PDA

View Full Version : Us versus the Cubs and the Bears


Viva Magglio
07-25-2003, 11:46 PM
We win our eighth straight game that included Frank Thomas' 400th home run. Yet, I bet we will be slighted by the local media in favor of the Cubs' victory over Houston (which, of course, means that the Cubs have clinched the World Series championship) and the Bears in Bourbonnais. Will we ever get any respect?

The Cubs issue has been beaten to death here, and we don't need to reiterate it. However, how come the media gets so "ga-ga" when a team that was 4-12 last season reports to training camp. Don't give me the stuff that Chicago is a "football town" or whatever. I am not saying the Bears should not be covered, but the media acts like the opening of training camp is the Second Coming of Christ. It's as if the media, omnipotent in its own mind, believes that baseball should be forgotten and that we should direct all of our energy on the Bears. I have grown tired of this.

A.T. Money
07-25-2003, 11:51 PM
Good, let us stay hidden in the media while we streak. So far it's working. Let's not get all this exposure and jinx it. Let's just quietly win win win.

BearSox
07-26-2003, 12:07 AM
From the looks of it NBC and ABC both started off with the Cubs but Dan Jiggets the classy and smart guy he is lead off with the Sox on Fox. Didn't get to see CBS

1951Campbell
07-26-2003, 12:13 AM
I love the White Sox, but I'll never understand why the Bears get any ink at all.

Yeah, see my sig below.

Lip Man 1
07-26-2003, 12:23 AM
On WGN-TV the Sox were the lead story followed by the Cubs and then the Bears.

Lip

Saracen
07-26-2003, 12:37 AM
The start of training camp is a big deal, with the signings and all. Football is only 16 games, so every day has bigger magnitude than baseball. I'm a lifelong Sox fan, but I have no problem with them showing Bears stories too. As long as it's not the Cubs I'm happy.

gosox41
07-26-2003, 01:00 AM
Originally posted by Saracen
The start of training camp is a big deal, with the signings and all. Football is only 16 games, so every day has bigger magnitude than baseball. I'm a lifelong Sox fan, but I have no problem with them showing Bears stories too. As long as it's not the Cubs I'm happy.

I'm a Bears fan, but I'll admit the Bears suck. I could care less about training camp. A lot of Bear fans lack intelligence (I may fall into that category) and break down every single play like it matters. The thing is they have 16 games to figure out why their team sucks and complain about th seat licenses (which most of them paid for and still whine about.) It's July. The Sox are playing well. I could care less about the first day of training camp. Baseball should be king in Chicago. The Sox are playing well and the Cubs are hanging in. Who cares what a team that has had 2 winning seasons in the last 9 (in a league where based on parity which makes the Bears that much worse) oes on the first day of training camp?

Bob

Jjav829
07-26-2003, 02:47 AM
Dan Bernstein said it best: Only in Chicago can a city get so excited about two mediocre baseball teams. Face it, that's all we are right now, 8 game winning streak or not. We're only 3 games over .500 and 4 games back of first. Until we get to first place, I don't expect much media coverage.

PaleHoseGeorge
07-26-2003, 09:51 AM
Originally posted by Saracen
The start of training camp is a big deal, with the signings and all. Football is only 16 games, so every day has bigger magnitude than baseball. I'm a lifelong Sox fan, but I have no problem with them showing Bears stories too. As long as it's not the Cubs I'm happy.

Good point. Baseball and football couldn't be more different from one another. Football fans will go on and on about how boring baseball is and by comparision how exciting their sport is.

What a load of bull****.

The truth is football fans will spend SIX DAYS between every game entertaining themselves with scrimmages and injury reports. The games themselves contain about 45 minutes of actual action, the rest of the 3 hours comprised of team conferences and television commercials. No wonder everybody spends so much time in the john and in the kitchen, rifling through the refridgerator. America's obesity epidemic isn't caused by trans-fatty acids half as much as 48 hours of non-stop TV football coverage. :smile:

95 percent of football fans have no idea what is going on on the field besides what the announcers spoon feed them. They have no idea WHY the ground game isn't working, or WHAT route the receivers SHOULD be running--or for that matter what those route names even mean. Their understanding of the rules is limited to holding, clipping, off-sides, and 4 downs to make 10 yards. Come to think of it, the average football player has hardly more understanding of the rules either. :smile:

It goes without saying that the average football fan has no clue that the REAL excitement of a baseball game comes between pitches. They're not on the edge of their seat for a 2-2 pitch because they can't fathom why the 2-2 pitch is the action pitch. They're clueless why hitting the cut-off man on a throw towards the plate often determines the outcome of a game. Understanding managerial strategy-- like when to put runners in motion, change pitchers, or pinch hit-- is something they think is determined on draft day when you picked a big offensive lineman over the Heisman runner-up tailback. To their way of thinking, "more beef" is what constitutes strategy. :D:

So football fans will spend the next six weeks watching guys jog, hit pads, take snaps, sweat and drink Gatorade. They'll spend 6 of every 7 days during the actual season doing the exact same thing--and reading countless column-inches breathlessly describing "the action" in the sports pages, too.

And they'll all claim it is baseball that is boring. Gimme a break...

QueerGirrl
07-26-2003, 10:02 AM
"America's obesity epidemic isn't caused by trans-fatty acids half as much as 48 hours of non-stop TV football coverage. :smile:"




LOL. Good point!!!

TornLabrum
07-26-2003, 10:20 AM
Originally posted by PaleHoseGeorge
Good point. Baseball and football couldn't be more different from one another. Football fans will go on and on about how boring baseball is and by comparision how exciting their sport is.

What a load of bull****.

The truth is football fans will spend SIX DAYS between every game entertaining themselves with scrimmages and injury reports. The games themselves contain about 45 minutes of actual action, the rest of the 3 hours comprised of team conferences and television commercials. No wonder everybody spends so much time in the john and in the kitchen, rifling through the refridgerator. America's obesity epidemic isn't caused by trans-fatty acids half as much as 48 hours of non-stop TV football coverage. :smile:

95 percent of football fans have no idea what is going on on the field besides what the announcers spoon feed them. They have no idea WHY the ground game isn't working, or WHAT route the receivers SHOULD be running--or for that matter what those route names even mean. Their understanding of the rules is limited to holding, clipping, off-sides, and 4 downs to make 10 yards. Come to think of it, the average football player has hardly more understanding of the rules either. :smile:

It goes without saying that the average football fan has no clue that the REAL excitement of a baseball game comes between pitches. They're not on the edge of their seat for a 2-2 pitch because they can't fathom why the 2-2 pitch is the action pitch. They're clueless why hitting the cut-off man on a throw towards the plate often determines the outcome of a game. Understanding managerial strategy-- like when to put runners in motion, change pitchers, or pinch hit-- is something they think is determined on draft day when you picked a big offensive lineman over the Heisman runner-up tailback. To their way of thinking, "more beef" is what constitutes strategy. :D:

So football fans will spend the next six weeks watching guys jog, hit pads, take snaps, sweat and drink Gatorade. They'll spend 6 of every 7 days during the actual season doing the exact same thing--and reading countless column-inches breathlessly describing "the action" in the sports pages, too.

And they'll all claim it is baseball that is boring. Gimme a break...

I would even go further and say that America's "love affair" with football (particularly the NFL) is more like America's love affair with gambling. Without gambling, and the lines on every NFL game changing daily until game time, and all the 800 numbers giving the hot tip of the week, the interest in the NFL would be right up their with our interest in the America's Cup, the Tour de France, or the NHL.

whitesoxwilkes
07-26-2003, 11:11 AM
Originally posted by TornLabrum
I would even go further and say that America's "love affair" with football (particularly the NFL) is more like America's love affair with gambling. Without gambling, and the lines on every NFL game changing daily until game time, and all the 800 numbers giving the hot tip of the week, the interest in the NFL would be right up their with our interest in the America's Cup, the Tour de France, or the NHL.

Hey! I'm interested in the America's Cup...

whitesoxwilkes
07-26-2003, 11:14 AM
..and yeah, I forgot to talk about football. let's face it..the Bears have a long history, but it's not exactly a storied one. They won one Super Bowl 18 years ago and people still talk about it like it was yesterday. They somehow managed to pull off a stunt similar to the 2002 Twins back in '01 and get every single lucky break to go their way...but the team overall is just not that good, and for the most part has not been all that good as far back as I can remember.

But I will say this, I sure do love watching them. I came from upstate NY which has a serious case of Bills fever, but it's nothing like this...

voodoochile
07-26-2003, 11:17 AM
Originally posted by PaleHoseGeorge
Good point. Baseball and football couldn't be more different from one another. Football fans will go on and on about how boring baseball is and by comparision how exciting their sport is.

What a load of bull****.

The truth is football fans will spend SIX DAYS between every game entertaining themselves with scrimmages and injury reports. The games themselves contain about 45 minutes of actual action, the rest of the 3 hours comprised of team conferences and television commercials. No wonder everybody spends so much time in the john and in the kitchen, rifling through the refridgerator. America's obesity epidemic isn't caused by trans-fatty acids half as much as 48 hours of non-stop TV football coverage. :smile:

95 percent of football fans have no idea what is going on on the field besides what the announcers spoon feed them. They have no idea WHY the ground game isn't working, or WHAT route the receivers SHOULD be running--or for that matter what those route names even mean. Their understanding of the rules is limited to holding, clipping, off-sides, and 4 downs to make 10 yards. Come to think of it, the average football player has hardly more understanding of the rules either. :smile:

It goes without saying that the average football fan has no clue that the REAL excitement of a baseball game comes between pitches. They're not on the edge of their seat for a 2-2 pitch because they can't fathom why the 2-2 pitch is the action pitch. They're clueless why hitting the cut-off man on a throw towards the plate often determines the outcome of a game. Understanding managerial strategy-- like when to put runners in motion, change pitchers, or pinch hit-- is something they think is determined on draft day when you picked a big offensive lineman over the Heisman runner-up tailback. To their way of thinking, "more beef" is what constitutes strategy. :D:

So football fans will spend the next six weeks watching guys jog, hit pads, take snaps, sweat and drink Gatorade. They'll spend 6 of every 7 days during the actual season doing the exact same thing--and reading countless column-inches breathlessly describing "the action" in the sports pages, too.

And they'll all claim it is baseball that is boring. Gimme a break...

LOL! You nailed us football fans, George. Of course I wouldn't have it any other way and yes, I at least HOPE I am in the other 5% of the fans who actually understand the game, but it is a much more complex game than baseball, requiring true teamwork on every play to go anywhere. Baseball is so different, because most of the action is a series of individual plays. No one goes anywhere on a football field unless the other 10 guys are helping them get there.

The reason they only play one game every 7 days is because football is so ferocious that it takes that long to recover. It is that power, anger, violence and intensity that makes football truly America's sport. I mean a 90 yard drive to score a TD is essentially what the Europeans did to the Natives many years ago on a much grander scale. Baseball claims to be America's pasttime, but the truth is far more violent...

Ah, Football... I love it...

voodoochile
07-26-2003, 11:23 AM
Originally posted by whitesoxwilkes
..and yeah, I forgot to talk about football. let's face it..the Bears have a long history, but it's not exactly a storied one. They won one Super Bowl 18 years ago and people still talk about it like it was yesterday. They somehow managed to pull off a stunt similar to the 2002 Twins back in '01 and get every single lucky break to go their way...but the team overall is just not that good, and for the most part has not been all that good as far back as I can remember.

But I will say this, I sure do love watching them. I came from upstate NY which has a serious case of Bills fever, but it's nothing like this...

Well, George Halas invented the NFL, so the Bears are THE founding member of the league. The Packers didn't even come along until year 2 (so THERE, Campbell and all your green and yellow clad brethren :D: ).

In addition, the Bears have won more championships than any other sport in Chicago history. Yes, the last few decades have been particularly difficult. The advent of higher salaries, FA and Michael McCaskey have conspired to make the team an average at best club (sigh). Still, sitting in the stands on a rainy freezing Sunday afternoon in November is a Bears fan's equivilant of a heaven.

Like George said, it's all about the beef. If my beef can beat up your beef - it's all good...

WinningUgly!
07-26-2003, 12:17 PM
Originally posted by whitesoxwilkes
Hey! I'm interested in the America's Cup...

Isn't that where Paulie got hit the other night? :smile:

RKMeibalane
07-26-2003, 12:18 PM
Originally posted by WinningUgly!
Isn't that where Paulie got hit the other night? :smile:

LOL! Good one!

joecrede
07-26-2003, 12:30 PM
Originally posted by PaleHoseGeorge
Good point. Baseball and football couldn't be more different from one another. Football fans will go on and on about how boring baseball is and by comparision how exciting their sport is.

What a load of bull****.

The truth is football fans will spend SIX DAYS between every game entertaining themselves with scrimmages and injury reports. The games themselves contain about 45 minutes of actual action, the rest of the 3 hours comprised of team conferences and television commercials. No wonder everybody spends so much time in the john and in the kitchen, rifling through the refridgerator. America's obesity epidemic isn't caused by trans-fatty acids half as much as 48 hours of non-stop TV football coverage. :smile:

95 percent of football fans have no idea what is going on on the field besides what the announcers spoon feed them. They have no idea WHY the ground game isn't working, or WHAT route the receivers SHOULD be running--or for that matter what those route names even mean. Their understanding of the rules is limited to holding, clipping, off-sides, and 4 downs to make 10 yards. Come to think of it, the average football player has hardly more understanding of the rules either. :smile:

It goes without saying that the average football fan has no clue that the REAL excitement of a baseball game comes between pitches. They're not on the edge of their seat for a 2-2 pitch because they can't fathom why the 2-2 pitch is the action pitch. They're clueless why hitting the cut-off man on a throw towards the plate often determines the outcome of a game. Understanding managerial strategy-- like when to put runners in motion, change pitchers, or pinch hit-- is something they think is determined on draft day when you picked a big offensive lineman over the Heisman runner-up tailback. To their way of thinking, "more beef" is what constitutes strategy. :D:

So football fans will spend the next six weeks watching guys jog, hit pads, take snaps, sweat and drink Gatorade. They'll spend 6 of every 7 days during the actual season doing the exact same thing--and reading countless column-inches breathlessly describing "the action" in the sports pages, too.

And they'll all claim it is baseball that is boring. Gimme a break...

Summed up football fans beautifully PHG.

All the Bears analysis is funny as hell to listen to though. The media treats exhibition games like they are the seventh game of the World Series. The angst over who is going to be the Bears third receiver or backup tackle is hillarious. It's all so meaningless too because except for the best and worst two or three teams in the league, where a team finishes is based solely on who they play and their health.

gosox41
07-26-2003, 12:45 PM
Originally posted by Jjav829
Dan Bernstein said it best: Only in Chicago can a city get so excited about two mediocre baseball teams. Face it, that's all we are right now, 8 game winning streak or not. We're only 3 games over .500 and 4 games back of first. Until we get to first place, I don't expect much media coverage.

Maytbe Bernstein should add to that statement. Maybe something like: "and only in Chicago can everyone get excited about a crappy football team that has 2 +.500 seasons in the last 9 years, an ugly ass stadium with which over $200 mill. was funded by the tax payer, cheap ownership, and an offensive coordinator who is clueless."

What's the difference between getting excited about the Sox, who are above .500 and the Bears who in some seasons can't win more then 6 games with a fourth place schedule?

Of course Bernsie is probably getting excited about the Bears, but that's OK for some reason.

Bob

gosox41
07-26-2003, 12:48 PM
Originally posted by PaleHoseGeorge
Good point. Baseball and football couldn't be more different from one another. Football fans will go on and on about how boring baseball is and by comparision how exciting their sport is.

What a load of bull****.

The truth is football fans will spend SIX DAYS between every game entertaining themselves with scrimmages and injury reports. The games themselves contain about 45 minutes of actual action, the rest of the 3 hours comprised of team conferences and television commercials. No wonder everybody spends so much time in the john and in the kitchen, rifling through the refridgerator. America's obesity epidemic isn't caused by trans-fatty acids half as much as 48 hours of non-stop TV football coverage. :smile:

95 percent of football fans have no idea what is going on on the field besides what the announcers spoon feed them. They have no idea WHY the ground game isn't working, or WHAT route the receivers SHOULD be running--or for that matter what those route names even mean. Their understanding of the rules is limited to holding, clipping, off-sides, and 4 downs to make 10 yards. Come to think of it, the average football player has hardly more understanding of the rules either. :smile:

It goes without saying that the average football fan has no clue that the REAL excitement of a baseball game comes between pitches. They're not on the edge of their seat for a 2-2 pitch because they can't fathom why the 2-2 pitch is the action pitch. They're clueless why hitting the cut-off man on a throw towards the plate often determines the outcome of a game. Understanding managerial strategy-- like when to put runners in motion, change pitchers, or pinch hit-- is something they think is determined on draft day when you picked a big offensive lineman over the Heisman runner-up tailback. To their way of thinking, "more beef" is what constitutes strategy. :D:

So football fans will spend the next six weeks watching guys jog, hit pads, take snaps, sweat and drink Gatorade. They'll spend 6 of every 7 days during the actual season doing the exact same thing--and reading countless column-inches breathlessly describing "the action" in the sports pages, too.

And they'll all claim it is baseball that is boring. Gimme a break...

I was rading a study a few yearse ago that said during one of the recent Super Bowls there was about 18 1/2 minutes of action durign the 4 hours the game was on. That meant play happening after actually snapping the ball, not a bunch of 250 ogres standing around waiting for the 30 second clock to tick down.

I've always said to play just about any football position you need to be either really big or really fast. Obviously it doesn't hold true for every position, but funny how the Bears went 13-3 when they had 2 400LB men clog up the middle.

Bob

gosox41
07-26-2003, 12:55 PM
Originally posted by joecrede
Summed up football fans beautifully PHG.

All the Bears analysis is funny as hell to listen to though. The media treats exhibition games like they are the seventh game of the World Series. The angst over who is going to be the Bears third receiver or backup tackle is hillarious. It's all so meaningless too because except for the best and worst two or three teams in the league, where a team finishes is based solely on who they play and their health.

I know this will cause some controversey because it's anti-competitive, but there's one thing I don't get about the Bears. When the Bears (or any other team) are officially mathematically eliminated from the playoffs, why don't they play their bench players. If you're not going to make the playoffs anyway because it's mathematically impossible why not try for the high draft pick and easier schedule. There are impact players and it can't hurt to have the highest pick possible if the team sucks to begin with. Add to that the fact that a worse record gets you an easier schedule and it makes perfect sense to use that with good draft picks to make the playoffs next year.

It's obvious Bear fans are blindly loyal to this team that the coaches and ownership can do whatever they want and they'll show. I remember the Bears had an outside chance to get Peyton Manning when he was drafted but then went ahead and won 2 of their last 3 games and missed a chance at the franchise player? Who's the Bears QB this year??? Kordell??? Hmmm.

Bob

voodoochile
07-26-2003, 01:10 PM
Originally posted by joecrede
Summed up football fans beautifully PHG.

All the Bears analysis is funny as hell to listen to though. The media treats exhibition games like they are the seventh game of the World Series. The angst over who is going to be the Bears third receiver or backup tackle is hillarious. It's all so meaningless too because except for the best and worst two or three teams in the league, where a team finishes is based solely on who they play and their health.

Isn't that true of baseball too? I mean no team from the ALC would make the playoffs if they had to play in the ALE or ALW. Injuries always play a key role also.

I was rading a study a few yearse ago that said during one of the recent Super Bowls there was about 18 1/2 minutes of action durign the 4 hours the game was on. That meant play happening after actually snapping the ball, not a bunch of 250 ogres standing around waiting for the 30 second clock to tick down.

You should try the same thing in a baseball game. An average of what 80 men actually come to the plate and each one of them has about 10 seconds of actual action during each at bat (.5 seconds while the pitch is in the air and then the result)? Unless you count the time a pitcher spends staring down the baserunner on first as action that is. In baseball, it's a bunch of 180 pound guys standing around waiting for the pitch and the result. Then at least 5 - and normally 7 of them aren't even doing anything while the play is in progress.

WinningUgly!
07-26-2003, 01:10 PM
Originally posted by gosox41
I know this will cause some controversey because it's anti-competitive, but there's one thing I don't get about the Bears. When the Bears (or any other team) are officially mathematically eliminated from the playoffs, why don't they play their bench players. If you're not going to make the playoffs anyway because it's mathematically impossible why not try for the high draft pick and easier schedule. There are impact players and it can't hurt to have the highest pick possible if the team sucks to begin with. Add to that the fact that a worse record gets you an easier schedule and it makes perfect sense to use that with good draft picks to make the playoffs next year.



They stick with their regular players because very often coaches are trying to keep their jobs. Showing signs of life in the form of a late season turnaround, even if it's too late to sneak into the playoffs, has given many coaches a chance to hang around for another year. Also, lying down & handing your opponent a game late in the season is cheap. Not only would you be giving a gift to the team you're playing against, but you'd be screwing all other teams that are still in playoff contention with that team.

voodoochile
07-26-2003, 01:13 PM
Originally posted by WinningUgly!
They stick with their regular players because very often coaches are trying to keep their jobs. Showing signs of life in the form of a late season turnaround, even if it's too late to sneak into the playoffs, has given many coaches a chance to hang around for another year. Also, lying down & handing your opponent a game late in the season is cheap. Not only would you be giving a gift to the team you're playing against, but you'd be screwing all other teams that are still in playoff contention with that team.

Exactly. Why aren't the Tigers trying to lose ballgames right now?

TornLabrum
07-26-2003, 01:26 PM
Originally posted by voodoochile
Well, George Halas invented the NFL, so the Bears are THE founding member of the league. The Packers didn't even come along until year 2 (so THERE, Campbell and all your green and yellow clad brethren :D: ).

In addition, the Bears have won more championships than any other sport in Chicago history. Yes, the last few decades have been particularly difficult. The advent of higher salaries, FA and Michael McCaskey have conspired to make the team an average at best club (sigh). Still, sitting in the stands on a rainy freezing Sunday afternoon in November is a Bears fan's equivilant of a heaven.

Like George said, it's all about the beef. If my beef can beat up your beef - it's all good...

I believe the Bears either under that name or the Decatur or Chicago Staleys have one 9 NFL championships. Most people forget that the NL has been around since 1876, and that makes the team that has been known for the last 98 or 99 years as the Cubs the champion of Chicago champions with pennants in the following years. 1876, 1880, 1881, 1882, 1885, 1886, 1906, 1907, 1908, 1910, 1918, 1929, 1932, 1935, 1938, and 1945. That's 16 league Championships. Since the NL and AL were separate leagues with separate preseidents during that period, the term league champion meant something different in the NFL and the two major leagues, just as it definitely means something different now that both leagues are under one tent and interleague play exists.

Jjav829
07-26-2003, 01:45 PM
Originally posted by PaleHoseGeorge
Good point. Baseball and football couldn't be more different from one another. Football fans will go on and on about how boring baseball is and by comparision how exciting their sport is.

What a load of bull****.

The truth is football fans will spend SIX DAYS between every game entertaining themselves with scrimmages and injury reports. The games themselves contain about 45 minutes of actual action, the rest of the 3 hours comprised of team conferences and television commercials. No wonder everybody spends so much time in the john and in the kitchen, rifling through the refridgerator. America's obesity epidemic isn't caused by trans-fatty acids half as much as 48 hours of non-stop TV football coverage. :smile:

95 percent of football fans have no idea what is going on on the field besides what the announcers spoon feed them. They have no idea WHY the ground game isn't working, or WHAT route the receivers SHOULD be running--or for that matter what those route names even mean. Their understanding of the rules is limited to holding, clipping, off-sides, and 4 downs to make 10 yards. Come to think of it, the average football player has hardly more understanding of the rules either. :smile:

It goes without saying that the average football fan has no clue that the REAL excitement of a baseball game comes between pitches. They're not on the edge of their seat for a 2-2 pitch because they can't fathom why the 2-2 pitch is the action pitch. They're clueless why hitting the cut-off man on a throw towards the plate often determines the outcome of a game. Understanding managerial strategy-- like when to put runners in motion, change pitchers, or pinch hit-- is something they think is determined on draft day when you picked a big offensive lineman over the Heisman runner-up tailback. To their way of thinking, "more beef" is what constitutes strategy. :D:

So football fans will spend the next six weeks watching guys jog, hit pads, take snaps, sweat and drink Gatorade. They'll spend 6 of every 7 days during the actual season doing the exact same thing--and reading countless column-inches breathlessly describing "the action" in the sports pages, too.

And they'll all claim it is baseball that is boring. Gimme a break...

I have to disagree. As a fan of both sports, there is no comparison. The action of football far outweighs the action of baseball. If you truly understand both sports, you know there is a lot more going on in football than in baseball.

True football is only played on one day a week, but thats what makes the games so exciting. There are no dead games. You can't just say o well, it's just one meaningless game in April against the Devil Rays. One game in a football season has a far greater significance than one baseball game. And the days in between do take on great significance. There really isn't a bigger day in football than MRI Monday. It's the day when you may ultimately find out the fate of your season. Did your stud OT blow out his knee, or was it really just sprained?

As for the intelligence of fans, I think your numbers are off a bit but there is no doubt than baseball fans know baseball better than football fans know football. Baseball is an easier game to learn. But there are quite a few football fans that understand the game and can tell you what different routes are. BTW, as far as penalties, I'm not sure clipping is one of the most well known penalties. And really you only have 3 downs to gain 10 yards. :smile:

As important as a 2-2 pitch is, a 3rd and short is more important. There are many baseball fans who don't understand the thinking part of a football game and think that football is just a physical game.

If your point is that baseball isn't boring and football is, you either don't watch enough football to understand it or clearly don't like it so you're trying to make it sound boring. Football Sundays are more exciting to watch for the most part than entire weeks of baseball combined.

BTW, maybe I'm in the minority here, but I can barely eat during most Bears games much less make trips to the fridge.

RKMeibalane
07-26-2003, 01:48 PM
Originally posted by voodoochile
Exactly. Why aren't the Tigers trying to lose ballgames right now?

Even if Detroit manages to get the number one pick for next year's draft, I doubt that will help them much. Assuming the player in question pans out, I don't think they will be able to afford to keep him once he becomes an established player at the Major League level.

voodoochile
07-26-2003, 01:50 PM
Originally posted by TornLabrum
I believe the Bears either under that name or the Decatur or Chicago Staleys have one 9 NFL championships. Most people forget that the NL has been around since 1876, and that makes the team that has been known for the last 98 or 99 years as the Cubs the champion of Chicago champions with pennants in the following years. 1876, 1880, 1881, 1882, 1885, 1886, 1906, 1907, 1908, 1910, 1918, 1929, 1932, 1935, 1938, and 1945. That's 16 league Championships. Since the NL and AL were separate leagues with separate preseidents during that period, the term league champion meant something different in the NFL and the two major leagues, just as it definitely means something different now that both leagues are under one tent and interleague play exists.

The Bears won the championship of the entire NFL 9 times. The flubbies haven't won that many world series. Heck throw in the time before the AL came along and they still haven't won that many championships of everything that matters. You are splitting hairs. A pennant winner that loses the World Series still finishes second, period. The AFL didn't even come along until the 60's. Yes, there were other football leagues that came and went, but the NFL has always been the cream of the crop. You think last year's SB losers considers themselves champions? How about whoever lost the WS?

voodoochile
07-26-2003, 01:52 PM
Originally posted by RKMeibalane
Even if Detroit manages to get the number one pick for next year's draft, I doubt that will help them much. Assuming the player in question pans out, I don't think they will be able to afford to keep him once he becomes an established player at the Major League level.

The same can be said for football. Though more likely to become a star in the NFL, there have been plenty of busts taken high in the draft. Ryan Leaf anyone?

Jjav829
07-26-2003, 01:53 PM
Originally posted by gosox41
Maytbe Bernstein should add to that statement. Maybe something like: "and only in Chicago can everyone get excited about a crappy football team that has 2 +.500 seasons in the last 9 years, an ugly ass stadium with which over $200 mill. was funded by the tax payer, cheap ownership, and an offensive coordinator who is clueless."

What's the difference between getting excited about the Sox, who are above .500 and the Bears who in some seasons can't win more then 6 games with a fourth place schedule?

Of course Bernsie is probably getting excited about the Bears, but that's OK for some reason.

Bob

I know Viva doesn't want to hear it, but once again, this is a football town. If Chicago could only keep one sports team and you polled Chicago fans as to which team that would be, I can guarantee you it would be the Bears. Yeah the Bears last Super Bowl was in 85. Compare that to the last World Series a Chicago baseball team won. Quite a big difference isn't there?

When a sports team is having a bad season, the fans tend to start looking toward the next season be it football to baseball or vice versa. There were plenty of Bears fan in November asking when do pitchers and catches report. Now both baseball teams are disappointments, so fans are looking forward to football. Not a surprise.

Jjav829
07-26-2003, 02:00 PM
Originally posted by gosox41
I was rading a study a few yearse ago that said during one of the recent Super Bowls there was about 18 1/2 minutes of action durign the 4 hours the game was on. That meant play happening after actually snapping the ball, not a bunch of 250 ogres standing around waiting for the 30 second clock to tick down.

I've always said to play just about any football position you need to be either really big or really fast. Obviously it doesn't hold true for every position, but funny how the Bears went 13-3 when they had 2 400LB men clog up the middle.

Bob

And whats the difference between that and waiting between pitches? Have you found anything about the actual number of minutes of action in baseball?

Jjav829
07-26-2003, 02:06 PM
Originally posted by gosox41
It's obvious Bear fans are blindly loyal to this team that the coaches and ownership can do whatever they want and they'll show. I remember the Bears had an outside chance to get Peyton Manning when he was drafted but then went ahead and won 2 of their last 3 games and missed a chance at the franchise player? Who's the Bears QB this year??? Kordell??? Hmmm.

Bob

O, please. Now you're going to suggest that Bears fan should stop showing up to the games? LOL. The Bears could have just as likely not won those games and picked Ryan Leaf. So whats your point? Every team is going to pass on good players. Think the Arizona Cardinals aren't kicking themselves for drafting Thomas Jones over Brian Urlacher? They could have had one of the best LB's in football as well as one of the games most marketable players, but they passed. Picks are picks, you're going to get some right, some wrong. You don't bother blowing games to move up.

WinningUgly!
07-26-2003, 02:12 PM
Originally posted by voodoochile
The same can be said for football. Though more likely to become a star in the NFL, there have been plenty of busts taken high in the draft. Ryan Leaf anyone?

LOL!
How 'bout Steve Emtman, Trev Alberts, Rick Mirer, Dan Wilkinson, Blair Thomas, Heath Shuler, Lawrence Phillips, Tony Mandarich, Ki-Jana Carter, etc.

RKMeibalane
07-26-2003, 02:22 PM
Originally posted by voodoochile
Ryan Leaf anyone?

I'm trying extremely hard to forget him, and his bad attitude.

gosox41
07-26-2003, 02:37 PM
Originally posted by WinningUgly!
They stick with their regular players because very often coaches are trying to keep their jobs. Showing signs of life in the form of a late season turnaround, even if it's too late to sneak into the playoffs, has given many coaches a chance to hang around for another year. Also, lying down & handing your opponent a game late in the season is cheap. Not only would you be giving a gift to the team you're playing against, but you'd be screwing all other teams that are still in playoff contention with that team.

Why not just do it under the guise of "rebuilding?" Baseball and even basketball teams do it every year. Play some of the regulars but if there is a young guy at a position, the last 5 game of a worthless season is an excellent opportunity to develop him and get him experience.

Bob

gosox41
07-26-2003, 02:43 PM
Originally posted by voodoochile
The same can be said for football. Though more likely to become a star in the NFL, there have been plenty of busts taken high in the draft. Ryan Leaf anyone?

It can't hurt to have the highest pick possible. It's not just the first round potential. Getting an early pick in the second round is good. Teams can also trade their picks, something that can't be done in baseball. Because of the salary cap, first round picks in the NFL are more likely to sign and all teams can generally afford them if they manage their salary cap right. It comnes down to scouting and talent evaluation.

Keep in mind I'm only saying a team that is mathematically elimiated should play young guys. What's the difference between 5-11 and 4-12?? Is a coach going to get fired over a one or 2 game difference in record? If a team sucks, they suck. Might as well get in the best position possible to improve the team. Most coaches get 3-4 years to put in their system anyway.

Bob

voodoochile
07-26-2003, 02:44 PM
Originally posted by gosox41
Why not just do it under the guise of "rebuilding?" Baseball and even basketball teams do it every year. Play some of the regulars but if there is a young guy at a position, the last 5 game of a worthless season is an excellent opportunity to develop him and get him experience.

Bob

And it happens all the time. Just because Wanny was/is an idiot, doesn't mean other coaches don't do that exact same thing. However, the NFL fines teams for not making a sincere effort to win ballgames, so teams won't just play anyone anywhere in an effort to lose...

gosox41
07-26-2003, 02:45 PM
Originally posted by Jjav829
And whats the difference between that and waiting between pitches? Have you found anything about the actual number of minutes of action in baseball?

Actually I haven't. But when people say baseball is boring, the average time it takes to sit through a baseball game is faster then a football game. I'm making that comment in repsonse to those who think football is exciting while baseball is just standing around.

It says a lot when one of the biggest attractions to the Super Bowl is the commercials. That's my time to get up and get something done, not fall into the marketing trap of America.

Bob

gosox41
07-26-2003, 02:50 PM
Originally posted by Jjav829
O, please. Now you're going to suggest that Bears fan should stop showing up to the games? LOL. The Bears could have just as likely not won those games and picked Ryan Leaf. So whats your point? Every team is going to pass on good players. Think the Arizona Cardinals aren't kicking themselves for drafting Thomas Jones over Brian Urlacher? They could have had one of the best LB's in football as well as one of the games most marketable players, but they passed. Picks are picks, you're going to get some right, some wrong. You don't bother blowing games to move up.

It's worked really well for the Bears. Forgetting about the luck involved in a single playoff game because the Bears can't even make the playoffs.

Maybe not showing up forces management to hire competent people, not just improve the draft pick. For all I know you are one of those who devoted a ton of time and money to a football team where the owneship sometimes comes off colder then JR only to see the team make 2 playoff appearences in 9 years. I get on the Sox for not winning in an easy divison, but the NFL schedules are based so every team has a chance and crappy teams get easier schedules then good teams.

It says a lot about Bears managment.

But at least there's 1985!!!!
Ever think about how many 1985 ex-Bears are employed because of the fans inablilty to let go of the good old days...one golden season. Which I might add managment was quick to blow up. But that's OK it's the Bears.

Bob

Jjav829
07-26-2003, 03:13 PM
Originally posted by gosox41
It's worked really well for the Bears. Forgetting about the luck involved in a single playoff game because the Bears can't even make the playoffs.

Maybe not showing up forces management to hire competent people, not just improve the draft pick. For all I know you are one of those who devoted a ton of time and money to a football team where the owneship sometimes comes off colder then JR only to see the team make 2 playoff appearences in 9 years. I get on the Sox for not winning in an easy divison, but the NFL schedules are based so every team has a chance and crappy teams get easier schedules then good teams.

It says a lot about Bears managment.

But at least there's 1985!!!!
Ever think about how many 1985 ex-Bears are employed because of the fans inablilty to let go of the good old days...one golden season. Which I might add managment was quick to blow up. But that's OK it's the Bears.

Bob

Ok, so let me get this straight now. The Bears are hiring incompetent people on purpose because they know the fans are going to show up. However, if the fans didn't go to the games, they would decide that they better start hiring competent people? Right.

I do devote time and money to the Bears just like the Sox. You bash the Bears, but are the Sox really that much different? Yeah, the Bears have made 2 playoff appearances in the past 9 years. The Sox have made 3. The Bears last won a championship in 1985. The Sox in 1917. Big difference there. Yes Bears fans have a hard time letting go of 1985 because the Bears haven't done much to help Bears fans forget 85. Sox fans on the other hand, well since most of us weren't alive the last time the Sox won a World Series, there isn't much to hang onto.

What have the Bears done to piss you off so much that the Sox haven't done?

RKMeibalane
07-26-2003, 03:21 PM
Originally posted by Jjav829
Ok, so let me get this straight now. The Bears are hiring incompetent people on purpose because they know the fans are going to show up. However, if the fans didn't go to the games, they would decide that they better start hiring competent people? Right.

I do devote time and money to the Bears just like the Sox. You bash the Bears, but are the Sox really that much different? Yeah, the Bears have made 2 playoff appearances in the past 9 years. The Sox have made 3. The Bears last won a championship in 1985. The Sox in 1917. Big difference there. Yes Bears fans have a hard time letting go of 1985 because the Bears haven't done much to help Bears fans forget 85. Sox fans on the other hand, well since most of us weren't alive the last time the Sox won a World Series, there isn't much to hang onto.

What have the Bears done to piss you off so much that the Sox haven't done?

Well said, Jjav829. The Bears and Sox really aren't that different. Neither team has been terribly successful over the past twenty years, and it is questionable whether one or both of them will be returning to the post-season anytime soon.

I think the Bears are certainly trying to win, but they just don't have the talent in place to get it done consistently. The 2001 season was a fluke. Few people wanted to admit that at the time, but it was. The Bears ended up winning several games that they probably should have lost, and so, they ended up with a 13-3 record and a playoff berth.

However, it was obvious that the team still had several holes, especially on the offensive side of the ball. Those holes were exposed last season, and the Bears once again found themselves "on the outside looking in" when the playoffs started.

If anything, I would say that people have more of a reason to be angry at Sox management than they do at the Bears' front-office. At least they don't blame the fans for their problems.

hose
07-26-2003, 04:20 PM
Originally posted by ˇViva Mágglio!
We win our eighth straight game that included Frank Thomas' 400th home run. Yet, I bet we will be slighted by the local media in favor of the Cubs' victory over Houston (which, of course, means that the Cubs have clinched the World Series championship) and the Bears in Bourbonnais. Will we ever get any respect?

The Cubs issue has been beaten to death here, and we don't need to reiterate it. However, how come the media gets so "ga-ga" when a team that was 4-12 last season reports to training camp. Don't give me the stuff that Chicago is a "football town" or whatever. I am not saying the Bears should not be covered, but the media acts like the opening of training camp is the Second Coming of Christ. It's as if the media, omnipotent in its own mind, believes that baseball should be forgotten and that we should direct all of our energy on the Bears. I have grown tired of this.


The back page of the Sun-Times is 100% percent Big Hurt

TornLabrum
07-26-2003, 04:25 PM
Originally posted by voodoochile
The Bears won the championship of the entire NFL 9 times. The flubbies haven't won that many world series. Heck throw in the time before the AL came along and they still haven't won that many championships of everything that matters. You are splitting hairs. A pennant winner that loses the World Series still finishes second, period. The AFL didn't even come along until the 60's. Yes, there were other football leagues that came and went, but the NFL has always been the cream of the crop. You think last year's SB losers considers themselves champions? How about whoever lost the WS?

You completely ignored what I said about the differences between the structure of the NFL and of pre-1990s MLB, when the Cubs were winning all of their LEAGUE championships. The NFL has always been a single league except for the first few Superbowl years after the agreement to merge the AFL and NFL. MLB was essentially two separate entities presided over by a single commissioner, but with a second layer of authority running the two leagues until the '90s.

jcw218
07-26-2003, 04:49 PM
Originally posted by gosox41
[...]NFL schedules are based so every team has a chance and crappy teams get easier schedules then good teams.[...]

Since the creation of the four, four team divisions in each conference, the schedules, I believe, are based as follows:

6 games against your division,
4 games against another division in your conference,
4 games against a division from the other conference and,
2 games based on record.

PaleHoseGeorge
07-26-2003, 04:52 PM
Originally posted by Jjav829
I have to disagree. As a fan of both sports, there is no comparison. The action of football far outweighs the action of baseball. If you truly understand both sports, you know there is a lot more going on in football than in baseball.

True football is only played on one day a week, but thats what makes the games so exciting. There are no dead games. You can't just say o well, it's just one meaningless game in April against the Devil Rays. One game in a football season has a far greater significance than one baseball game. And the days in between do take on great significance. There really isn't a bigger day in football than MRI Monday. It's the day when you may ultimately find out the fate of your season. Did your stud OT blow out his knee, or was it really just sprained?

As for the intelligence of fans, I think your numbers are off a bit but there is no doubt than baseball fans know baseball better than football fans know football. Baseball is an easier game to learn. But there are quite a few football fans that understand the game and can tell you what different routes are. BTW, as far as penalties, I'm not sure clipping is one of the most well known penalties. And really you only have 3 downs to gain 10 yards. :smile:

As important as a 2-2 pitch is, a 3rd and short is more important. There are many baseball fans who don't understand the thinking part of a football game and think that football is just a physical game.

If your point is that baseball isn't boring and football is, you either don't watch enough football to understand it or clearly don't like it so you're trying to make it sound boring. Football Sundays are more exciting to watch for the most part than entire weeks of baseball combined.

BTW, maybe I'm in the minority here, but I can barely eat during most Bears games much less make trips to the fridge.

LOL! I was going to reply by stating that you were truly an exceptional football fan. Then I read your last paragraph about how you can barely eat while sitting through a Bears game and you proved my point for me! :smile:

For the record, my post was tongue in cheek. I don't think baseball or football games are boring. It's basketball games that are.

:)

Jjav829
07-26-2003, 04:57 PM
Originally posted by PaleHoseGeorge
LOL! I was going to reply by stating that you were truly an exceptional football fan. Then I read your last paragraph about how you can barely eat while sitting through a Bears game and you proved my point for me! :smile:

For the record, my post was tongue in cheek. I don't think baseball or football games are boring. It's basketball games that are.

:)

LOL, ok, I'm confused. How did my last paragraph prove your point? :smile:

PaleHoseGeorge
07-26-2003, 05:10 PM
Originally posted by Jjav829
LOL, ok, I'm confused. How did my last paragraph prove your point? :smile:

You can't eat during a football game? How about your buddies flopped on the sofa next to you? That is a truly exceptional gathering if beer, smoked meats, and fried foods are prohibited on Sundays. :smile:

I'm guessing that the median weight of the average football fan is a full 75 pounds greater than the next heaviest group of fans in the entire world, whom I'm guessing would be rugby fans. They sure didn't pack on those pounds starving themselves for 3+ hours during game play.

:gulp:

TornLabrum
07-26-2003, 05:10 PM
Originally posted by PaleHoseGeorge
LOL! I was going to reply by stating that you were truly an exceptional football fan. Then I read your last paragraph about how you can barely eat while sitting through a Bears game and you proved my point for me! :smile:

For the record, my post was tongue in cheek. I don't think baseball or football games are boring. It's basketball games that are.

:)

I have trouble eating during Bears games, too. In fact, I have a whole lot of trouble keeping food down.

As for basketball, you're right except for the last two minutes of any NBA game. The script is getting old, though. I remember the tie score with two minutes left being the script back in the early '60s.

PaleHoseGeorge
07-26-2003, 05:21 PM
Originally posted by TornLabrum
I have trouble eating during Bears games, too. In fact, I have a whole lot of trouble keeping food down.

As for basketball, you're right except for the last two minutes of any NBA game. The script is getting old, though. I remember the tie score with two minutes left being the script back in the early '60s.

Maybe I need to be more specific. Lots of fans get too tense to eat while watching an exciting game no matter what sport it is. I generally banish women and small children from the TV viewing area on such occasions myself. :smile:

However the whole weekend "football ritual" is built around high-fat, high-caloric food and beverages. It starts at 11 am and doesn't really end until George Michael's Sports Machine sometime around midnight. The game of football lends itself to this sort of debauchery because it is perfect for watching on a big-screen TV, conveniently close to your kitchen stove, the refridgerator, your john, and the "Buy One, Get One Free" Tostitoes that Jewel had on display. All those TV timeouts and 30 seconds for conferences after each tackle leave lots of time for "relieving" yourself, too. :D:

PaleHoseGeorge
07-26-2003, 05:34 PM
Originally posted by TornLabrum
....As for basketball, you're right except for the last two minutes of any NBA game. The script is getting old, though. I remember the tie score with two minutes left being the script back in the early '60s.

Basketball is so damned predictable. The referees have so much control over what the outcome of the game will be. I'm not saying NBA games are scripted but it is the next closest thing.

I think it is also worth noting that the biggest basketball event every season revolves around gambling: the NCAA Mens' National Championship Tournament. 99 percent of the people staying up late to watch those West Regional games couldn't name a single ballplayer on either team. They're cheering for their wallets. :smile:

Basketball will never replace football as the KING of gambling sports. It is too easy for basketball players to shave points. Of course that never stopped Paul Hornung or Alex Karras from trying. Ah, football...

PaleHoseGeorge
07-26-2003, 05:45 PM
Originally posted by voodoochile
Like George said, it's all about the beef. If my beef can beat up your beef - it's all good...

Well said, voodoo. You made your assertion with the firm authority only a fan of Ohio State could.

Now we need Vic to chime in with his perspective from the School Up North.

:)

voodoochile
07-26-2003, 06:03 PM
Originally posted by TornLabrum
You completely ignored what I said about the differences between the structure of the NFL and of pre-1990s MLB, when the Cubs were winning all of their LEAGUE championships. The NFL has always been a single league except for the first few Superbowl years after the agreement to merge the AFL and NFL. MLB was essentially two separate entities presided over by a single commissioner, but with a second layer of authority running the two leagues until the '90s.

No, I just don't care that because of the way the league was structured, somehow the Cubs pennants were the equivalent of Bears championships. Counting everything before 1908, the Cubs had at most 8 championships (they lost in 1906). Since then the championships they won still got them no better than a second place finish in baseball over all.

Call it what you want, winning the NL isn't the same as winning the NFL, emotionally and intellectually. That's why I said you were splitting hairs, but maybe it is me who is splitting hairs and you are actually fully correct. Ask most baseball people whether the Cubs won championships in any year after 1908 and they will say, "No." Ask them whether the Bears won 9 championships and they will say, "Yes."

The AFL didn't even exist until the 60's and within a few years the league's were playing each other for championships. There have been other football leagues, though I forget their names. The Browns played in another league initially, but joined the NFL in the 50's themselves. Essentially, the NFL has been the main professional football league and any of the others had mostly inferior competition (more like a good minor league).

Now the Bears did win a bunch of championships during WWII, so arguably they were playing against worse competition then as many people were off at war. That's a different issue though.

voodoochile
07-26-2003, 06:07 PM
Originally posted by PaleHoseGeorge
Well said, voodoo. You made your assertion with the firm authority only a fan of Ohio State could.

Now we need Vic to chime in with his perspective from the School Up North.

:)

Them pretty boys from up north never have understood true football. Let them eat their brie and worry about law school. If weren't for the state of Ohio, they wouldn't have a football tradition...

:)

ChiSox14305635
07-26-2003, 11:01 PM
During football season, the whole ritual is awesome! Only with football can you get jacked for the games just by watching the pre game shows, and with a choice of 3 (NFL on FOX, NFL Today on CBS, ESPN NFL Countdown), it's easy to flip-flop between them. The only thing I hate about the NFL now is those damn bye weeks! I want to see the Bears for 16 straight weeks! ARRGH!!!

1951Campbell
07-27-2003, 01:22 AM
Originally posted by voodoochile
Well, George Halas invented the NFL, so the Bears are THE founding member of the league. The Packers didn't even come along until year 2 (so THERE, Campbell and all your green and yellow clad brethren :D: ).

In addition, the Bears have won more championships than any other sport in Chicago history. Yes, the last few decades have been particularly difficult. The advent of higher salaries, FA and Michael McCaskey have conspired to make the team an average at best club (sigh). Still, sitting in the stands on a rainy freezing Sunday afternoon in November is a Bears fan's equivilant of a heaven.

Like George said, it's all about the beef. If my beef can beat up your beef - it's all good...

Pfft. Yeah, the Pack came along two years later...and we have 3 more NFL Championships to show for it. Plus, we had back-to-back Super Bowl appearances more than once ...novel idea, no? I know the '85 Bears were awesome--I mean, I saw the Super Bowl Shuffle, so they must be the greatest team ever --but have you guys been good since the times of mullets and Great White? Hmm...

Also, who would you pick to be your team owner? McCaskey or the people of Green Bay?

What's your record vs. the Pack in the last ten years?

Lastly, good old Jimbo ended his days holding Brett's clipboard and generally being his valet. I know I'm biased, but 1985 wasn't so far from 2001 as y'all think.

But I still love the Sox and hate the Cubs.

:smile:

doublem23
07-27-2003, 01:40 AM
Originally posted by PaleHoseGeorge
It's basketball games that are.


And hockey.

WinningUgly!
07-27-2003, 01:49 AM
Originally posted by 1951Campbell
Pfft. Yeah, the Pack came along two years later...and we have 3 more NFL Championships to show for it. Plus, we had back-to-back Super Bowl appearances more than once ...novel idea, no? I know the '85 Bears were awesome--I mean, I saw the Super Bowl Shuffle, so they must be the greatest team ever --but have you guys been good since the times of mullets and Great White? Hmm...

Also, who would you pick to be your team owner? McCaskey or the people of Green Bay?



Isn't most of Green Bay's population still sporting mullets these days? :D:

TornLabrum
07-27-2003, 02:33 AM
Originally posted by voodoochile
No, I just don't care that because of the way the league was structured, somehow the Cubs pennants were the equivalent of Bears championships. Counting everything before 1908, the Cubs had at most 8 championships (they lost in 1906). Since then the championships they won still got them no better than a second place finish in baseball over all.

Call it what you want, winning the NL isn't the same as winning the NFL, emotionally and intellectually. That's why I said you were splitting hairs, but maybe it is me who is splitting hairs and you are actually fully correct. Ask most baseball people whether the Cubs won championships in any year after 1908 and they will say, "No." Ask them whether the Bears won 9 championships and they will say, "Yes."

You're looking at it with the eyes of someone who has seen nothing but divisional play, followed by wild cards, etc., where a short series could make an inferior divisional champions (see New York Mets, 1972) or even a second place club (as has happened a couple of times) win not only the league championship or the World Series. Before 1961 there were 16 teams in two leagues that essentially governed themselves except in matters in which both leagues were affected. Sure, the Sox in 1959 were "just" the AL champions, but the headlines talked of their first pennant in 40 years.

Kids of my generation used to memorize the pennant winners from both leagues from 1900 to what was then the present. Nowadays a pennant is degraded due to its dependence on a series of playoffs. I'm not saying its better, but the teams playing in the World Series through 1968 were the best team in each league as the result of a 154 and later a 162 game schedule. They were truly champions and thought of that way.

gosox41
07-27-2003, 09:07 AM
Originally posted by Jjav829
Ok, so let me get this straight now. The Bears are hiring incompetent people on purpose because they know the fans are going to show up. However, if the fans didn't go to the games, they would decide that they better start hiring competent people? Right.

I do devote time and money to the Bears just like the Sox. You bash the Bears, but are the Sox really that much different? Yeah, the Bears have made 2 playoff appearances in the past 9 years. The Sox have made 3. The Bears last won a championship in 1985. The Sox in 1917. Big difference there. Yes Bears fans have a hard time letting go of 1985 because the Bears haven't done much to help Bears fans forget 85. Sox fans on the other hand, well since most of us weren't alive the last time the Sox won a World Series, there isn't much to hang onto.

What have the Bears done to piss you off so much that the Sox haven't done?

The differece between the Bears and the Sox is that when the Sox suck the fans speak their minds by not showing up forcing management to make change.

The Bear fans go on sports radio and analyze everything from the play of the QB to the color of the RB's hair.

Sox fans are smart enough not to support a crappy product or get the wool pulled down over their eyes while the opening of training camp is so important to Chicago it merits more media attention then a team in a pennant race.

I don't hate the Bears. I'm not a big football fan but follow the game and occassionally bet it. Maybe I'm more objective on how the Bears are run and how they treat their fans (it is a bit hypocritical for me, I admit, since I am a long time Sox season ticket holder) but there is a difference between the two teams.

If anything I compare Bear fans and the Bear organization more to the Cubs then White Sox, especially ownership. How many years did it take before the finally hired a GM???

Bob

FanOf14
07-27-2003, 10:28 AM
Originally posted by doublem23
And hockey. \

Hockey is, by far, more exciting than basketball, hell it can be more exciting than baseball for me at times. During hockey playoffs, I must lose at least 10 lbs from not being able to eat while a team I am rooting for is still in the mix (Senators or Hurricanes - yes I know they were the worst in NHL last year, but they made it to the Stanley Cup the year before). Also watching minor league hockey (AHL, ECHL, etc) is beyond exciting. Most of the players are balls out because they are trying to make it to the big show. It's also really cool when you are watching a guy from your neighborhood who turns out to be a friend of a friend playing, especially because he is pretty good.

Also, watching a power play show get setup or watching a breakaway...those are jump off your seat and scream at the TV or the ice (if you are watching in person) times. Because of that jerk Wirtz, I didn't get a chance to watch hockey until I was older and had my own TV/cable. Now I watch any game any chance I get, except the Blackhawks unless they are playing a team I like - my teams are 1-1 with me at a Hawks game; the Hurricanes beat them 2 years ago and the Senators succumbed to the Hawks last season.

Now the fights - if you have the right two guys going at it, those are the best!!!! :D: But, if you have 2 "ice dancers" going at it, you laugh your ass off at them for looking like a couple of "ice dancers" rather than hockey players pounding on each other!

GO SENATORS GO HURRICANES (LONG LIVE THE WHALE!!! ;) ), and most importantly, GO WHITE SOX!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

voodoochile
07-27-2003, 11:09 AM
Originally posted by gosox41
The differece between the Bears and the Sox is that when the Sox suck the fans speak their minds by not showing up forcing management to make change.

The Bear fans go on sports radio and analyze everything from the play of the QB to the color of the RB's hair.

Sox fans are smart enough not to support a crappy product or get the wool pulled down over their eyes while the opening of training camp is so important to Chicago it merits more media attention then a team in a pennant race.

I don't hate the Bears. I'm not a big football fan but follow the game and occassionally bet it. Maybe I'm more objective on how the Bears are run and how they treat their fans (it is a bit hypocritical for me, I admit, since I am a long time Sox season ticket holder) but there is a difference between the two teams.

If anything I compare Bear fans and the Bear organization more to the Cubs then White Sox, especially ownership. How many years did it take before the finally hired a GM???

Bob

See, you are talking about apples and oranges. Because there are only 8 home games a year, it only requires they sell around 500K tickets to ensure a season sell out. In addition 90%+ of the tickets are held by season ticket holders, who won't give up their seats based on a crappy season or two because they want them for the good times (84-91 weren't exactly horrible years to be a Bears' fan).

So there really isn't an effective way for the fans to protest like Sox fans do. They'd just be cutting of their nose to spite their own faces in the long run. Add in the 40% of people who now own the rights to trade or sell their seats due to the PSL's they bought (of which I am one), and it really doesn't make any sense for those people to no buy their seats.

However, the prices aren't comparable either. Most Bears' season ticket packages are well less than $1000 (mine are $600) which most people can afford if they really want to and the time committment is much less. I can spend 5 hours one day a week and see every Bears home game live, then go back to my regular life and not worry about them for a week, if I choose to.

Yes, a GM would have been nice sooner, but before that, they had a really good streak and every team has a crappy owner from time to time. The point is that the McCaskey's only let Mikey ruin the team for less than a decade before going out and hiring someone who actually knows what they are doing (in theory). Meanwhile the owners of the Sox have allowed Reinsy to run the team into the ground for almost a quarter century with no end in sight.

Add in the fact that the Bears are only on their second owner since they were founded and that person is the original owner's daughter and it does change the perception how the team has been run just a bit. Love 'em or hate 'em, the Bears are Chicago...

MarkEdward
07-27-2003, 12:04 PM
Originally posted by doublem23
And hockey.

Dude, watch the Stanley Cup Playoffs, then tell me hockey's boring.

gosox41
07-27-2003, 09:45 PM
Originally posted by voodoochile
See, you are talking about apples and oranges. Because there are only 8 home games a year, it only requires they sell around 500K tickets to ensure a season sell out. In addition 90%+ of the tickets are held by season ticket holders, who won't give up their seats based on a crappy season or two because they want them for the good times (84-91 weren't exactly horrible years to be a Bears' fan).

So there really isn't an effective way for the fans to protest like Sox fans do. They'd just be cutting of their nose to spite their own faces in the long run. Add in the 40% of people who now own the rights to trade or sell their seats due to the PSL's they bought (of which I am one), and it really doesn't make any sense for those people to no buy their seats.

However, the prices aren't comparable either. Most Bears' season ticket packages are well less than $1000 (mine are $600) which most people can afford if they really want to and the time committment is much less. I can spend 5 hours one day a week and see every Bears home game live, then go back to my regular life and not worry about them for a week, if I choose to.

Yes, a GM would have been nice sooner, but before that, they had a really good streak and every team has a crappy owner from time to time. The point is that the McCaskey's only let Mikey ruin the team for less than a decade before going out and hiring someone who actually knows what they are doing (in theory). Meanwhile the owners of the Sox have allowed Reinsy to run the team into the ground for almost a quarter century with no end in sight.

Add in the fact that the Bears are only on their second owner since they were founded and that person is the original owner's daughter and it does change the perception how the team has been run just a bit. Love 'em or hate 'em, the Bears are Chicago...

Overall I think the Bears have run very poorly. Sure 84-91 may have been great years, but doesn't the NFL have it set up where like 40% of the teams make the playoffs?

What would be more frustrating to me is the fact that they haven't made the playoffs a lot more in the last 12 seasons. And what bout before '84? From the late '70's until '84 ( and maybe even earlier I don't know Bears history all that well) the team was far below average.

I guess I can't understand the mentality of supporting a team waiting for the good times to roll around. Sure there may be only 8 home games , but why aren't there a ton of people buying 7 game packages for the Sox. At least there you can pick the games (and dates) you want to go to.

I don't feel Bears ownership have exactly treated their fans well. They haven't won all that much as of late. I can't for the life of me understand what the attraction is to a crappy football team, other then the fact that there the only team in town. If Chicago got a second NFL team would you root for them?

If I were Bears ownership, I wouldn't change a thing. They got a sweet stadium deal pushed through the legislature, got their fans to pay some of the construction costs (something I like since I don't want to pay anymore then I already am for that eyesore) and no matter how bad they are, they're still the center of attention.

What does it take for Bear fans to get so fed up and stop supporting this team? What's the incentive for ownership to try to win, instead of acting like they are and catching lightning in a bottle (see 2 years ago?)

To me the Bears are a lot more like the Cubs then the Sox. As a Sox fan do you agree? Look at all the support no matter how bad they are, look at all the great media attention for the opening of training camp. Sounds a lot like the Cubs.

Bob

voodoochile
07-27-2003, 10:52 PM
Originally posted by gosox41
Overall I think the Bears have run very poorly. Sure 84-91 may have been great years, but doesn't the NFL have it set up where like 40% of the teams make the playoffs?

What would be more frustrating to me is the fact that they haven't made the playoffs a lot more in the last 12 seasons. And what bout before '84? From the late '70's until '84 ( and maybe even earlier I don't know Bears history all that well) the team was far below average.

I guess I can't understand the mentality of supporting a team waiting for the good times to roll around. Sure there may be only 8 home games , but why aren't there a ton of people buying 7 game packages for the Sox. At least there you can pick the games (and dates) you want to go to.

I don't feel Bears ownership have exactly treated their fans well. They haven't won all that much as of late. I can't for the life of me understand what the attraction is to a crappy football team, other then the fact that there the only team in town. If Chicago got a second NFL team would you root for them?

If I were Bears ownership, I wouldn't change a thing. They got a sweet stadium deal pushed through the legislature, got their fans to pay some of the construction costs (something I like since I don't want to pay anymore then I already am for that eyesore) and no matter how bad they are, they're still the center of attention.

What does it take for Bear fans to get so fed up and stop supporting this team? What's the incentive for ownership to try to win, instead of acting like they are and catching lightning in a bottle (see 2 years ago?)

To me the Bears are a lot more like the Cubs then the Sox. As a Sox fan do you agree? Look at all the support no matter how bad they are, look at all the great media attention for the opening of training camp. Sounds a lot like the Cubs.

Bob

Remember, that in the NFL, every team makes almost the exact same money. All revenue is divided evenly, and everyone has a minimum team salary cap and a hard max salary cap. So fielding a losing team doesn't benefit the owners in any way. In fact, it might hurt them because one of the few things they can make money on is jersey sales. So, having stars who make the team successful may actually translate to more money. However, the more level playing field means more teams have a chance every year. Currently 12/32 teams make the playoffs every year, but back in the 80's, that was 8/30 or whatever - much like baseball is now. Of course back then home teams kept a higher percentage of the gate money and there were other ways to boost local revenue. Another way that still exists is radio contracts, so the better your team, the more people who listen, the more ad revenue the team can sell, the more money the contract is worth when it comes up for renewal.

Again, your analogy about the 7-game Sox package doesn't compare. 8 games for the Bears is every game you possibly can see, that means the fans who have those tickets get to see half the season live - for the equivalent cost of 20 games at Soxpark (maximum).

The Bears have a storied tradition in Chicago. Not only do they have more league championships than any other Chicago franchise, but they were the founding member of the NFL. Without George Halas and the Bears, there is NO NFL. Sort of like if Abner Doubleday (or whoever you want to claim invented baseball) had founded the AL and the Sox, then went on to win 7 championships in the first few dacades. So the attention that the Bears receive is partly due to that, partly due to the fact that they are the only football team in the city and partly due to the fact that the NFL is just more popular than MLB and popular sells newspapers, TV/radio ads and brings in ratings.

In addition, like it or not, the NFL is THE most successful professional sports league in the country whose ratings dwarf any other sport, and that is even as they decline from their peaks a few years back. It isn't just the Bears, it is almost everywhere that both baseball and football still exist in the same city. You either get and enjoy football or you don't. You prefer baseball, but you are in the minority on that issue. I'm not saying that's right - but it is a fact. I prefer football, because I like the action more and because it was the first sport I ever followed (the Buckeye curse :D: ). That too, is just me. I will own my Bears season tickets until I die, or move out of the city (not likely).

It's just the way it is...

Daver
07-27-2003, 10:58 PM
Originally posted by voodoochile


In addition, like it or not, the NFL is THE most successful professional sports league in the country whose ratings dwarf any other sport, and that is even as they decline from their peaks a few years back.

It's just the way it is...

You might want to take a look at attendance numbers before you say the NFL is the most succesful,NASCAR draws close to the same numbers in attendance and TV share,and it is still growing.It's not a backwoods sport anymore.

voodoochile
07-27-2003, 11:02 PM
Originally posted by daver
You might want to take a look at attendance numbers before you say the NFL is the most succesful,NASCAR draws close to the same numbers in attendance and TV share,and it is still growing.It's not a backwoods sport anymore.

Okay, okay... Of the "mainstream" traditional sports. I agree, car racing as a whole is way up and growing.

I am in the minority on that one. I watch the last few laps of the Daytona 500 and Indy 500 and that is my enjoyment from racing every year. Probably has something to do with the fact that there isn't any racing in the Chicago area or hasn't been. I think someone opened a track in the boonies somewhere.

I always prefered team sports anyway...

Daver
07-27-2003, 11:07 PM
Originally posted by voodoochile


I always prefered team sports anyway...

Auto Racing is a team sport.

voodoochile
07-27-2003, 11:09 PM
Originally posted by daver
Auto Racing is a team sport.

Yeah, so is the 500 meter butterfly at the Olympics, but come on. It isn't a team sport the way baseball or football is. Yeah, they block for each other, but in the end, it's mostly one guy and his car out driving the other guys in their cars.

Daver
07-27-2003, 11:13 PM
Originally posted by voodoochile
Yeah, so is the 500 meter butterfly at the Olympics, but come on. It isn't a team sport the way baseball or football is. Yeah, they block for each other, but in the end, it's mostly one guy and his car out driving the other guys in their cars.

Perhaps you have forgotten the seven guys in the pits that service the car?

They serve a big part in who wins and who doesn't on race day.

voodoochile
07-27-2003, 11:18 PM
Originally posted by daver
Perhaps you have forgotten the seven guys in the pits that service the car?

They serve a big part in who wins and who doesn't on race day.

A valid point...

Okay, so maybe I just don't enjoy watching racing even if it is a team sport...

39thandWallace
07-27-2003, 11:25 PM
Thank you voodoochile for sticking up for The Bears. I can't stand people who get on here and talk garbage about a sport or subject they know nothing about.

Every professional sport has low (boring) points, you are not going to tell me you have not been bored at a game.

1951Campbell
07-27-2003, 11:38 PM
Also, I'd just like tp point out that as much as I make fun of Da Bears, the NFC North is football. Every other division is pretty sissy and pretty AFL/expansion-ish in my view. A biased view, perhaps, but when I see the teams like the Dolphins and Titans, I just think of MLB johnny-come-latelys like the Rockies and the D-Rays.

gosox41
07-28-2003, 08:41 PM
Originally posted by voodoochile
Remember, that in the NFL, every team makes almost the exact same money. All revenue is divided evenly, and everyone has a minimum team salary cap and a hard max salary cap. So fielding a losing team doesn't benefit the owners in any way. In fact, it might hurt them because one of the few things they can make money on is jersey sales. So, having stars who make the team successful may actually translate to more money. However, the more level playing field means more teams have a chance every year. Currently 12/32 teams make the playoffs every year, but back in the 80's, that was 8/30 or whatever - much like baseball is now. Of course back then home teams kept a higher percentage of the gate money and there were other ways to boost local revenue. Another way that still exists is radio contracts, so the better your team, the more people who listen, the more ad revenue the team can sell, the more money the contract is worth when it comes up for renewal.

Again, your analogy about the 7-game Sox package doesn't compare. 8 games for the Bears is every game you possibly can see, that means the fans who have those tickets get to see half the season live - for the equivalent cost of 20 games at Soxpark (maximum).

The Bears have a storied tradition in Chicago. Not only do they have more league championships than any other Chicago franchise, but they were the founding member of the NFL. Without George Halas and the Bears, there is NO NFL. Sort of like if Abner Doubleday (or whoever you want to claim invented baseball) had founded the AL and the Sox, then went on to win 7 championships in the first few dacades. So the attention that the Bears receive is partly due to that, partly due to the fact that they are the only football team in the city and partly due to the fact that the NFL is just more popular than MLB and popular sells newspapers, TV/radio ads and brings in ratings.

In addition, like it or not, the NFL is THE most successful professional sports league in the country whose ratings dwarf any other sport, and that is even as they decline from their peaks a few years back. It isn't just the Bears, it is almost everywhere that both baseball and football still exist in the same city. You either get and enjoy football or you don't. You prefer baseball, but you are in the minority on that issue. I'm not saying that's right - but it is a fact. I prefer football, because I like the action more and because it was the first sport I ever followed (the Buckeye curse :D: ). That too, is just me. I will own my Bears season tickets until I die, or move out of the city (not likely).

It's just the way it is...

First, if all teams make the same money anywau, what's the incentive to pay coaches and GM's to try to win? Why not sit back and count the money and if the team happens to win, then great. Why keep Jauron when Parcells is around (or other name guys may be available.)

Second, I thought teams share in all the licensing money so it doesn't matter if the Bears sell 10 million jerseys or just one.

While it's impressive that Halas started the NFL, the one question in sports is : What have you done for me lately??? Weren't the Cubs one of the original teams in the NL?? I'd still never root for them.

As for seeing all 8 home Bear games..lately only 4-5 matter before the season is over for the team anyway. :D: To me that would be kind of wasted money.

I'll give the NFL credit for being successful. It's great marketing. If it weren't for the betting I'd probably watch a couple of Bear games a year. But no matter what I don't see how the opening of training camp gets more on local news TV then the Sox when they're in the middle of a big winning streak. Bear fans have all of September and part of October (amybe I'm exaggerating) to analyze their chacnes of making the playoffs then they have the rest of the season to complaing about next year when they'll be out in full force again overanalyzing.

Bob

TornLabrum
07-28-2003, 08:45 PM
Originally posted by gosox41
First, if all teams make the same money anywau, what's the incentive to pay coaches and GM's to try to win? Why not sit back and count the money and if the team happens to win, then great.

A perfect description of the Bears' management philosophy!

Nellie_Fox
07-29-2003, 01:54 AM
Originally posted by voodoochile
I watch the last few laps of the Daytona 500 and Indy 500 and that is my enjoyment from racing every year. Probably has something to do with the fact that there isn't any racing in the Chicago area or hasn't been. I think someone opened a track in the boonies somewhere. Great Googly Moogly. To you Joliet is "in the boonies somewhere?" Get outside the city limits once in a while. "Chicagoland" now extends well beyond Cook County.

The NASCAR race in Joliet sold out the 75,000 seats, and I would bet if they doubled the capacity it would sell out as well.

Football is only as huge as it is because it is perfectly suited to gambling. Baseball is a terrible gambling sport. The best football teams virtually always beat the worst teams. That's not the case in baseball.

As for football being physically too tough to play more than once a week, check out hockey players. They might be smaller, but they're going one heck of a lot faster when they collide (which is far more significant, as energy = mass X the square of the velocity), and they just get stitched up and come right back out on the ice. Witness little bitty Paul Kariya, who got knocked so unconscious during the Stanley Cup Finals that he was twitching on the ice. He missed one shift, and on his second shift back on the ice he scored a goal. And, Kariya is not considered to be "tough" by hockey standards.

Plus, sixty minutes of hockey is sixty minutes. The clock doesn't run while they huddle or wander up to the line of scrimmage or back to the huddle. Football is hugely overrated.

39thandWallace
07-29-2003, 08:30 PM
Originally posted by Nellie_Fox
Great Googly Moogly. To you Joliet is "in the boonies somewhere?" Get outside the city limits once in a while. "Chicagoland" now extends well beyond Cook County.

The NASCAR race in Joliet sold out the 75,000 seats, and I would bet if they doubled the capacity it would sell out as well.

Football is only as huge as it is because it is perfectly suited to gambling. Baseball is a terrible gambling sport. The best football teams virtually always beat the worst teams. That's not the case in baseball.

As for football being physically too tough to play more than once a week, check out hockey players. They might be smaller, but they're going one heck of a lot faster when they collide (which is far more significant, as energy = mass X the square of the velocity), and they just get stitched up and come right back out on the ice. Witness little bitty Paul Kariya, who got knocked so unconscious during the Stanley Cup Finals that he was twitching on the ice. He missed one shift, and on his second shift back on the ice he scored a goal. And, Kariya is not considered to be "tough" by hockey standards.

Plus, sixty minutes of hockey is sixty minutes. The clock doesn't run while they huddle or wander up to the line of scrimmage or back to the huddle. Football is hugely overrated.

Hey man you can do math all day, hockey players are tough but there no match for an NFL linemen.

Football is the toughest American sport by far. I have never bet on a NFL game in my life and I have played and watched the game since I was 8.

That's right I don't get into NFL pools either.

voodoochile
07-29-2003, 11:28 PM
Originally posted by 39thandWallace
Hey man you can do math all day, hockey players are tough but there no match for an NFL linemen.

Football is the toughest American sport by far. I have never bet on a NFL game in my life and I have played and watched the game since I was 8.

That's right I don't get into NFL pools either.

Never played organized football and I don't bet other than casually ($20 with friends), but I've watched both sports and Football is way harder on your body than hockey, not even close...

Football is the king when it comes to violent colisions - man on man, period. It is completely about who wants it most and is willing to hit harder to get it. I'm not saying it is right, but it is the way it is. It's also what makes it the ultimate sport to watch, IMO. The ferocity of a classic matchup (Bears V 49ers, MNF, 1988 final score 10-9, last years Fiesta game - one of the greatest ever played (yes, I'm biased)) is unlike any other sport...

B. Diddy
07-29-2003, 11:29 PM
Wow, lots of anti-football folk here. What a shame...

Football doesn't require strategy? Please... anyone who has played organized football knows better than that. As someone already pointed out, 3rd and short is just as exciting as 2-2... even more, IMO. They either get the first down or they punt. No series of foul-offs leading to an anti-climactic ending.

Those that argue that baseball is boring have are typically those that have never played before. The problem with baseball isn't that it's boring. It's that there's just too damn much of it. It's on every freakin' day for 6 months! I'd love to see them shorten the season to 100 games, although that'll never happen ($).

People like the NFL because (1) it's on only one day a week and each game is significant, (2) guys like to watch guys knock the crap out of each other, (3) the shorter schedule holds more interest on the part of fantasy owners, and (4) the guys running the show are a hell of a lot better at marketing than the dolts who run MLB. The only problem that the NFL suffers from is the lack of ticket availability and the high prices.

The Bears are receiving lots of attention right now because, even though they were 4-12 last year, Chicago is a football town. The Bears are easily the most popular team in the city. I'll bet there are a lot more Urlacher jerseys than Sosa jerseys hanging in the closets of Chicago area households.

Nellie_Fox
07-30-2003, 03:21 AM
Originally posted by 39thandWallace
Hey man you can do math all day, hockey players are tough but they're no match for an NFL lineman. Linemen don't even have the hardest collisions in football. They are only a couple of feet apart, so they don't build up any speed to speak of before they come into contact. When's the last time you saw a lineman knocked out from contact? The biggest hits in football come in the open field, safeties on receivers. Why? Speed.

Now look at hockey. A 190 pound winger coming across the blue line at 40 MPH meets a 230 pound defenseman also going 40 MPH. Devastating.

I have both football players and hockey players in my classes. I see who is more bruised and battered during their seasons. The hockey jocks look like they've been mugged.

B. Diddy
07-30-2003, 08:50 AM
Originally posted by voodoochile
Never played organized football and I don't bet other than casually ($20 with friends), but I've watched both sports and Football is way harder on your body than hockey, not even close...


Well, that depends which position you play. Running backs probably have it the hardest. That position will eventually destroy your knees. Defensive backs have it a lot easier.

Hockey players, though, do take a serious beating. As was mentioned before, they're coming at each other a lot quicker. I'd agree that they take more of a pounding than offensive linemen, who are only about a foot and half away from each other. Hockey players (except the goalies) also need to be in excellent cardiovascular condition.

SpringfldFan
07-30-2003, 11:56 AM
I must admit I am more a baseball fan then a football fan. I prefer a cool glass of ice tea on the porch during a evening Sox game than consuming cheetos & beer in the recliner during an afternoon Bears game. All I want is equal coverage - Bears during football season and Sox during baseball. Unfortunately the Bears coverage infringes on the Sox/Cubs, as evidenced by the lack of Sox coverage when the season started so the media could cover the NFL draft and QB search.

Nevertheless, there is one thing that the Bears have over the Sox: Every single season the Bears are tied for first with sixteen games to go. Wouldn't it be something if that were the case with the Sox?

gosox41
07-30-2003, 12:04 PM
Originally posted by SpringfldFan
I must admit I am more a baseball fan then a football fan. I prefer a cool glass of ice tea on the porch during a evening Sox game than consuming cheetos & beer in the recliner during an afternoon Bears game. All I want is equal coverage - Bears during football season and Sox during baseball. Unfortunately the Bears coverage infringes on the Sox/Cubs, as evidenced by the lack of Sox coverage when the season started so the media could cover the NFL draft and QB search.

Nevertheless, there is one thing that the Bears have over the Sox: Every single season the Bears are tied for first with sixteen games to go. Wouldn't it be something if that were the case with the Sox?

Being a baseball lover I could care less about the first couple days of training camp.

To me the Bears are the Cubs of the NFL. From ownership on down to the undying fan support of a crap team to the extended positive media coverage for a nothing team.

If the Bears were any good I can see the reason for the hype (though training camp is excessive, who cares what an undrafted FA is doing??) But the Bears have sucked more often then not recently. As good as the mid-80's were, what happened to the attitude of "What have you done for me lately???" It seems to apply to JR here at WSI, but some of those same Bear fans are content to support a crappy team.

Bob

voodoochile
07-30-2003, 12:54 PM
Originally posted by B. Diddy
Well, that depends which position you play. Running backs probably have it the hardest. That position will eventually destroy your knees. Defensive backs have it a lot easier.

Hockey players, though, do take a serious beating. As was mentioned before, they're coming at each other a lot quicker. I'd agree that they take more of a pounding than offensive linemen, who are only about a foot and half away from each other. Hockey players (except the goalies) also need to be in excellent cardiovascular condition.

Okay, but how many hits does the average hockey player take in a game. The force generated by two NFL lineman running into each other has been compared to being a passenger in a car wreck and they do it 50 times a game and sometimes more.

Get serious. Hockey players have maybe 1 or two serious colisions a game - top end 5. Heck your average WR gets hit 10-15 times per game AT SPEED. You guys are blinded by your love of the game. Nothing wrong with that, but please don't say that Hockey players take a worse beating than football players. It isn't close over the course of 60 minutes of action.

Nellie_Fox
07-31-2003, 01:01 AM
Originally posted by voodoochile
Okay, but how many hits does the average hockey player take in a game. The force generated by two NFL lineman running into each other has been compared to being a passenger in a car wreck and they do it 50 times a game and sometimes more.By whom? Sports writers? Unless it was a physicist doing actual controlled experiments, I'd say that's a load of crap. No way do two guys two feet apart generate enough acceleration to generate a collision equivalent to a car wreck.

Get serious. Hockey players have maybe 1 or two serious colisions a game - top end 5. Heck your average WR gets hit 10-15 times per game AT SPEED. You guys are blinded by your love of the game. Nothing wrong with that, but please don't say that Hockey players take a worse beating than football players. It isn't close over the course of 60 minutes of action. How many wide receivers get 10-15 balls a game thrown to them? Sixty minutes of action in football takes about four games. In hockey it takes one. So, you may be right; football players take more punishment in four games than hockey players do in one.

One or two serious collisions per game? You may be right again. But pretty much every guy on the ice takes a couple of hits on every shift, including being checked into the boards. Don't forget that they land on ice, not grass.

I would be willing to bet that hockey averages more stitches, teeth knocked out, players knocked unconscious, bones broken, etc. per game than does football.

doublem23
07-31-2003, 01:08 AM
True, but a lot of football linemen get hurt because there are so many people around them, pushing and shoving until someone loses their balance and falls on the back of their leg or something. It's still pretty dangerous.

Nellie_Fox
07-31-2003, 01:20 AM
Originally posted by doublem23
True, but a lot of football linemen get hurt because there are so many people around them, pushing and shoving until someone loses their balance and falls on the back of their leg or something. It's still pretty dangerous. No argument there. Football linemen almost certainly trash knees more often than hockey players.

voodoochile
07-31-2003, 03:21 AM
Originally posted by Nellie_Fox
By whom? Sports writers? Unless it was a physicist doing actual controlled experiments, I'd say that's a load of crap. No way do two guys two feet apart generate enough acceleration to generate a collision equivalent to a car wreck.

How many wide receivers get 10-15 balls a game thrown to them? Sixty minutes of action in football takes about four games. In hockey it takes one. So, you may be right; football players take more punishment in four games than hockey players do in one.

One or two serious collisions per game? You may be right again. But pretty much every guy on the ice takes a couple of hits on every shift, including being checked into the boards. Don't forget that they land on ice, not grass.

I would be willing to bet that hockey averages more stitches, teeth knocked out, players knocked unconscious, bones broken, etc. per game than does football. [/B]

You forget that the receivers also block on most running plays and even on passing plays often take a hit after the pass is completed to another receiver.

I don't know who did the research on the force of two lineman colliding, it is a figure I have heard widely disseminated in the press. Wouldn't be surprised to learn it is overhyped by NFL people as a marketing ploy. However, even if it is overhyped, it isn't as if these are simple bumps becuase the guys can't accelerate for a few seconds before delivering it.

If you and I do "chest bumps" from 2 feet apart, no, there isn't that much force generated, but when Ted Washington accelerates out of a crouch into the opposing center as the center does the same thing in the opposite direction, it is a whole different concept. Like those Sumo wrestlers you like so much. That first mad rush where the actually lock up after the match starts, but these guys do it over and over again. Now add in the forearm shivs, pokes to the face, nails and other dirty tricks, NFL lineman are known for and the situation changes even more. No sticks, but there is plenty of other nasty stuff going on...

I'd take your bet in a heartbeat. Almost every team football team has at least 4 or 5 guys leave a game for at least one play every week due to injury. I'd say on average, 1 starter a week from each team doesn't finish the game. Most of those guys return within a week or two. That's a guess, I don't know if it is true. I'd be interested in learning what the stats actually are.