PDA

View Full Version : Baseball "historian" claims Chicago always a Cubs town


MarqSox
09-09-2003, 08:20 AM
http://abclocal.go.com/wls/news/090303_ns_cubsox.html

Dadawg_77
09-09-2003, 10:01 AM
Originally posted by MarqSox
http://abclocal.go.com/wls/news/090303_ns_cubsox.html


I am not sure how good of an historian this guy is. Up in till recently the better more exciting team would out draw the other. Since 1901 the Cubs have out drawn the Sox by 13 million fans. 9 million of this delta has come during the Reinsdorf/Tribune era. The Cubs have outdrawn the Sox 56 out of 102 seasons they have played together but from 1901-1981 the team were even (40-40) in season attendance game by avg per game. I would say before the current ownership teams came into place this was niether a Sox nor Cubs town, just a town who followed a winner.

Jerko
09-09-2003, 10:06 AM
Somebody ought to play the Lee Elia tirade for this "historian". It wasn't that long ago that that dump was empty every damn day. Maybe we can start a virus of our own: The LEEELIA worm. We can go to a Cub website, gather all the email addresses of the fans, and send that soundclip to everyone on the Cub board to realize that they're prissy little team went through an EVEN WORSE bout with attendance than the Sox do now. Everything goes in cycles my friends, and sooner or later the Greed of the Cubune will force them to leave that pisspot and then they can copy Camden yards and pretend they invented it like they did with the 7th inning stretch. Jags.

Hangar18
09-09-2003, 10:16 AM
*****TRASH******** Lets see, we've got Frank Mathie, a supposed "journalist", doing a story on why the SOX/Cubs are more popular. "Interviews" someone who is supposedly a "historian". GIves VAGUE FACTS, Purely On SPECULATION, and says is able to be proven with "studies". The article ends abruptly, with NO MENTION OF THE Phantom Study, Nor are We Able to Look at the Study. Sounds Fishy doesnt it? Any Study that DOESNT INCLUDE THE VIEWING HABITS/MEDIA CORRELATION among the two teams is a Skewed Study. THE cubs have gotten Grossly popular BECAUSE OF THE MEDIA, not in spite of it. FOr the Media to Dare Ask this question, Knowing they are the Reason for the cub popularity, is MISLEADING and IRRESPONSIBLE

thepaulbowski
09-09-2003, 10:26 AM
Not this thread again.

:threadsucks

Procol Harum
09-09-2003, 10:27 AM
Originally posted by Dadawg_77
I am not sure how good of an historian this guy is. Up in till recently the better more exciting team would out draw the other. Since 1901 the Cubs have out drawn the Sox by 13 million fans. 9 million of this delta has come during the Reinsdorf/Tribune era. The Cubs have outdrawn the Sox 56 out of 102 seasons they have played together but from 1901-1981 the team were even (40-40) in season attendance game by avg per game. I would say before the current ownership teams came into place this was niether a Sox nor Cubs town, just a town who followed a winner.

Yep, I think you're right on target, D. The town was pretty much evenly divided with the folks in the middle tending to follow the winner. The racial problems of the late '60s put a big dent in Sox attendance and scared away a lot of white folk from the North Side and the suburbs (coupled with some lousy teams and a Cub rejuvenation after 20+ years in the second division), but the real difference came with the early '80s when the marketing genius of the Tribune Company squared off against the marketing ineptitude of the Reinsdorf regime--since then the scale has tilted well towards the Cubbie blue.

I'd say that the guy got one thing right--the ratio of Cub fans to Sox fans at about 60/40 is probably close to being right. But, this is exacerbated in the fact that the Cubs far outpoll the Sox outside of the immediate Chicago area so it's hard to tell who's from the Chicago area and who's from out of town. There are all sorts of Cub fans in the northern 2/3rds of Illinois (Sox fans are nigh on non-existent--as one poster pointed out last week--in central Illinois), Iowa and southern Wisconsin (a point to be remembered in analyzing those Cubbie fans at Miller Park this weekend--most of the Illinois "settlers" in the recent build-up of Kenosha, Walworth and Racine counties moved in from the northern reaches of the Chicago area--Cub country. Undoubtedly many of those Cub fans only drove from Kenosha, Racine, Burlington, etc., etc.) to say nothing of the folks who latched onto the Luvable Losers back in the SuperStation days of WGN.

The Sox, by contrast, had a regional base of support only in the immediately adjacent areas of NW Indiana and a small strip up the coast of SW Michigan (this latter used to be the case back in the '60s and into the '70s--I wonder if it's still true--anybody?). All of this is not helped by the self-mutilating TV problems the Sox have inflicted on themselves since the late '60s and the constant radio flip-flopping that's gone on over the years (WCFL to radio invisibility to WMAQ to WBBM back to WMAQ to WMVP) and now we have the situation wherein Reinsdorf's shrewd marketing sensibilties has his product on a radio station which has trouble being heard clearly at night in the western and southern suburbs--the stronghold of his fans. Oogilly-moogilly, I'm gettin' depressed.... :(:

MarqSox
09-09-2003, 10:30 AM
Originally posted by Hangar18
*****TRASH******** Lets see, we've got Frank Mathie, a supposed "journalist", doing a story on why the SOX/Cubs are more popular. "Interviews" someone who is supposedly a "historian".
With apologies to my media counterparts on the broadcast side, Frank Mathie works for a television station, therefore he is not a journalist. Broadcast journalism is basically an oxymoron, like "knowledgeable Cubs fan" or "open-minded conservative." :D:

Lip Man 1
09-09-2003, 02:03 PM
Obviously this "historian" doesn't remember the period from 1951 through 1965 when the Cubs couldn't even get arrested in Chicago.

The Cubs were a joke, an afterthought.

This organization should have contacted Rich Lindberg or Bob Vanderberg, they would have given a more knowledgeable opinion.

He is right about one thing though, the Sox moving to WFLD-TV in 1968 serverly damaged this franchise.

Lip

AndyFrain
09-09-2003, 07:45 PM
Originally posted by Lip Man 1
Obviously this "historian" doesn't remember the period from 1951 through 1965 when the Cubs couldn't even get arrested in Chicago.

The Cubs were a joke, an afterthought.

This organization should have contacted Rich Lindberg or Bob Vanderberg, they would have given a more knowledgeable opinion.

He is right about one thing though, the Sox moving to WFLD-TV in 1968 serverly damaged this franchise.

Lip
Last night I drove up to the game from Charleston IL with a fellow who had never been to the park formerly known as Comiskey. He loved the entire experience. Now he was born and raised in Belleville, and his dad is a part time Cardinal scout, so his knowlege of Sox lore is nill. He was also born in'71 so his knowledge of Harry Carey was limited to his post-Cardinal days. Anyway he was incredulous when I told him that Harry broadcasted for the Sox for a decade. He thougt it was always for the Cubs. So I started telling him about the story of the lost radio contract in 1970 on WMAQ, and how 1971 was broadcast on a bunch of low-watter FM's from the burbs, with Harry as the anchor. Anyway, I ended the story with almost the exact same quote from above: that the move to WFLD in 1968 was a case in landmark stupidity. The Sox must have thought they were getting their own station, but in fact they handed to the Cubs 100% of WGN-TV. Heck, not many people had UHF sets at that time, and all those stations were only 2-3 years old. Add to that a 0-10 start in April 1968, and the race riots going on at the same moment from MLK's assasination, and the Sox became totally irrelavant in Chicago from that point on until June, 1972.