same boat as you. Bottom line, though, is that US Cellular Field is pretty centrally located. The Sox didn't force anyone to move out to the outer ring suburbs.

Yes. U.S. Cellular Field is located next to an 12-lane superhighway, is within walking distance of 2 CTA lines and now a Metra line, and has ample parking in the lots and plenty of free street parking to anyone who is even the slightest city savvy. It has to be one of the most easily accessible Major League ballparks in the country. Contrast that to that team up North, located in the most congested neighborhood in one of the most densely populated cities in the country, barely accessible by public transportation, and they outdraw us by 10,000+ per game.

DSpivack
06-23-2011, 08:36 PM
Yes. U.S. Cellular Field is located next to an 12-lane superhighway, is within walking distance of 2 CTA lines and now a Metra line, and has ample parking in the lots and plenty of free street parking to anyone who is even the slightest city savvy. It has to be one of the most easily accessible Major League ballparks in the country. Contrast that to that team up North, located in the most congested neighborhood in one of the most densely populated cities in the country, barely accessible by public transportation, and they outdraw us by 10,000+ per game.

Before this season USCF was not accessible by Metra, just busses and the Red Line. How is Wrigley any different?

Parking at Coors Field in their lots is $13. But being that it's downtown, there are lots of non-stadium lots very close. Depending on the opponent, weekend vs. weekday and importance of the game (opening day, playoffs), they range from $5 to $60 (yes, I've seen that). On Sundays the meters downtown are off so if you do things right, you can park for free with only a short to walk.

My sister lives in the neighborhood across the pedestrian bridge (that goes across I-25) from Coors Field. We either drive a little closer to that bridge and park for free on the street, or just walk from her place. I love it.

skobabe8
06-23-2011, 08:47 PM
yes. U.s. Cellular field is located next to an 12-lane superhighway, is within walking distance of 2 cta lines and now a metra line, and has ample parking in the lots and plenty of free street parking to anyone who is even the slightest city savvy. it has to be one of the most easily accessible major league ballparks in the country. Contrast that to that team up north, located in the most congested neighborhood in one of the most densely populated cities in the country, barely accessible by public transportation, and they outdraw us by 10,000+ per game.

sshhhhhhhh

kittle42
06-23-2011, 09:13 PM
Yes. U.S. Cellular Field is located next to an 12-lane superhighway, is within walking distance of 2 CTA lines and now a Metra line, and has ample parking in the lots and plenty of free street parking to anyone who is even the slightest city savvy. It has to be one of the most easily accessible Major League ballparks in the country. Contrast that to that team up North, located in the most congested neighborhood in one of the most densely populated cities in the country, barely accessible by public transportation, and they outdraw us by 10,000+ per game.

AMEN.

If you can't figure out how to get to a game other than driving and parking in the overpriced lots, then really the blame is on you, not the Sox and their pricing.

doublem23
06-23-2011, 09:25 PM
Before this season USCF was not accessible by Metra, just busses and the Red Line. How is Wrigley any different?

Well, there are two separate lines within walking distance of the Cell, plus, it's way easier to get there than Wrigley. Green Line from the Loop to 35th is 1 stop, 10 minutes, tops. Red Line from the Loop to the park is maybe 15-20 with all the slow zones. In contrast, have you ever ridden the Red Line from the Loop north to Addison? That ride is easily 10x more brutal.

DSpivack
06-23-2011, 09:46 PM
Well, there are two separate lines within walking distance of the Cell, plus, it's way easier to get there than Wrigley. Green Line from the Loop to 35th is 1 stop, 10 minutes, tops. Red Line from the Loop to the park is maybe 15-20 with all the slow zones. In contrast, have you ever ridden the Red Line from the Loop north to Addison? That ride is easily 10x more brutal.

It all depends on where you live. Most Cub fans aren't trying to get to Wrigley from the south side. Both parks are pretty easily accessible via public transportation.

manders_01
06-23-2011, 11:16 PM
My sister lives in the neighborhood across the pedestrian bridge (that goes across I-25) from Coors Field. We either drive a little closer to that bridge and park for free on the street, or just walk from her place. I love it.

Yep, I always walk. It's rare if people I go with meet me there. Most of the time they come here and we all walk cause it's all free parking around me.

doublem23
06-24-2011, 05:00 AM
It all depends on where you live. Most Cub fans aren't trying to get to Wrigley from the south side. Both parks are pretty easily accessible via public transportation.

Yeah, but almost all suburban Cub fans have to take the Red Line north from Downtown as that's that only easy place to transfer to the CTA from any Metra line.

DSpivack
06-24-2011, 10:28 AM
Yeah, but almost all suburban Cub fans have to take the Red Line north from Downtown as that's that only easy place to transfer to the CTA from any Metra line.

Depends what suburb they're coming from.

C-Dawg
06-24-2011, 10:39 AM
In contrast, have you ever ridden the Red Line from the Loop north to Addison? That ride is easily 10x more brutal.

Brutal in what way? More station stops? That's to be expected since its a greater distance and a greater population density.

MarySwiss
06-24-2011, 10:45 AM
People in other cities must think Chicago is nuts. It's $5 to park in St Louis right by the park, from what my sister told me. She was there two months ago.
When I went to the Sox/D'Backs game last weekend, I paid $12 to park in the covered garage. Out here, "covered" parking is premium parking. :smile:

TomBradley72
06-24-2011, 11:01 AM
Yes there are creative ways to avoid the cost of parking, etc.- but for people working long hours and coming in from the suburbs- we're not really interested in "plotting our strategy" to save on parking- we want a fair price so we can pull up- go to a ballgame- then leave and go on with our lives.

I'm from the city originally- so I know every trick in the book on best ways to get to/from the park in heavy traffic- best places to park to save a buck or use public transit. But with the hours I put in at work and with my family- I don't really want to deal with that bull****. When I was younger/single- I was willing to do it- but with all the pressures on my time- it's just not worth it.

For four of us to go to a game- $200 for tix/parking + gas +food, etc.- in this economy- it's hit a tipping point where you end of choosing to save the money or spend it elsewhere. For $300- I can take my family to 2 nights at a local waterpark/resort for a weekend- vs. one ballgame watching Adam Dunn strike out 4 times and Juan Pierre slap some weak ass grounders.

kittle42
06-24-2011, 11:17 AM
For four of us to go to a game- $200 for tix/parking + gas +food, etc.- in this economy- it's hit a tipping point where you end of choosing to save the money or spend it elsewhere. For $300- I can take my family to 2 nights at a local waterpark/resort for a weekend- vs. one ballgame watching Adam Dunn strike out 4 times and Juan Pierre slap some weak ass grounders.

That's very true. I do think parking is way too pricey, but honestly, knocking even $10 off the price of parking is pretty irrelevant given that it's not much of a savings over the $200 total to take your family.

hi im skot
06-24-2011, 11:24 AM
I know it's a bit of a hassle, but does anyone here park in one of the cheap Chinatown lots and hop on the red line? Seems like a pretty decent way to save some money and avoid the Sox lots...

TomBradley72
06-24-2011, 11:29 AM
That's very true. I do think parking is way too pricey, but honestly, knocking even $10 off the price of parking is pretty irrelevant given that it's not much of a savings over the $200 total to take your family.

True enough- it's more the feeling of being gouged- just an annoyance.

Hartman
06-24-2011, 11:30 AM
Being from the Indianapolis area, I usually go to one game each year in the summer. After last year's ticket and parking cost, I'll be skipping this year. :(:

MarySwiss
06-24-2011, 11:34 AM
For four of us to go to a game- $200 for tix/parking + gas +food, etc.- in this economy- it's hit a tipping point where you end of choosing to save the money or spend it elsewhere. For $300- I can take my family to 2 nights at a local waterpark/resort for a weekend- vs. one ballgame watching Adam Dunn strike out 4 times and Juan Pierre slap some weak ass grounders.
I know what you mean. The game I went to last week wound up costing me a cool $150 for two of us--that was parking, tickets, and three beers. But at least the Sox won.

And we did come out of it with a pretty nifty Father's Day BBQ set, which I raffled off for free at work the next day since we don't cook out much. I wonder if I could write the game off as a business expense? :tongue:

doublem23
06-24-2011, 11:47 AM
Depends what suburb they're coming from.

I suppose, but there's really no benefit distance-wise to getting off the Metra and transfering to the CTA at one of the few point non-downton points its easy to do with maybe the exception of the Davis Street Metra/Purple Line transfer on the UP-North line.

kittle42
06-24-2011, 11:52 AM
The game ticket price and concessions themselves are becoming enough of a reason for me to go to fewer games. I have 1/6 of a full-season plan with others, but I have already sold or gifted away half of my games thus far (I have been to 5, but have sold/parted with 5 others). Cost is one thing - I'd rather have the cash (or almost all the cash) back from the tickets AND save the money I'd have spent on concessions, but I'll admit that if the team was doing better, I'd go more often. I usually average 20 games a season, but that has been really down the last two years.

hi im skot
06-24-2011, 12:22 PM
The game ticket price and concessions themselves are becoming enough of a reason for me to go to fewer games. I have 1/6 of a full-season plan with others, but I have already sold or gifted away half of my games thus far (I have been to 5, but have sold/parted with 5 others). Cost is one thing - I'd rather have the cash (or almost all the cash) back from the tickets AND save the money I'd have spent on concessions, but I'll admit that if the team was doing better, I'd go more often. I usually average 20 games a season, but that has been really down the last two years.

Not to mention the concessions are terrible, at least upstairs. I know I'm missing out on some good stuff on the 100 level, but at this point I can't afford to shell out the cash to sit downstairs.

At this point I'm just stopping by Jimmy John's and bringing it in with me.

Marqhead
06-24-2011, 12:25 PM
Not to mention the concessions are terrible, at least upstairs. I know I'm missing out on some good stuff on the 100 level, but at this point I can't afford to shell out the cash to sit downstairs.

At this point I'm just stopping by Jimmy John's and bringing it in with me.

See, I will never understand this because the concessions downstairs are dynamite. Yes, still ridiculously over-priced -- but there's way more bang for your buck down there.

hi im skot
06-24-2011, 12:30 PM
See, I will never understand this because the concessions downstairs are dynamite. Yes, still ridiculously over-priced -- but there's way more bang for your buck down there.

Everyone keeps raving about the Cuban sandwich downstairs, but I still haven't had the chance to check it out. Of course, I could get an elevator pass and head down there, but it still seems silly that I have to go out of my way to get something good to eat.

Yes, the Viennas are good, and the nacho helmets are epic, but sometimes something a little lighter sounds appealing. Bring some of that stuff upstairs.

doublem23
06-24-2011, 12:32 PM
Everyone keeps raving about the Cuban sandwich downstairs, but I still haven't had the chance to check it out. Of course, I could get an elevator pass and head down there, but it still seems silly that I have to go out of my way to get something good to eat.

Yes, the Vienna's are good, and the nacho helmets are epic, but sometimes something a little lighter sounds appealing. Bring some of that stuff upstairs.

Yeah, that is the one reason I like sitting downstairs, too. If you're savvy enough, you can usually find good deals on lower bowl seats via Stub Hub as long as you don't mind ****ty weeknight games in April and May against crappy teams.

hi im skot
06-24-2011, 12:32 PM
I'm not sure if it's just me being high maintenance, but I get the impression that the Sox just aren't trying very hard this year around the ballpark. I'm speaking mostly of concessions, but I've found the ballpark experience this year to be rather bland. Maybe it's got something to do with the underachieving team on the field, but I've been fairly underwhelmed so far this season.

hi im skot
06-24-2011, 12:35 PM
Yeah, that is the one reason I like sitting downstairs, too. If you're savvy enough, you can usually find good deals on lower bowl seats via Stub Hub as long as you don't mind ****ty weeknight games in April and May against crappy teams.

Yeah, I'm always keeping an eye on that, and with discount codes all over the place it's not outrageously difficult to get downstairs. And as I mentioned before, an elevator pass solves the problem of actually getting access to the 100 level, but it still seems a little ridiculous that it takes so much effort to find some of the good ballpark fare.

Crooked Number
06-24-2011, 12:41 PM
Yes there are creative ways to avoid the cost of parking, etc.- but for people working long hours and coming in from the suburbs- we're not really interested in "plotting our strategy" to save on parking- we want a fair price so we can pull up- go to a ballgame- then leave and go on with our lives.

I'm from the city originally- so I know every trick in the book on best ways to get to/from the park in heavy traffic- best places to park to save a buck or use public transit. But with the hours I put in at work and with my family- I don't really want to deal with that bull****. When I was younger/single- I was willing to do it- but with all the pressures on my time- it's just not worth it.

For four of us to go to a game- $200 for tix/parking + gas +food, etc.- in this economy- it's hit a tipping point where you end of choosing to save the money or spend it elsewhere. For $300- I can take my family to 2 nights at a local waterpark/resort for a weekend- vs. one ballgame watching Adam Dunn strike out 4 times and Juan Pierre slap some weak ass grounders.

Great post. It captures the two main dilemmas for attending a sporting event: money and time. Although I am currently single, I completely understand. I thought dropping 60-80 dollars was alot, sometimes forget how much it would be if i had children.

I agree with you on the part about not having to mess around with street parking. I'm sure I won't want to be bothering with that once i have little ones. Right now though its a breeze. The only time I fork out cash for parking is for opening day, or a big game with a planned ahead tailgate party.

TomBradley72
06-24-2011, 12:41 PM
I'm not sure if it's just me being high maintenance, but I get the impression that the Sox just aren't trying very hard this year around the ballpark. I'm speaking mostly of concessions, but I've found the ballpark experience this year to be rather bland. Maybe it's got something to do with the underachieving team on the field, but I've been fairly underwhelmed so far this season.

I would have to agree-

Everything feels very "stale" to me-from the pretty lame "promotions schedule", another non descript marketing strategy, to the clear feel of the the upper deck being a "Second Class" citizen.

Jollyroger2
06-24-2011, 01:06 PM
I would have to agree-

Everything feels very "stale" to me-from the pretty lame "promotions schedule", another non descript marketing strategy, to the clear feel of the the upper deck being a "Second Class" citizen.

See I disagree with all of this. How did suddenly the appeal of the ballpark concessions, promotions, marketing strategy etc sway thousands of fans?

It's the on-field product and always will be. The team is winning, and you could play in an abandoned concrete lot and people will show up. If they are losing, particularly in the Sox's case where they are badly underachieving, and people won't spend the money.

It's the same here in Washington. The area is pretty well-off in terms of the economy and income and should be a slam-dunk market. But the Nats have struggled to draw decent crowds. Of course back to back 100-loss seasons will turn off a big chunk of the fan base. There's the occasional big crowd, particularly when hordes of Philadelphia slugs come down I-95 to watch when the Phillies are here, but for the most part the crowds have been unimpressive.

The team wins a few games though, and this past weekend they draw over 100,000 for the three games vs. Baltimore.

If the Sox start playing better they'll pack the place. Chicago's got a massive population and sports market. If they can't put 35,000 in the seats they've got problems.

kittle42
06-24-2011, 01:16 PM
I would have to agree-

Everything feels very "stale" to me-from the pretty lame "promotions schedule", another non descript marketing strategy, to the clear feel of the the upper deck being a "Second Class" citizen.

Agree with the other poster - it's because the team stinks.

BringHomeDaBacon
06-24-2011, 01:53 PM
I don't know what they are charging now, but forking over that $20 bill for parking was a kick in the nuts every time. In the second half of 07 when I had my season tickets, I often decided to just eat the tickets rather than pay the parking (of course the team sucked). As was the case for TomBradley, monkeying around with street parking is a deal breaker for me. Even when I planned to do that, I would end up saying **** it and go to the lot. Given the traffic and time considerations, rarely if ever was it feasible to do that. Once you're there you just want to get your ass in the park.

jdm2662
06-24-2011, 02:04 PM
See I disagree with all of this. How did suddenly the appeal of the ballpark concessions, promotions, marketing strategy etc sway thousands of fans?

It's the on-field product and always will be. The team is winning, and you could play in an abandoned concrete lot and people will show up. If they are losing, particularly in the Sox's case where they are badly underachieving, and people won't spend the money.

It's the same here in Washington. The area is pretty well-off in terms of the economy and income and should be a slam-dunk market. But the Nats have struggled to draw decent crowds. Of course back to back 100-loss seasons will turn off a big chunk of the fan base. There's the occasional big crowd, particularly when hordes of Philadelphia slugs come down I-95 to watch when the Phillies are here, but for the most part the crowds have been unimpressive.

The team wins a few games though, and this past weekend they draw over 100,000 for the three games vs. Baltimore.

If the Sox start playing better they'll pack the place. Chicago's got a massive population and sports market. If they can't put 35,000 in the seats they've got problems.

Cha ching. You just won $200. You can take it, or take what's behind curtin number two.

What I find amusing is after the strike, all the complaints came out to how sterile and gerneic the ballpark is, and how the upper deck sucks, etc. Yet, I didn't hear many complaints before the strike when the Sox fielded a competitive team. Granted, the ballpark was ugly as hell, but it didn't seem to bother people when the team was winning. In the last few years, I've even heard people complain about burnt out lights, the unprofessionalism of the Sox staff, and fill in the blanks complaints.

Meanwhile, I was in KC in 2009. This was the first season they remodeled their respective ballpark. The ballpark was a hell lot nicer than Comiskey. The scoreboard was kick ass, the tickets were much cheaper, and the staff there was very friendly and professional. However, the team blows chunks. I highly doubt if that was the Sox situation, people would like their ballpark experience.

As for the topic, it costs exactly the same for my wife and I take the train than it does to park.

Weekend Merta passes x2= $14.00
CTA ride x4 = $9.00

Total = $23.00

doublem23
06-24-2011, 02:14 PM
As was the case for TomBradley, monkeying around with street parking is a deal breaker for me. Even when I planned to do that, I would end up saying **** it and go to the lot. Given the traffic and time considerations, rarely if ever was it feasible to do that. Once you're there you just want to get your ass in the park.

Well then I don't know what to tell you, granted, I rarely ever drive to games, but when I do and park on the streets, it rarely takes me more than a few minutes to find somewhere to park and walk to the park. Generally worth my $20.

:dunno:

It is what it is. My original point was that if you compare U.S. Cellular Field to other ballparks across the country, I'm sure it'd be one of the easiest to get to via almost any form of transportation. Its definitely more visitor friendly than Wrigley or Soldier Field. I understand that everyone is busy with work and kids and weekend trips and life in general, and I don't judge anyone who can't make the trek down to the park, but I don't know what other people expect the Sox to do about it, they and the city have made the park extremely easy to get to.

hi im skot
06-24-2011, 02:20 PM
See I disagree with all of this. How did suddenly the appeal of the ballpark concessions, promotions, marketing strategy etc sway thousands of fans?

I don't think anyone is saying that any of these factors are necessarily swaying folks. My point is that specifically this year these factors seem to be overlooked more than they have in the past.

I have no hard evidence or anything - I just feel personally that this year seems to be lacking. And again, perhaps the disappointment of an under-performing team factors into that...I can't say for certain. Just from my perspective, this year seems to be lacking in many categories.

:shrug:

BringHomeDaBacon
06-24-2011, 02:52 PM
Well then I don't know what to tell you, granted, I rarely ever drive to games, but when I do and park on the streets, it rarely takes me more than a few minutes to find somewhere to park and walk to the park. Generally worth my $20.

:dunno:

It is what it is. My original point was that if you compare U.S. Cellular Field to other ballparks across the country, I'm sure it'd be one of the easiest to get to via almost any form of transportation. Its definitely more visitor friendly than Wrigley or Soldier Field. I understand that everyone is busy with work and kids and weekend trips and life in general, and I don't judge anyone who can't make the trek down to the park, but I don't know what other people expect the Sox to do about it, they and the city have made the park extremely easy to get to.

I don't disagree with anything you've stated. People like you, me and most everyone else on this board are going to their fair share of games every year regardless. When certain factors (other than the quality of the team) start affecting decisions about exactly what constitutes that fair share, it's a good bet that those same factors are having an even greater affect on the casual fan and less frequent attendees. It was my impression that the thread was discussing those factors.

I don't know if anyone feels the same way, but I find the cost of parking in those lots excessive. While $5 won't ultimately make a difference in my life and is insignificant in relation to the total cost of going (I might spend $50 on concessions and not think twice), for whatever reason it impacts my decision as I find it to be an offensive price gouge that I won't stomach if the team sucks.

FWIW, I don't care about cheap hot dogs or lame ass giveaways that bring out some other people. However admittedly irrational it may seem, for me it's about the parking.

kittle42
06-24-2011, 03:05 PM
I don't know if anyone feels the same way, but I find the cost of parking in those lots excessive. While $5 won't ultimately make a difference in my life and is insignificant in relation to the total cost of going (I might spend $50 on concessions and not think twice), for whatever reason it impacts my decision as I find it to be an offensive price gouge that I won't stomach if the team sucks.

FWIW, I don't care about cheap hot dogs or lame ass giveaways that bring out some other people. However admittedly irrational it may seem, for me it's about the parking.

It's true - it's a mental thing. As soon as something like parking at $23 seems really unreasonable, you start thinking about other costs. Not irrational at all, really.

DumpJerry
06-24-2011, 03:27 PM
In contrast, have you ever ridden the Red Line from the Loop north to Addison? That ride is easily 10x more brutal.

Brutal in what way? More station stops? That's to be expected since its a greater distance and a greater population density.
As you know, 35th Street is 3500 south. Addison is 3600 north. One block further. Population density is irrelevant, it's not like the train has to make its way through heavy traffic. During rush hour the Red Line is a sardine can north and south.

C-Dawg
06-24-2011, 03:35 PM
As you know, 35th Street is 3500 south. Addison is 3600 north.

I admit I didn't know the street number of Addison. But I hope you weren't quibbling with my post; I was just trying to figure out what Doub meant by "10 times more brutal".

dickallen15
06-24-2011, 03:56 PM
Well, there are two separate lines within walking distance of the Cell, plus, it's way easier to get there than Wrigley. Green Line from the Loop to 35th is 1 stop, 10 minutes, tops. Red Line from the Loop to the park is maybe 15-20 with all the slow zones. In contrast, have you ever ridden the Red Line from the Loop north to Addison? That ride is easily 10x more brutal.

From the Madison/Monroe, I believe the Red Line ride is far quicker going north now than south because they fixed the slow zones north but they are getting ridiculous from Roosevelt to 35th. There's also a brown line stop fairly close to Wrigley.

FielderJones
06-24-2011, 04:02 PM
As you know, 35th Street is 3500 south. Addison is 3600 north. One block further. Population density is irrelevant, it's not like the train has to make its way through heavy traffic. During rush hour the Red Line is a sardine can north and south.

A Hinsdale Sox fan walking from Union Station to the Jackson Red Line stop will have four stops to hop off at 35th Street. A Naperville Cubbie fan will have nine stops to hop off at Addison Street. All the intervening stops add to the sardine-ness. :tongue: Like Doub said, brutal.

Dan H
06-24-2011, 04:48 PM
I always regard going to the ballpark as an expensive issue no matter what. The parking fee is steep but that doesn't bother me. I park in a church lot right behind the park. I usually attend night games with my daughter and we are able to get to the car quickly. I then get onto the Ryan just as quickly and we are on the way home to Indiana. I don't want to be walking around late at night especially with my daughter. It is a safety issue for me. Regardless, I don't hold the parking situation against the White Sox and I have been critical of the organization for many things.

What drives me away is when I don't think the team is making a strong enough effort to put a winning team on the field. Williams made a great effort this off season. Things just haven't worked out, and I am not going to hold that against the White Sox either. And my daughter and I are very happy Konerko is still on the team.

Empty Sox-Cubs seats? I had a chance to get tickets for a reasonable price and had no interest in going. I feel bad enough after White Sox losses and I don't need some stupid Cub fan getting in my face to taunt me. As I have posted before, these games are over-hyped. If the Cubbies ever win the BP Cup, it will be the only trophy that over-sold team will ever win. And what if the teams split the series? Will they split that stupid Cup? I bet Cub fans would be happy with a half-cup. They sure do rationalize a century of losing away.

Johnny Mostil
06-24-2011, 04:55 PM
I always regard going to the ballpark as an expensive issue no matter what. The parking fee is steep but that doesn't bother me. I park in a church lot right behind the park. I usually attend night games with my daughter and we are able to get to the car quickly. I then get onto the Ryan just as quickly and we are on the way home to Indiana. I don't want to be walking around late at night especially with my daughter. It is a safety issue for me. Regardless, I don't hold the parking situation against the White Sox and I have been critical of the organization for many things.

What drives me away is when I don't think the team is making a strong enough effort to put a winning team on the field. Williams made a great effort this off season. Things just haven't worked out, and I am not going to hold that against the White Sox either. And my daughter and I are very happy Konerko is still on the team.

Empty Sox-Cubs seats? I had a chance to get tickets for a reasonable price and had no interest in going. I feel bad enough after White Sox losses and I don't need some stupid Cub fan getting in my face to taunt me. As I have posted before, these games are over-hyped. If the Cubbies ever win the BP Cup, it will be the only trophy that over-sold team will ever win. And what if the teams split the series? Will they split that stupid Cup? I bet Cub fans would be happy with a half-cup. They sure do rationalize a century of losing away.

As I recall--and, yes, I should be too embarrassed to admit knowing this--if the season series is split 3-3 then the team winning the last game gets the cup.

I pretty much agree with the rest of the post, though the parking situation still annoys me.

doublem23
06-24-2011, 05:11 PM
A Hinsdale Sox fan walking from Union Station to the Jackson Red Line stop will have four stops to hop off at 35th Street. A Naperville Cubbie fan will have nine stops to hop off at Addison Street. All the intervening stops add to the sardine-ness. :tongue: Like Doub said, brutal.

This is basically what I am getting at, plus, the Red Line is subway is absolutely the most soul crushing experience in Chicago mass transit, which makes up a good chunk of the ride north. The ride south is actually pretty smooth aside from the ridiculous slow zones south of Roosevelt.

Also, I thought all Chicagoans knew this but apparently not, the street numbering systems is different north of Madison and south; north of Madison every mile is equal to 800 address points and that rule has no exceptions, so Addison is 4.5 miles north of Madison (3600/800), but south of Madison, Roosevelt (1200) marks 1 mile, Cermak (2200 S) marks 2 miles and 31st Street (3100 S) marks 3 miles. This is because the Near South Side of the city was built out before the grid was designed and rationalized, rather than move the streets around, they fudged the numbers. 35th is actually almost 1 1/2 miles closer to Madison than Addison, despite only being "1 block" off the grid.

http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-OclttfJrUI8/TadZ5DOfzLI/AAAAAAAABSg/T2ZWxEMF72Q/s1600/the_more_you_know.jpg

DSpivack
06-24-2011, 05:48 PM
This is basically what I am getting at, plus, the Red Line is subway is absolutely the most soul crushing experience in Chicago mass transit, which makes up a good chunk of the ride north. The ride south is actually pretty smooth aside from the ridiculous slow zones south of Roosevelt.

Also, I thought all Chicagoans knew this but apparently not, the street numbering systems is different north of Madison and south; north of Madison every mile is equal to 800 address points and that rule has no exceptions, so Addison is 4.5 miles north of Madison (3600/800), but south of Madison, Roosevelt (1200) marks 1 mile, Cermak (2200 S) marks 2 miles and 31st Street (3100 S) marks 3 miles. This is because the Near South Side of the city was built out before the grid was designed and rationalized, rather than move the streets around, they fudged the numbers. 35th is actually almost 1 1/2 miles closer to Madison than Addison, despite only being "1 block" off the grid.

http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-OclttfJrUI8/TadZ5DOfzLI/AAAAAAAABSg/T2ZWxEMF72Q/s1600/the_more_you_know.jpg

I actually did not know that. The more you know, indeed.

That does make some sense, now; as I used to get oft the train at Chinatown/Cermak, get some steamed pork buns and other baked goodies, then walk to the park. I thought it went quickly for 13 blocks or whatever that would be [22nd to 35th].

Though I seldom ride it, the blue line seems worse to me than the red, but that's maybe simply because of the much older train cars. The Red has gotten much worse over the years with slow zones, however. And that's all that really bothers me.

doublem23
06-24-2011, 07:07 PM
I actually did not know that. The more you know, indeed.

That does make some sense, now; as I used to get oft the train at Chinatown/Cermak, get some steamed pork buns and other baked goodies, then walk to the park. I thought it went quickly for 13 blocks or whatever that would be [22nd to 35th].

Though I seldom ride it, the blue line seems worse to me than the red, but that's maybe simply because of the much older train cars. The Red has gotten much worse over the years with slow zones, however. And that's all that really bothers me.

Yeah actually the whole South Side is a mess with the addressing. Garfield Blvd/55th Street is a major road all the way from the lake to Midway despite being off the 400/800 grid. 5500 N is Catalpa Ave. Does anyone know where Catalpa is? Hell no. But, 5500 S makes sense when you realize it's 3 miles south of 31st Steet (5500 - 3100 = 2400, 2400/800 = 3).

skobabe8
06-24-2011, 08:13 PM
This is our first year since 2006 without a 27 game ticket plan. We have averaged about 30 games/year during this time (so 150 games the past 5 years). I don't remember what parking cost in 2006, but say the average over those 5 years was $22/game. That's a total savings of $3300 by parking on the street each and every game. That's astounding.

Brian26
06-24-2011, 08:20 PM
As for the topic, it costs exactly the same for my wife and I take the train than it does to park.

Weekend Merta passes x2= $14.00
CTA ride x4 = $9.00

Total = $23.00

I think if you have a Chicago Card and you guys share it, you can cut that CTA total down to $5.00. $2.25 for you, hand the card to your wife, she goes thru the turnstile for 25 cents. Do the same on the way home.
$5.00 round trip for you two.

doublem23
06-24-2011, 08:25 PM
I think if you have a Chicago Card and you guys share it, you can cut that CTA total down to $5.00. $2.25 for you, hand the card to your wife, she goes thru the turnstile for 25 cents. Do the same on the way home.
$5.00 round trip for you two.

It doesn't automatically charge a 2nd fare at the same station?

Brian26
06-24-2011, 08:35 PM
It doesn't automatically charge a 2nd fare at the same station?

Unless there's a glitch in the system, this has worked for me within the last six months.

voodoochile
06-24-2011, 10:06 PM
Yeah actually the whole South Side is a mess with the addressing. Garfield Blvd/55th Street is a major road all the way from the lake to Midway despite being off the 400/800 grid. 5500 N is Catalpa Ave. Does anyone know where Catalpa is? Hell no. But, 5500 S makes sense when you realize it's 3 miles south of 31st Steet (5500 - 3100 = 2400, 2400/800 = 3).

Having grown up in Hyde Park I always assumed the SS used odd numbers for major streets to differentiate from the north side. 5500 = 5600-100. 5600/800 = 7 (miles I always thought before reading your earlier post).

All of the major streets on the south side are a (X*800)-100 where X is of the format X.0 or X.5.

Major streets around Hyde Park are 47th, 51st, 55th, 59th and 63rd. As you can see they all follow that pattern as do 31st, 35th, 39th and 43rd.

Hope that helps explain some of the mystery behind the odd(ly) numbered major south side thoroughfares.

doublem23
06-24-2011, 10:16 PM
Having grown up in Hyde Park I always assumed the SS used odd numbers for major streets to differentiate from the north side. 5500 = 5600-100. 5600/800 = 7 (miles I always thought before reading your earlier post).

All of the major streets on the south side are a (X*800)-100 where X is of the format X.0 or X.5.

Major streets around Hyde Park are 47th, 51st, 55th, 59th and 63rd. As you can see they all follow that pattern as do 31st, 35th, 39th and 43rd.

Hope that helps explain some of the mystery behind the odd(ly) numbered major south side thoroughfares.

No, it's because the 800 = 1 mile grid doesn't start on the South Side until 31st street.

1st mile = 1200 to a mile so 600 S (Harrison) is 1/2 mile, 1200 S (Roosevelt) is 1 mile.
2nd mile = 1000 to a mile so 1700 S (17th) is 1/2 mile, 2200 S (Cermak) is 2 miles.
3rd mile = 900 to a mile so 2650 S is 1/2 mile, 3100 S (31st) is 3 miles.
After that, the 800 to a mile goes in effect

This was done because the Near South Side was the original "it" neighborhood in the city (ever taken a tour of Prairie Ave. around 18th-ish? Amazing) so the city's elite were able to avoid having their addresses reconfigured when the city sought to standardize its numbering system. Also, since the majority of older growth in the Loop is south of Madison, those businesses were able to avoid having to renumber their addresses. Back then the North Side was the middle-to-lower class so the new numeric system was put in place up here, so if you've got a keen eye, especially in older neighborhoods, you can occasionally find an old, now incorrect address in a building's ornamental features.

3.5 mi = 35th Street
4.0 mi = 39th Street
4.5 mi = 43rd Street
5.0 mi = 47th Street
5.5 mi = 51st Street
6.0 mi = 55th Street/Garfield Blvd

And so on...

rookie
06-24-2011, 10:19 PM
If either team was 5-10 games over.500 and the attendance this week would be normal. The Sox have played poorly at home this year(I am 1-4 in games attended),and that sucks the life out of the experience...

I think attendance is a reflection of three factors: team play, weekday series,and economy.

Yeah, they've been real bad at home, not just losing but losing in heartbreakers. I'm 0-4. I love my Sox but there's no way I'm investing time in traffic and money until they start playing better.


As for the topic, it costs exactly the same for my wife and I take the train than it does to park.

Total = $23.00

Ditto. And if you go during the week, Metra costs even more. If more than 2 are going then public transportation makes no sense. At least driving you can tailgate and get your food and drink on for a lot cheaper.

voodoochile
06-24-2011, 10:26 PM
No, it's because the 800 = 1 mile grid doesn't start on the South Side until 31st street.

1st mile = 1200 to a mile so 600 S (Harrison) is 1/2 mile, 1200 S (Roosevelt) is 1 mile.
2nd mile = 1000 to a mile so 1700 S (17th) is 1/2 mile, 2200 S (Cermak) is 2 miles.
3rd mile = 900 to a mile so 2650 S is 1/2 mile, 3100 S (31st) is 3 miles.
After that, the 800 to a mile goes in effect

3.5 mi = 35th Street
4.0 mi = 39th Street
4.5 mi = 43rd Street
5.0 mi = 47th Street
5.5 mi = 51st Street
6.0 mi = 55th Street/Garfield Blvd

And so on...

Right and I didn't know that until you mentioned it tonight, but I was merely pointing out that for the vast majority of the southside the major streets fit that pattern, right out to 95th and beyond all the way out I-94.

Many people don't know but the Southside used to be the rich side of town. That's why the Colombian Exposition was held there. Some high society lady decided to move north back in the early 1900's I believe and that brought the rest of everyone with her and changed the city's complexion forever, but at one time Hyde Park, Kenwood and South Shore were the cool places for rich folks to live in Chicago. The houses in Kenwood and South Shore are huge and very beautiful and the old hotels in Hyde Park were some of the best in the city. They don't build a golf club like the South Shore Country Club in areas that resemble the current South Shore area.

doublem23
06-24-2011, 10:36 PM
Many people don't know but the Southside used to be the rich side of town. That's why the Colombian Exposition was held there. Some high society lady decided to move north back in the early 1900's I believe and that brought the rest of everyone with her and changed the city's complexion forever, but at one time Hyde Park, Kenwood and South Shore were the cool places for rich folks to live in Chicago. The houses in Kenwood and South Shore are huge and very beautiful and the old hotels in Hyde Park were some of the best in the city. They don't build a golf club like the South Shore Country Club in areas that resemble the current South Shore area.

Yes, that was Potter and Bertha Palmer. Potter Palmer made his fortune as one of the founding partners in what eventually became known as Marshall Field's, but he sold his investments in the company to become a real estate mogul. Opportunity struck for him in 1871 when most of Chicago burned to the ground. Much of the debris was used to fill in the swamp north of the Loop establishing the land that would eventually become the Gold Coast. The Palmers build their mansion on the new land and helped lure other member's of the city's elite to their new development on the lake.

DSpivack
06-24-2011, 10:52 PM
Yes, that was Potter and Bertha Palmer. Potter Palmer made his fortune as one of the founding partners in what eventually became known as Marshall Field's, but he sold his investments in the company to become a real estate mogul. Opportunity struck for him in 1871 when most of Chicago burned to the ground. Much of the debris was used to fill in the swamp north of the Loop establishing the land that would eventually become the Gold Coast. The Palmers build their mansion on the new land and helped lure other member's of the city's elite to their new development on the lake.

Many people don't know but the Southside used to be the rich side of town. That's why the Colombian Exposition was held there. Some high society lady decided to move north back in the early 1900's I believe and that brought the rest of everyone with her and changed the city's complexion forever, but at one time Hyde Park, Kenwood and South Shore were the cool places for rich folks to live in Chicago. The houses in Kenwood and South Shore are huge and very beautiful and the old hotels in Hyde Park were some of the best in the city. They don't build a golf club like the South Shore Country Club in areas that resemble the current South Shore area.

Most, though not all, of those original Prairie Avenue mansions are now gone [by McCormick Place].

The U.S. Soccer Association is headquartered in one of the remaining ones.

soxinem1
06-24-2011, 10:53 PM
Yes, that was Potter and Bertha Palmer. Potter Palmer made his fortune as one of the founding partners in what eventually became known as Marshall Field's, but he sold his investments in the company to become a real estate mogul. Opportunity struck for him in 1871 when most of Chicago burned to the ground. Much of the debris was used to fill in the swamp north of the Loop establishing the land that would eventually become the Gold Coast. The Palmers build their mansion on the new land and helped lure other member's of the city's elite to their new development on the lake.

The Potter Palmer Residence mansion was actually a castle at what is now known as 1350 North Lakeshore Drive, as the site is now occupied by high-rise apartment buildings.

By the late 1940's, the developers figured out that this area will be going up, as in 150-200 feet in the air.

In 1950, the Palmer Residence was eliminated from the landscape.

I came across some pre-demolition pictures of both the Palmer castle and the McCormick mansion several years ago. Vandals destroyed most of the McCormick house, but the hand-carved woodwork and onamental interior/exterior of the Palmer mansion was astounding.

voodoochile
06-24-2011, 10:57 PM
The Potter Palmer Residence mansion was actually a castle at what is now known as 1350 North Lakeshore Drive, as the site now occupies a high-rise apartment building.

By the late 1940's, the developers figured out that this area will be going up, as in 150-200 feet in the air.

In 1950, the Palmer Residence was eliminated.

I came across some pre-demolition pictures of both the Palmer castle and the McCormick mansion several years ago. Vandals destroyed most of the McCormick house, but the hand-carved woodwork and onamental interior/exterior of the Palmer mansion was astounding.

That whole stretch from Oak to North used to be filled with beautiful mansions. All that remains now is the Cardinal's mansion. The rest are all gone replaced by high-rises. Some of the pictures of a nascent LSD with cars from the 20s and 30s on it are simply amazing.

soxinem1
06-24-2011, 11:06 PM
That whole stretch from Oak to North used to be filled with beautiful mansions. All that remains now is the Cardinal's mansion. The rest are all gone replaced by high-rises. Some of the pictures of a nascent LSD with cars from the 20s and 30s on it are simply amazing.

To add to that, the pictures of the Palmer mansion walk-thru were absolutely amazing.

And further South on Prairie, Glessner House and Clarke House sit off 18th Street, the area, as a previous poster noted, was loaded with these homes as well, stretching all the way down through South Shore, and included the McCormick mansion.

I will never forget as a kid the Clarke House being frozen over the 'L' tracks, as the cold weather left the building on top of them for several days. They were moving it from 45th Street, IIRC. When Clarke House was previously moved to 45th Street the train did not exist.

Now that was an amazing site, seeing a historic house stuck over the 'L' tracks!

soxfan2504
06-25-2011, 01:05 AM
No, it's because the 800 = 1 mile grid doesn't start on the South Side until 31st street.

1st mile = 1200 to a mile so 600 S (Harrison) is 1/2 mile, 1200 S (Roosevelt) is 1 mile.
2nd mile = 1000 to a mile so 1700 S (17th) is 1/2 mile, 2200 S (Cermak) is 2 miles.
3rd mile = 900 to a mile so 2650 S is 1/2 mile, 3100 S (31st) is 3 miles.
After that, the 800 to a mile goes in effect

This was done because the Near South Side was the original "it" neighborhood in the city (ever taken a tour of Prairie Ave. around 18th-ish? Amazing) so the city's elite were able to avoid having their addresses reconfigured when the city sought to standardize its numbering system. Also, since the majority of older growth in the Loop is south of Madison, those businesses were able to avoid having to renumber their addresses. Back then the North Side was the middle-to-lower class so the new numeric system was put in place up here, so if you've got a keen eye, especially in older neighborhoods, you can occasionally find an old, now incorrect address in a building's ornamental features.

3.5 mi = 35th Street
4.0 mi = 39th Street
4.5 mi = 43rd Street
5.0 mi = 47th Street
5.5 mi = 51st Street
6.0 mi = 55th Street/Garfield Blvd

And so on...

That actually nails it, except for two small things......the street that's halfway between Roosevelt and Cermak is 16th, not 17th. I know, odd since that doesn't fit what's mathematically halfway, but it is what it is.

And 26th is halfway between Cermak and 31st.......just look at the street patterns in Bridgeport or Little Village and it becomes obvious.

Basically, the only segments between Madison and 31st that fit the 4 blocks=1/2 mile rule are Roosevelt to 16th, and Cermak to 26th.

BigKlu59
06-25-2011, 09:39 AM
Right and I didn't know that until you mentioned it tonight, but I was merely pointing out that for the vast majority of the southside the major streets fit that pattern, right out to 95th and beyond all the way out I-94.

Many people don't know but the Southside used to be the rich side of town. That's why the Colombian Exposition was held there. Some high society lady decided to move north back in the early 1900's I believe and that brought the rest of everyone with her and changed the city's complexion forever, but at one time Hyde Park, Kenwood and South Shore were the cool places for rich folks to live in Chicago. The houses in Kenwood and South Shore are huge and very beautiful and the old hotels in Hyde Park were some of the best in the city. They don't build a golf club like the South Shore Country Club in areas that resemble the current South Shore area.


Thank you Professor Voodoo... This historical aspect of the City of Chicago is lost to most.. Even so called Local "Historians". I used to laugh when I moved out of town and to the east and would hear people bad mouth the South Side like they thought it was Fort Apache the Bronx..

I would point out certain "AREAS" of their own metropolis as a comparision to what "once was".. and the light bulb would go off.. Thats the difference I noted being out east. PRESERVATION of historic Landmarks. Its a shame with all of the Urban renewal of the last century that alot of historic landmarks had been lost in the once vibrant south side. As you said, it was the moving and shakin part of town financially and politically I'd say up untill the '40's... After the War and the beginning of the sprawl alot of the character was dismissed in favor of modernization. Alot of timeless craftsmanship was lost in this blind "upgrading".

BK59

billcissell
06-25-2011, 10:32 AM
Correct. Most of the city's elite lived on south side. The north side consisted mostly of factories and farms.

The south side was THE side of town. Quite a few high rollers also resided on the west side, along the "L" tracks extending into Oak Park.

The north side, with the exception of the area around the Cardinal's mansion, was primarily working class.

Many of the movers and shakers in Chicago also settled in the North Shore communities after 1900. The towns of Lake Forest, Kenilworth, Winnetka, Glencoe, Wilmette, Highland Park and Evanston boasted a fair share of wealthy residents. Many lived within walking distance of the North Shore line so they could handily commute downtown everyday.

McCormick, Field and others built magnificent 50-room palaces along the lakefront in Lake Forest in the roaring 20s. Most of these magnificent structures have long since been demolished. The families moved on and no one wanted to take on the tremendous cost for upkeep, taxes, etc.

But yes, people forget that the south side was THE glamor side of town for a long time many years ago. Sometimes it's hard to imagine when you take a look at some of the neighborhoods down there now.

BigKlu59
06-25-2011, 11:13 AM
Correct. Most of the city's elite lived on south side. The north side consisted mostly of factories and farms.

The south side was THE side of town. Quite a few high rollers also resided on the west side, along the "L" tracks extending into Oak Park.

The north side, with the exception of the area around the Cardinal's mansion, was primarily working class.

Many of the movers and shakers in Chicago also settled in the North Shore communities after 1900. The towns of Lake Forest, Kenilworth, Winnetka, Glencoe, Wilmette, Highland Park and Evanston boasted a fair share of wealthy residents. Many lived within walking distance of the North Shore line so they could handily commute downtown everyday.

McCormick, Field and others built magnificent 50-room palaces along the lakefront in Lake Forest in the roaring 20s. Most of these magnificent structures have long since been demolished. The families moved on and no one wanted to take on the tremendous cost for upkeep, taxes, etc.

But yes, people forget that the south side was THE glamor side of town for a long time many years ago. Sometimes it's hard to imagine when you take a look at some of the neighborhoods down there now.


I call those that moved North part of the Carrie Nation crowd... In reality,The south side was the HEART of the industrial revolution of the city that took place and Chicago exploded at a rate of progress that left most towns out east looking like they were standing still in time.. The influx of immigration and the hustle bustle lifestyle "foreign" to staid residents opted to a more temperant lifestyle in the North Shore.. This can be seen in Evanston's push to become "DRY" and buttoned up tight, apposed to the elbow rubbing street smarts that grew the City..

BK58

SOXfnNlansing
06-25-2011, 01:42 PM
The only reason they didn't sell out: weeknight games :whiner: that's why we didn't go

DSpivack
06-25-2011, 02:58 PM
I call those that moved North part of the Carrie Nation crowd... In reality,The south side was the HEART of the industrial revolution of the city that took place and Chicago exploded at a rate of progress that left most towns out east looking like they were standing still in time.. The influx of immigration and the hustle bustle lifestyle "foreign" to staid residents opted to a more temperant lifestyle in the North Shore.. This can be seen in Evanston's push to become "DRY" and buttoned up tight, apposed to the elbow rubbing street smarts that grew the City..

BK58

Spot on, though not just a push for Evanston to become dry, but the whole country, as Frances Willard & the Women's Christian Temperance Union called Evanston home. They were seminal in lobbying for prohibition (though also they were just as important for women's suffrage). Evanston was a dry town until nearly 1980, I want to say the first liquor license was given in 1979, and it wasn't until the late 1990s that Evanston really grew and had the number of bars and restaurants that you would normally find in a city of 75,000 people.

BigKlu59
06-25-2011, 03:09 PM
Spot on, though not just a push for Evanston to become dry, but the whole country, as Frances Willard & the Women's Christian Temperance Union called Evanston home. They were seminal in lobbying for prohibition (though also they were just as important for women's suffrage). Evanston was a dry town until nearly 1980, I want to say the first liquor license was given in 1979, and it wasn't until the late 1990s that Evanston really grew and had the number of bars and restaurants that you would normally find in a city of 75,000 people.

:thumbsup: You Da Professor, You !!! Nice follow up...

BK59

DSpivack
06-25-2011, 03:56 PM
:thumbsup: You Da Professor, You !!! Nice follow up...

BK59

Naw, just an Evanston native who knows about my hometown, like you know about the south side (or I assume you do, anyway :tongue:).

Mostly I'm just a big nerd who loves learning random useless trivia, I wasn't captain of my college bowl (trivia) team for nothing. :redneck

Also, the WCTU still calls Evanston home. I have no idea what they do now.

doublem23
06-25-2011, 04:17 PM
Naw, just an Evanston native who knows about my hometown, like you know about the south side (or I assume you do, anyway :tongue:).

Mostly I'm just a big nerd who loves learning random useless trivia, I wasn't captain of my college bowl (trivia) team for nothing. :redneck

Also, the WCTU still calls Evanston home. I have no idea what they do now.

The irony of all this is that nearby Lincolnwood was basically the drug, alcohol, gambling, prostitution capital of the Chicagoland area.

DSpivack
06-25-2011, 04:30 PM
The irony of all this is that nearby Lincolnwood was basically the drug, alcohol, gambling, prostitution capital of the Chicagoland area.

I'm guessing that may have been because it's one the closest suburbs outside the city limits. Similarly, Capone had a home in River Forest, right?

BigKlu59
06-25-2011, 04:49 PM
I'm guessing that may have been because it's one the closest suburbs outside the city limits. Similarly, Capone had a home in River Forest, right?

Ya, and business 'Interests" in Cicero... Alot of "NIMBY" and eye turning and it seemed interests bordered on the boarders of sections of town..

Nah, I was a Nort Side Urchin at birth from BuckTown.. Dad worked mostly on the West, Loop and South Side for Hillman's so I got alot of West Pulaski, State St and 35th and King upbringin.. Pop called it quits after they transfered him to 95th & Jeffries.. Had to be a quick study in those days.. You oldtimers know the rule... If you were in a neighboorhood after 6pm, you best be with a local or have a good reason for doing business there.. :D:

BK59

Southsider101
06-25-2011, 06:10 PM
Correct. Most of the city's elite lived on south side. The north side consisted mostly of factories and farms.

The south side was THE side of town. Quite a few high rollers also resided on the west side, along the "L" tracks extending into Oak Park.

The north side, with the exception of the area around the Cardinal's mansion, was primarily working class.

Many of the movers and shakers in Chicago also settled in the North Shore communities after 1900. The towns of Lake Forest, Kenilworth, Winnetka, Glencoe, Wilmette, Highland Park and Evanston boasted a fair share of wealthy residents. Many lived within walking distance of the North Shore line so they could handily commute downtown everyday.

McCormick, Field and others built magnificent 50-room palaces along the lakefront in Lake Forest in the roaring 20s. Most of these magnificent structures have long since been demolished. The families moved on and no one wanted to take on the tremendous cost for upkeep, taxes, etc.

But yes, people forget that the south side was THE glamor side of town for a long time many years ago. Sometimes it's hard to imagine when you take a look at some of the neighborhoods down there now.

Another reason the wealthy from Prairie Avenue moved to the North Shore in the late 19th and early 20th century was the Haymarket Riot of 1886, and later, the Pullman Strike of 1894. Fort Sheridan was established in 1887 and many of the wealthy soon followed seeking the protection of federal troops.

LITTLE NELL
06-26-2011, 11:05 AM
It looks to me like the fan base up there is rebelling against high ticket and parking prices or the economy is hitting Chicago much harder than other cities. Yesterday (Sat. the 25th) the Sox had the smallest attendance of all 15 games in MLB, very sad for the 3rd largest metro area in the country.

doublem23
06-27-2011, 08:46 AM
It looks to me like the fan base up there is rebelling against high ticket and parking prices or the economy is hitting Chicago much harder than other cities. Yesterday (Sat. the 25th) the Sox had the smallest attendance of all 15 games in MLB, very sad for the 3rd largest metro area in the country.

I think they're just rebelling against this crappy collection of overpaid underachievers.

If the Sox were in 1st place, the place would be hopping. There's too much to do in Chicago to sit around watching bad baseball.

The Immigrant
06-27-2011, 08:56 AM
I think they're just rebelling against this crappy collection of overpaid underachievers.

I think that's the main reason. I went to yesterday's game and found very little to enjoy, even though it could not have been a more perfect day for baseball. It wasn't because of ticket prices or any of the other things people have complained about. It was because of the mediocre product on the field and the lack of excitement for this particular squad. Everything about this team seems stale and predictable. I have seen this movie many times before and I have very little desire to go back anytime soon.

Jerko
06-27-2011, 09:01 AM
It looks to me like the fan base up there is rebelling against high ticket and parking prices or the economy is hitting Chicago much harder than other cities. Yesterday (Sat. the 25th) the Sox had the smallest attendance of all 15 games in MLB, very sad for the 3rd largest metro area in the country.

Saturday's crowd was like a weekday afternoon game. Stands in the OF were closed, etc. Best part was watching the fans looking for their exact seat with the whole damn section open, save the first 4 rows.

Quentin08
06-27-2011, 10:57 AM
On Saturday, they were 3.5 games out of first place with more than 3 months of baseball left. Anything can happen. It's not like the Sox are 10 games out with 1 month left. We have freakin' Paul Konerko on this team, along with others from the World Series team; we have Buehlre, who's thrown a perfect game, a no hitter, and made the play of the year last season; we have a killer rotation and a lineup capable of going on a roll. Things haven't gone our way up to this point, but it's not only the team that's making the ballpark experience dull and lifeless; it's the fans' lack of support.

It's embarrassing when the fans won't even come out unless the team is in first place and they're playing exciting baseball. Because of this, the organization can't afford to start over and rebuild with a bunch of young unfamiliar faces. No one would show up. Instead, we're faced with the same old same old season after season, and nothing changes. The fans are partly to blame for a crappy season. They should be out there in full force, getting loud, and willing this team on to finally start running on all cylinders.

doublem23
06-27-2011, 11:05 AM
If you multiply the Sox's average attendance vs. our average ticket price, we're actually doing very well compared to the league in gate revenues, something like #9 overall right now but within shooting distance to get as high as #6, so don't make it sound like the Sox are in the poor house.

And yes, the Sox are within shooting distance of 1st place but it's only because the division leaders in the Central have wilted back to the pack, the Sox are the same old tired, fundamentall bad baseball team we've had to watch for most of the past 5 seasons. And it's especially aggrevating watching that considering how well paid most of these guys are. It's one thing to watch a young team rebuild with a core of young players that will hopefully be around for a while, but watching a bunch of multimillionaire veterns slump for 3 straight months is just not an enjoyable way to spend a day.

TommyGavinFloyd
06-27-2011, 11:11 AM
I think that's the main reason. I went to yesterday's game and found very little to enjoy, even though it could not have been a more perfect day for baseball. It wasn't because of ticket prices or any of the other things people have complained about. It was because of the mediocre product on the field and the lack of excitement for this particular squad. Everything about this team seems stale and predictable. I have seen this movie many times before and I have very little desire to go back anytime soon.

That's my take on things. This team does an awful job at sending people home happy. I'm 1-4 on the year. I have had the pleasure of seeing them lose to Baltimore, twice to the A's (in the 9th inning for both), and that first Nationals game. I swore to myself that I wouldn't go again after seeing them blow it vs the A's but free tickets to see them beat the Cubs had me thinking, "Yeah, let's come back ASAP!". I'm done for the year after that first Nats game, even if they go on a 60 game winning streak. This team will not get another dime from me unless it's to buy the World Series 2011 hat and shirt.

Lip Man 1
06-27-2011, 11:14 AM
Quentin:

Question for you...if you went to a hardware story and they sold you the wrong tool, would you continue to shop there? If you went to an eatery and they sold you a bad meal, say they burned your steak would you continue to eat there?

The White Sox are a business according to many. (I think they are a public trust but that's another discussion...) If that's the case then they are to be held to the same standards as everybody else.

If they are playing badly, if they are under .500 etc. the fans have no obligation to support them do they?...no different then asking them to keep going back to another business that as in my examples sells the wrong tools or burns the steak.

I simply dislike 'blaming' the fans for anything. They are the engine that drives the entire organization...everyone needs to remember that.

Lip

BigKlu59
06-27-2011, 12:05 PM
Quentin:

Question for you...if you went to a hardware story and they sold you the wrong tool, would you continue to shop there? If you went to an eatery and they sold you a bad meal, say they burned your steak would you continue to eat there?

The White Sox are a business according to many. (I think they are a public trust but that's another discussion...) If that's the case then they are to be held to the same standards as everybody else.

If they are playing badly, if they are under .500 etc. the fans have no obligation to support them do they?...no different then asking them to keep going back to another business that as in my examples sells the wrong tools or burns the steak.

I simply dislike 'blaming' the fans for anything. They are the engine that drives the entire organization...everyone needs to remember that.

Lip

Its all come full circle... Sure, when all there was in town was a Ball Game, Dinner or a Movie to stroke the masses, people walked/drove a few blocks to the "NEIGHBOURHOOD" Ball park... North or South -side. Sure, team's would like to have that blind fanatical following, but at this point the separation from society by the Players and Teams themselves lends to a disassociation/disengagement from the public.. Another STRIKE/ LOCK Out by any of the Major Leagues will be their death knell.. What are they gonna do this time? Turn the game into video contest resembling your favorite XBOX Matches to entice future generations? We already went thru the "JUICE" era where even 135 lb'ers smacked the ball out of the park like they were hitting a superball...

At this point its not a pastural fancy... Its a financial investment as you say..Too many other distractions to get bang for your buck..


Its the old saying... keep banging your head on the wall and getting a headache hoping for another outcome is insanity..

Agree Lip... Fool me once... Shame on you... Fool me twice....Shame on me..

BK59

doublem23
06-27-2011, 12:26 PM
Its all come full circle... Sure, when all there was in town was a Ball Game, Dinner or a Movie to stroke the masses, people walked/drove a few blocks to the "NEIGHBOURHOOD" Ball park... North or South -side. Sure, team's would like to have that blind fanatical following, but at this point the separation from society by the Players and Teams themselves lends to a disassociation/disengagement from the public.. Another STRIKE/ LOCK Out by any of the Major Leagues will be their death knell.. What are they gonna do this time? Turn the game into video contest resembling your favorite XBOX Matches to entice future generations? We already went thru the "JUICE" era where even 135 lb'ers smacked the ball out of the park like they were hitting a superball...

At this point its not a pastural fancy... Its a financial investment as you say..Too many other distractions to get bang for your buck..


Its the old saying... keep banging your head on the wall and getting a headache hoping for another outcome is insanity..

Agree Lip... Fool me once... Shame on you... Fool me twice....Shame on me..

BK59

I don't even understand what the attempted point of this was.

Teams win = People come out. Team lose = People don't.

dickallen15
06-27-2011, 12:32 PM
That's my take on things. This team does an awful job at sending people home happy. I'm 1-4 on the year. I have had the pleasure of seeing them lose to Baltimore, twice to the A's (in the 9th inning for both), and that first Nationals game. I swore to myself that I wouldn't go again after seeing them blow it vs the A's but free tickets to see them beat the Cubs had me thinking, "Yeah, let's come back ASAP!". I'm done for the year after that first Nats game, even if they go on a 60 game winning streak. This team will not get another dime from me unless it's to buy the World Series 2011 hat and shirt.

When the NBA was really booming it was always mentioned that the home team won a higher percentage of the time than in any other sport. That is good for business. The Sox the last several years have been great at home, this year, not so good. That, the weather not cooperating, the cost, the overall record, and the economy don't help this team at the box office.

GlassSox
06-27-2011, 12:34 PM
On Saturday, they were 3.5 games out of first place with more than 3 months of baseball left. Anything can happen. It's not like the Sox are 10 games out with 1 month left. We have freakin' Paul Konerko on this team, along with others from the World Series team; we have Buehlre, who's thrown a perfect game, a no hitter, and made the play of the year last season; we have a killer rotation and a lineup capable of going on a roll. Things haven't gone our way up to this point, but it's not only the team that's making the ballpark experience dull and lifeless; it's the fans' lack of support.

It's embarrassing when the fans won't even come out unless the team is in first place and they're playing exciting baseball. Because of this, the organization can't afford to start over and rebuild with a bunch of young unfamiliar faces. No one would show up. Instead, we're faced with the same old same old season after season, and nothing changes. The fans are partly to blame for a crappy season. They should be out there in full force, getting loud, and willing this team on to finally start running on all cylinders.

It is not the fans fault when the team (both staff & players) fail. Let me try to understand this, they get paid millions to succeed and the fans who have to pay to watch the crappy deliverable are partly to blame? I don't think so!

BigKlu59
06-27-2011, 12:36 PM
I don't even understand what the attempted point of this was.

Teams win = People come out. Team lose = People don't.


Its a long way of saying what you just said in 2 sentences... I'm more War and Peace..You gave the abbreviated version..

I will respond though with the fact I believed more still showed up even with those losing ball clubs from the 20's to the 60's before the advent of mass media.. Still mostly a local happening/family outing whether at Shibe to watch the A's, or to Comiskey to watch the Sox.. Maybe the Brown's struggled, But hey.. They were the Brown's...

As I said, Back then... Dinner, Movie, Game or Fishing off of Montrose..

Box of Nightcrawlers.. .50 Ticket to the game... .50


BK59

Quentin08
06-27-2011, 02:15 PM
Quentin:

Question for you...if you went to a hardware story and they sold you the wrong tool, would you continue to shop there? If you went to an eatery and they sold you a bad meal, say they burned your steak would you continue to eat there?

The White Sox are a business according to many. (I think they are a public trust but that's another discussion...) If that's the case then they are to be held to the same standards as everybody else.

If they are playing badly, if they are under .500 etc. the fans have no obligation to support them do they?...no different then asking them to keep going back to another business that as in my examples sells the wrong tools or burns the steak.

I simply dislike 'blaming' the fans for anything. They are the engine that drives the entire organization...everyone needs to remember that.

Lip

Lip: I don't view the Sox like every other business. If a steakhouse down the street served me a burnt steak, I'd simply move on and look for another steakhouse in town. I can't do that with the Sox. They're the one and only team I'm willing to invest in.

There's nothing better than watching live baseball throughout the summer, it's definitely more exciting and worth my money when the Cell is packed, and in my opinion, the players feed off that extra energy from the crowd which can only help the team.

If I could afford it, I'd go to many more games during the summer, and the only reason I'd refuse to go is if the team was as embarrassing as the Cubs and it was obvious that the owners weren't trying their hardest to put a winning team together. That's not the case with the Sox. This team has potential, and they certainly could use a hostile home field advantage in the 2nd half of the season.

dickallen15
06-27-2011, 02:25 PM
Lip: I don't view the Sox like every other business. If a steakhouse down the street served me a burnt steak, I'd simply move on and look for another steakhouse in town. I can't do that with the Sox. They're the one and only team I'm willing to invest in.

There's nothing better than watching live baseball throughout the summer, it's definitely more exciting and worth my money when the Cell is packed, and in my opinion, the players feed off that extra energy from the crowd which can only help the team.

If I could afford it, I'd go to many more games during the summer, and the only reason I'd refuse to go is if the team was as embarrassing as the Cubs and it was obvious that the owners weren't trying their hardest to put a winning team together. That's not the case with the Sox. This team has potential, and they certainly could use a hostile home field advantage in the 2nd half of the season.

If you could afford it. Why should you be given a pass because you can't afford it, but others should go into debt to watch a game? And the Cubs don't try? They recently made back to back playoff appearances. If the Sox deserve to be watched, they will be watched. As Jerry Reinsdorf once said, White Sox fans cannot be conned. I just find it wrong that someone that doesn't attend a lot of games and has a reasonable excuse as to why he doesn't, complains about others who may not even be as diehard as he not going to games.

voodoochile
06-27-2011, 02:46 PM
Please lets not cross the line about talking about attendance as a measure of a fan. It's specifically prohibited in the rules.

You are free to have a discussion about whether this team deserves our hard earned money but the minute it crosses the line into that other stuff it's not allowed.

Thanks.

BigKlu59
06-27-2011, 02:58 PM
Please lets not cross the line about talking about attendance as a measure of a fan. It's specifically prohibited in the rules.

You are free to have a discussion about whether this team deserves our hard earned money but the minute it crosses the line into that other stuff it's not allowed.

Thanks.


Welcome... but I find it amusing touching the Kyptonite of the subject and being reprimanded about it in a thread titled "Empty Seats"... which would lead some on here to believe it to have an attendance vein associated with it..

BK59

doublem23
06-27-2011, 03:05 PM
Welcome... but I find it amusing touching the Kyptonite of the subject and being reprimanded about it in a thread titled "Empty Seats"... which would lead some on here to believe it to have an attendance vein associated with it..

BK59

There's a pretty clear line between talking about attendance and pointing the finger at other posters for not going.

amsteel
06-27-2011, 03:13 PM
I've been to almost 20 games this year and haven't paid more than 25$ a seat other than opening day and I have never sat in the 500 level. All games other than opening day have been through secondary marketplaces. If you're willing to walk there is plenty of street parking available.

Be flexible, buy tickets last minute, and try to enjoy the game. If you're gonna go and worry/complain about how much you're spending to go the game, you're probably not going to enjoy yourself.

BigKlu59
06-27-2011, 03:13 PM
There's a pretty clear line between talking about attendance and pointing the finger at other posters for not going.

I say.. Go if ya wanna go...Not bustin anybodys chops if they dont.. I dont recall starting any boycott in my verbage :scratch:

BK59

doublem23
06-27-2011, 03:15 PM
I say.. Go if ya wanna go...Not bustin anybodys chops if they dont.. I dont recall starting any boycott in my verbage :scratch:

BK59

That's fine, I don't think the original warning was aimed at you. It's one thing to talk about the numbers of butts in seats, but again, it's a very different thing to start actively calling others out for not going. We have a very dedicated group of fans here who support the Sox as much as they're able to. Essentially all we ask of our posters is that they respect their fellow Sox fans.

Carry on, boys.

Quentin08
06-27-2011, 03:23 PM
I'm not giving myself a pass, and I'm not blaming anyone for not going, especially if it means they'll have to go into dept. For me personally, I should be in a better position to attend the weekend games in August without leaving a huge dent in my wallet, and I'll likely go regardless of their place in the standings.

Last season, the Sox were playing so poorly until the middle of June, and no one expected them to go on that long winning streak. If that happened last season, why can't it happen this season? I fully expect the Sox to eventually reach the .500 mark and go on another winning streak in July or August. I just think some fans are too pessimistic about this team, that's all.

Soxfest
06-27-2011, 03:48 PM
Quentin:

Question for you...if you went to a hardware story and they sold you the wrong tool, would you continue to shop there? If you went to an eatery and they sold you a bad meal, say they burned your steak would you continue to eat there?

The White Sox are a business according to many. (I think they are a public trust but that's another discussion...) If that's the case then they are to be held to the same standards as everybody else.

If they are playing badly, if they are under .500 etc. the fans have no obligation to support them do they?...no different then asking them to keep going back to another business that as in my examples sells the wrong tools or burns the steak.

I simply dislike 'blaming' the fans for anything. They are the engine that drives the entire organization...everyone needs to remember that.

Lip
I do not blame the fans at all fans are tired of watching same thing over and over since June 2006.

dickallen15
06-27-2011, 03:59 PM
I'm not giving myself a pass, and I'm not blaming anyone for not going, especially if it means they'll have to go into dept. For me personally, I should be in a better position to attend the weekend games in August without leaving a huge dent in my wallet, and I'll likely go regardless of their place in the standings.

Last season, the Sox were playing so poorly until the middle of June, and no one expected them to go on that long winning streak. If that happened last season, why can't it happen this season? I fully expect the Sox to eventually reach the .500 mark and go on another winning streak in July or August. I just think some fans are too pessimistic about this team, that's all.

It can happen, but until the Sox play better for more than a week or so, there are going to be tumbleweeds at USCF. If they play good baseball, they will have no trouble with empty seats, as long as they are still in contention and not playing out the string.

Lip Man 1
06-27-2011, 06:27 PM
So far they're longest winning streak of the season is four games. With their poor hitting, iffy defense and inconsistent fundamentals, it's going to be hard to consistently win games.

Lip

chisoxfanatic
06-27-2011, 08:04 PM
I've been to almost 20 games this year and haven't paid more than 25$ a seat other than opening day and I have never sat in the 500 level. All games other than opening day have been through secondary marketplaces. If you're willing to walk there is plenty of street parking available.

Be flexible, buy tickets last minute, and try to enjoy the game. If you're gonna go and worry/complain about how much you're spending to go the game, you're probably not going to enjoy yourself.
Is that $25 including fees? If so, then, wow, how did you pull that off? I've played around at StubHub a little bit and noticed that, when I click on a ticket, it mentions something like a $15 fee.

doublem23
06-27-2011, 08:11 PM
Is that $25 including fees? If so, then, wow, how did you pull that off? I've played around at StubHub a little bit and noticed that, when I click on a ticket, it mentions something like a $15 fee.

It's like $6 per order to download and print your tickets. Which sucks, but that's why I scour for $5 seats.

manders_01
06-27-2011, 08:28 PM
It's like $6 per order to download and print your tickets. Which sucks, but that's why I scour for $5 seats.

I wish the download now wasn't the only option. I would rather have the person mail me hard tickets when there's time for free. But I haven't noticed that as an option anymore.

MARTINMVP
06-27-2011, 09:06 PM
Lip: I don't view the Sox like every other business. If a steakhouse down the street served me a burnt steak, I'd simply move on and look for another steakhouse in town. I can't do that with the Sox. They're the one and only team I'm willing to invest in.

There's nothing better than watching live baseball throughout the summer, it's definitely more exciting and worth my money when the Cell is packed, and in my opinion, the players feed off that extra energy from the crowd which can only help the team.

If I could afford it, I'd go to many more games during the summer, and the only reason I'd refuse to go is if the team was as embarrassing as the Cubs and it was obvious that the owners weren't trying their hardest to put a winning team together. That's not the case with the Sox. This team has potential, and they certainly could use a hostile home field advantage in the 2nd half of the season.

I don't think there is a right or wrong answer to this. I think the best answer to this type of debate is a simple "to each his own."

MARTINMVP
06-27-2011, 09:10 PM
I just think some fans are too pessimistic about this team, that's all.

The Sox have underachieved all year. It's nearing the end of June. I think it is safe to say, unless a miracle takes place, the Sox are no better than a .500 baseball team. Being a few games out of first place is a testament to how mediocre the rest of our division can be. While anything can happen, and IF the Sox were to eek their way into the playoffs, all bets can be off come October. That is a big if though. Bottom line, the lack of optimism based on how this team has performed this year is not out of line.

TaylorStSox
06-27-2011, 10:08 PM
Typically, I go to about 20 games a year. Hell, for me, it's easy. I just jump on my bike and ride for about 30 minutes (Live on Damen and Chicago now. Though I fought the move so that I didn't have to change my WSI sn:tongue:). Parking a bike is easy, so the commute's about 60 minutes total. Well, I haven't been to a game all year. It's too expensive for me. The economic climate has destroyed the industry I work in. Even so, I guarantee that I'd have been to at least 5 games by now if we were at least enjoyable to watch. There's nothing worse than watching veterans fail, prospects get mishandled or flat out tank. It's just been bad baseball. We're bad defensively. We don't put hits together. The pitching's been pretty consistent, yet pretty boring.

I usually watch at least 5 games a week. This year, I've been watching about 3. Even in '07, I rarely missed a game and attended a ton. This team is just brutal to watch. It's damn near Murphy's Law for every game. Even some of our wins have been painful. I'm praying for some type of resurgence in the second half. Us fans really need some excitement.

As far as the attendance for the Cubs series, it's a combination of things.

A. Night games during the week. I'd have a hard time dealing with the hassle of coming out for a game if I lived in the burbs. I'd imagine Cubs fans were pretty turned off as well.
B. Both teams are pretty bad.
C. General lack of interest. In years past, there would be buzz about the series downtown. Random people on the streets would yell, "Go Sox." Receptionists would give me crap about being a Sox fan. I'd have elevator conversations with strangers. The series has definitely lost it's luster. I'm biased as I've never enjoyed it. I hate interleague play. However, the lack energy around the city is noticeable. I didn't see much TV advertising either.

chisoxfanatic
06-27-2011, 10:39 PM
As far as the attendance for the Cubs series, it's a combination of things.

A. Night games during the week. I'd have a hard time dealing with the hassle of coming out for a game if I lived in the burbs. I'd imagine Cubs fans were pretty turned off as well.
B. Both teams are pretty bad.
C. General lack of interest. In years past, there would be buzz about the series downtown. Random people on the streets would yell, "Go Sox." Receptionists would give me crap about being a Sox fan. I'd have elevator conversations with strangers. The series has definitely lost it's luster. I'm biased as I've never enjoyed it. I hate interleague play. However, the lack energy around the city is noticeable. I didn't see much TV advertising either.
I think that is the biggest factor here. After a decade and a half of the crosstown series, it has lost its luster. It's proof that it would be best if they brought it down to 1 series a season, or just quit doing it every year.

SoxFan78
06-28-2011, 08:04 AM
A. Night games during the week. I'd have a hard time dealing with the hassle of coming out for a game if I lived in the burbs. I'd imagine Cubs fans were pretty turned off as well.

I think this is a big factor. Usually when it's held on the weekend, the interest Monday-Thursday would build up to the first Friday afternoon game. People would take off work and make a semi long weekend of it. But with the game starting on a Monday night, it seemed like just another series. In my opinion at least.

Chez
06-28-2011, 09:09 AM
I think that is the biggest factor here. After a decade and a half of the crosstown series, it has lost its luster. It's proof that it would be best if they brought it down to 1 series a season, or just quit doing it every year.

Perhaps the buzz wasn't as great this season (for many of the factors set out in this thread). But the fact remains that the Sox drew 35,000+ fans each week night. Do you think any other visiting team would have drawn close to this on a Monday through Wednesday series? Maybe NYY. Maybe Boston. The Series even with "diminished luster" is still wildly popular with most fans (especially with casual fans) and won't be changed anytime soon.

TomBradley72
06-28-2011, 09:46 AM
I think this is a big factor. Usually when it's held on the weekend, the interest Monday-Thursday would build up to the first Friday afternoon game. People would take off work and make a semi long weekend of it. But with the game starting on a Monday night, it seemed like just another series. In my opinion at least.

But weeknights still make sense from a business standpoint- 35,000/night Monday- Wednesday is a much better use of the Cubs games vs. using them over the weekends when you draw better regardless of opponent.

Jollyroger2
06-28-2011, 09:52 AM
The Sox have underachieved all year. It's nearing the end of June. I think it is safe to say, unless a miracle takes place, the Sox are no better than a .500 baseball team. Being a few games out of first place is a testament to how mediocre the rest of our division can be. While anything can happen, and IF the Sox were to eek their way into the playoffs, all bets can be off come October. That is a big if though. Bottom line, the lack of optimism based on how this team has performed this year is not out of line.

Agreed. And they aren't even a .500 team yet. The rest of the division blows, but time is wasting. Nobody can say for sure or assume Cleveland won't get hot again, or Detroit can/will suddenly take off. The losses are mounting and I really can't see this Sox team suddenly exploding to win 10 of 12 or something. They just don't have it in them. Guys like Pierre and Dunn are showing no signs of even slight improvement. And based on Williams's remarks it sounds like they're happy with the status quo and they aren't going to do anything to improve the situation.

doublem23
06-28-2011, 10:23 AM
But weeknights still make sense from a business standpoint- 35,000/night Monday- Wednesday is a much better use of the Cubs games vs. using them over the weekends when you draw better regardless of opponent.

Yeah, if either of these teams was even remotely worth watching, they'd have sold those games out easily.

MARTINMVP
06-28-2011, 10:27 AM
And based on Williams's remarks it sounds like they're happy with the status quo and they aren't going to do anything to improve the situation.

I hardly suspect that Williams is happy with the status quo. He probably wants to remove Ozzie as bad as anyone else who wants him gone, but we know Kenny can only go as far as what Uncle Jerry allows. Kenny knows that a public feud with Ozzie is bad for the team, and I'm sure at this point, he knows he is better off to publically support Ozzie than risk ruffling the feathers.

And as far as improving the situation, I'd be surprised if there was anything else the team can do. I highly doubt they'll be buyers prior to the trade deadline.