PDA

View Full Version : suntimes Jennifer Jones is another joke of a reporter


southsidesoxfan1
04-27-2004, 09:59 AM
A look at the attendance figures tells the story. Calculations on ESPN.com on Monday showed the Cubs are averaging 39,490 spectators at Wrigley Field, while the Sox are averaging 22,605 at U.S. Cellular Field. The Sox were not able to draw a sellout crowd to any of their three recent games against the New York Yankees, even though the Cubs were out of town and the Yankees are one of the most popular teams in baseball.

This is just some sick sh*t. I can't believe the papers today. Comparing the sox situation to the bunch of non-working lemmings on the north side who are packing the urinal known as wrigley is totally ridiculous. Hey its only April and school is in session. Just wait till the weather warms up and the sox warm up along with it. The park will be filling up just fine. Some background on the quote above that Jennifer neglects to tell. This is from the press pass game notes after the Yankee series.

At The Gate — The White Sox drew 92,218 fans to the Yankees series, their highest total for a three-game series
in April since 4/22-24/94 vs. Detroit when 110,500 fans turned out to watch the Sox take two of three games from the
Tigers … the Sox drew 34,030 to last night’s win and 32,034 on Tuesday, which excluding home openers are the
sixth and eight-largest April crowds in the 14-year history of the new ballpark … through six home dates, the Sox are
averaging 26,140 fans, up from 18,875 at the same stage last season.

Granted that the Tampa Bay crowds were pretty small but hey, it was the Devil Rays in April with the new price gouging on Weekends. Anyways, when the Cubs tank it like you know they will, their fans will jump off the bandwagon, dust off there Sox hats from the attic, and head to the southside for some real baseball.
:angry: :angry:

MRKARNO
04-27-2004, 10:06 AM
Until the attendence figures are similar there are bound to be comparisons between a quarter to half filled park and a park that almost regularly sells out. Stop whining because she has the right to mention this, just ignore it.

cheeses_h_rice
04-27-2004, 10:14 AM
Sigh...NAAT (Not Another Attendance Thread).

BUT, I would be curious to see how the White Sox stack up in terms of TV and radio audiences vs. other ballclubs around the country. Let's face it, the Sox have lost the physical attendance war in this city, but I still think there's a significant audience out there following the team, even if they're not attending games. This is a point that is almost never brought up by the lemmings, er, "reporters" that keep parroting the same old ****.

southsidesoxfan1
04-27-2004, 10:23 AM
MRKARNO you need to ignore the little voices in your head. Schoe's Foes to Great Scott. How about changing MRKARNO to MRKLOWN. You just don't get it.

jackbrohamer
04-27-2004, 10:24 AM
Originally posted by MRKARNO
Until the attendence figures are similar there are bound to be comparisons between a quarter to half filled park and a park that almost regularly sells out. Stop whining because she has the right to mention this, just ignore it.

Journalists can write whatever they want. But it is dishonest, and poor journalism, to harp on the Sox not selling out for the Yankees without pointing out that the weather for all 3 games was absolutely miserable.

SEALgep
04-27-2004, 10:24 AM
Originally posted by MRKARNO
Until the attendence figures are similar there are bound to be comparisons between a quarter to half filled park and a park that almost regularly sells out. Stop whining because she has the right to mention this, just ignore it. Why are you saying he's whining? He's just saying to tell the whole story not just the half truth. And if this gal has the right to mention this, why are you busting on this guy for saying what he wants to mention?

wdelaney72
04-27-2004, 10:29 AM
I'm so tired of hearing about attendance.

MRKARNO
04-27-2004, 10:31 AM
OK it was wrong of me for criticizing the ciriticism, but we must face the fact that there will continue to be these comparisons until the White Sox consistantly draw as well as the Cubs. This kind of stuff is nothing new. I'm just trying to say that it's no use to whine about others whining about our attendence. I'm sick of it. It's this simple: the sox win and they will draw in all parts of the year. Until then, we will be second-fiddle in this town. Fair or not that's how it is. Just look to LA. Anaheim wasnt really drawing, but then they won the World Series and they built up a nice season ticket holders base and then they had a bad year but Arte Moreno moved in and now they sell out every game despite having played second fiddle to the dodgers for many years. If you win, you get positive attention and fans.

And I felt the personal attacks were unwarrented and they were not appreciated

southsidesoxfan1
04-27-2004, 10:41 AM
MR KARNO, my apology, I didn't realize your a kid. Keep hitting those books. An my apologies to the WSI community about bringing up the attendence thing again, just chaffed my hide when I read all the different non sense on the way to work. Thought I'd bring up some truth to some of the madness. Oh well, I'll be letting out the stress at tonights game, hopefully a Garland complete game shutout.

Go Sox!!

SEALgep
04-27-2004, 10:43 AM
Originally posted by MRKARNO


And I felt the personal attacks were unwarrented and they were not appreciated I don't warrant attacks, but maybe you should have thought about that before calling someone a whiner for simply stating his opinion. Maybe he could have ignored the issue, but you could have just as easily ignored the thread. Besides, this an issue at hand, and ignoring it doesn't make it go away.

jackbrohamer
04-27-2004, 10:58 AM
Originally posted by wdelaney72
I'm so tired of hearing about attendance.

Amen.

VaSoxfan
04-27-2004, 11:11 AM
I've seen a ton of these threads and haven't said anything but want to kinda make a couple points. As tough as it is to take, she's quoting facts. I am in the DC area, so I'm offering input from an outsider's point of view...and the perception here is the same...there are tons of Yankees fans in my office and two of them made points about "hey what was up with the crowds" during their visit.

It's really hard to say well it was the weather...or it's April...or whatever, but let's face it, if the Yanks were at Wrigley can any of you honestly say the crowds would have been low because of the weather?

I have to really wonder at the fan base up there...it's depressing...I have to buy MLB Extra Innings to watch Sox games and it's depressing to see oceans of blue seats for each game, whether it's the Yankees or Devil Rays in town. The team has got to be affected as well. The only chance I get to see the Sox live is when they come to Baltimore and if it's during the week (like this year) it's nearly impossible to get up there with traffic in time.

But Chicago is a city with around ten million people in it's metro area and people don't support the Sox...even now, when we are percentage points different from the Cubs in the standings, who most media outlets both in and out of Chicago have apparently already ticketed for the World Series...they don't draw squat even during the Yankees only visit of the season...

I don't get it...the park is nice, the team should be competitive all year, they shouldn't be drawing low crowds..what's going on? We're starving for baseball down here...we'll take ya if we don't get the Expos!

kittle42
04-27-2004, 11:23 AM
Originally posted by jackbrohamer
Journalists can write whatever they want. But it is dishonest, and poor journalism, to harp on the Sox not selling out for the Yankees without pointing out that the weather for all 3 games was absolutely miserable.

Ugh....ugh to all this attendance nonsense already.

Wahhhh... :whiner: the weather. Waaaah... :whiner: the bandwagon Cub fans. Wahhhh... :whiner: they don't go to work. Waahhh :whiner: kids are in school.

The Cubs will sell out every game. The Sox will sell out 3 for certain and maybe 8 at best unless they are in first in September. That's just the way it will be until the Sox start winning consistently. No, an 11-7 start is not consistent enough winning. If they were 14-4, the attendance would be higher, but I don't think they'd be selling out despite that. They need to be in a pennant race to draw interest in this town.

TDog
04-27-2004, 11:30 AM
If you're sick of attendance threads, I'm sure you're sick about the Chicago media continually writing of the relative-to-the-Cubs poor attendance as reason to ignore the team -- perpetuating the disparity.

In other, less Cub-centric media environments, reporters and columnists would be approaching the situation from a different environment. They would be pointing out that people in the area are doing themselves a disservice by ignoring an exciting team that has nearly the same record as the beloved Cubs and has come up with three walk-off wins at home.

Dick Allen
04-27-2004, 11:34 AM
Jennifer Jones covers the Black Hawks for the Sun-Times, that's enough to kill anybody's brain cells.

woodenleg
04-27-2004, 11:41 AM
Originally posted by TDog
If you're sick of attendance threads, I'm sure you're sick about the Chicago media continually writing of the relative-to-the-Cubs poor attendance as reason to ignore the team -- perpetuating the disparity.

In other, less Cub-centric media environments, reporters and columnists would be approaching the situation from a different environment. They would be pointing out that people in the area are doing themselves a disservice by ignoring an exciting team that has nearly the same record as the beloved Cubs and has come up with three walk-off wins at home.

No bull - this isn't news to anyone, but the media are obsessed with it without shedding any new light (or any context, for that matter) on the subject.

santo=dorf
04-27-2004, 11:51 AM
I love how they totally ignore the fact that the weather was horrible for the entire Yankees series, but the weather was a major reason to why SO many Cub fans left their home opener early.

owensmouth
04-27-2004, 12:30 PM
It isn't the media that keeps everyone mentioning attendance, it's the White Sox management.

KW's constant reminders that in order for the Sox to augment the team, we need more fannies in the stands.

Ozzie's references to the Cubs.

Management's griping about the perception difference between the Sox and the Cubs.

It's time for the people incharge to start maximizing on the team and stop worrying about the team up north. Comparisons there will come in June and July.

Lip Man 1
04-27-2004, 12:31 PM
VaSoxFan asks : "I don't get it...the park is nice, the team should be competitive all year, they shouldn't be drawing low crowds..what's going on?"

Two words: Current ownership.

Lip

Mickster
04-27-2004, 12:51 PM
Originally posted by Lip Man 1
VaSoxFan asks : "I don't get it...the park is nice, the team should be competitive all year, they shouldn't be drawing low crowds..what's going on?"

Two words: Current ownership.

Lip

Lip,

I doubt seriously that the casual fan is staying away because of the current ownership.

In fact, as southsidesoxfan1 correctly quoted:

At The Gate — The White Sox drew 92,218 fans to the Yankees series, their highest total for a three-game series in April since 4/22-24/94 vs. Detroit when 110,500 fans turned out to watch the Sox take two of three games from the Tigers … the Sox drew 34,030 to last night’s win and 32,034 on Tuesday, which excluding home openers are the sixth and eight-largest April crowds in the 14-year history of the new ballpark … through six home dates, the Sox are averaging 26,140 fans, up from 18,875 at the same stage last season.

We have had some crappy weather and fans still came out. We should draw a decent crowd tonight, even with the expected cold weather. People will show up so long as the sox are winning. This season, in particular, should give us a good guage. We all know that the sox usually don't open up the season on a winning note. It usually takes them until May or even June to warm up and start winning. The exception to this in recent years was 2000. Winning in April will finally let us know for sure if fans will come to see a winning team.

So long as they keep winning and with the renovations that took place at the cell, they could honestly draw 2.2-2.3 Million fans this season.

If you were living in Chicago and had the means to go to games on a regular basis, would you honestly tell me you would not go because of the current ownership? :?:

joecrede
04-27-2004, 12:52 PM
One of my favorite pokes the media takes at Sox attendance is some use "announced crowd" before giving the figure. I don't ever recall that being used before a Wrigley attendance figure.

Lip Man 1
04-27-2004, 01:15 PM
Mickster:

I contend that this ownership in 20+ years has dramatically diminshed the size of the Sox fan base through a series of ill advised, vindictive, dubious PR blunders.

Fans don't come out because of this ownership.

Either this ownership has caused them to stop caring or they never became fans in the first place.

20+ years is a looonnnnggg time. Time enough for an entire generation to grow up as Cub fans because of these moves (starting with SportsVision.)

So we may be dealing with semantical 'splitting hairs,' but in fact it's the current owner who has put this franchise in the state it's in today. He is the steward of it and he's done an awful job.

On the field they have had some success in the past but the franchise's average record the past six years is 83-79, barely .500.

Off the field they are losing market share and recognition among Chicagoans in growing numbers.

How anyone can say that is successfully running the franchise is beyond me.

Unless of course they are making money hand over foot through the stadium lease, keeping the payroll down and other business activities. In which case I guess everything is fine.
Lip

Hangar18
04-27-2004, 01:27 PM
Originally posted by Lip Man 1
Mickster:

I contend that this ownership in 20+ years has dramatically diminshed the size of the Sox fan base through a series of ill advised, vindictive, dubious PR blunders.

Fans don't come out because of this ownership.

Either this ownership has caused them to stop caring or they never became fans in the first place.

20+ years is a looonnnnggg time. Time enough for an entire generation to grow up as Cub fans because of these moves (starting with SportsVision.)

So we may be dealing with semantical 'splitting hairs,' but in fact it's the current owner who has put this franchise in the state it's in today. He is the steward of it and he's done an awful job.

On the field they have had some success in the past but the franchise's average record the past six years is 83-79, barely .500.

Off the field they are losing market share and recognition among Chicagoans in growing numbers.

How anyone can say that is successfully running the franchise is beyond me.

Unless of course they are making money hand over foot through the stadium lease, keeping the payroll down and other business activities. In which case I guess everything is fine.
Lip

Lip, your 20 years enough time for an ENTIRE Wgn Generation to grow up "cub" fans .......is ENTIRELY on the MARK. THE SOX basically Made PR Blunder after On-Field Mistake for 20 something years, while the MEDIA added fuel to this Fire by OverZealously choosing to love that "other" team for no logical reason. What we see is the Net Result

Mickster
04-27-2004, 01:57 PM
Originally posted by Lip Man 1
Mickster:

I contend that this ownership in 20+ years has dramatically diminshed the size of the Sox fan base through a series of ill advised, vindictive, dubious PR blunders.

Fans don't come out because of this ownership.

Either this ownership has caused them to stop caring or they never became fans in the first place.

20+ years is a looonnnnggg time. Time enough for an entire generation to grow up as Cub fans because of these moves (starting with SportsVision.)

So we may be dealing with semantical 'splitting hairs,' but in fact it's the current owner who has put this franchise in the state it's in today. He is the steward of it and he's done an awful job.

On the field they have had some success in the past but the franchise's average record the past six years is 83-79, barely .500.

Off the field they are losing market share and recognition among Chicagoans in growing numbers.

How anyone can say that is successfully running the franchise is beyond me.

Unless of course they are making money hand over foot through the stadium lease, keeping the payroll down and other business activities. In which case I guess everything is fine.
Lip

Lip,

Points well taken. I disagree in part with some of your statements.

You allude to the fact that sportsvision was a mistake. While I grant you that it did not work out as they had planned, but don't you think that the new Comcast SportsNet debuting in October 04 is essentially a wolf (SportsVision) in sheep's (Concast SportsNet) clothing? No real difference. And no difference from the famed Yes network that has funded George's recent dynasties...

You are correct that the Sox's average record over the past 6 years is 83-79, barely .500. What, then, is the Cub's average over that same span? Considering all of the complaints on these boards regarding JR, I would actually look at that as a praise, rather than a complaint. They have actually been more competitive then our "friends" to the north over the last 20 years.

People complain about the Cell. I contend that it is a damn good place to watch a baseball game. People complain that the Cell should have been moved to a new location (downtown or suburbs). I say, give it time. According to the recent development of the Bridgeport area and the costs of some of the properties being developed, we may very well have "Wrigleyville II" on our hands in Bridgeport and Pilsen in the next 10 years. If this happens, will JR be considedred a genius?

I am no way defending JR, mind you. There are many things to be critical of. Let's not go crazy though.

I was a Blackhawk season ticket holder for many years. The reason that I am no longer a ticket holder, much less a fan, is due to the current ownership. I don't follow the hawks at all, don't read about them in the papers and don't watch them on TV.

I find it strange that people complain so much about ownership, refuse to go to games, yet somehow "support" and follow the teams on a regular basis.

Iwritecode
04-27-2004, 02:03 PM
Originally posted by Mickster
You allude to the fact that sportsvision was a mistake. While I grant you that it did not work out as they had planned, but don't you think that the new Comcast SportsNet debuting in October 04 is essentially a wolf (SportsVision) in sheep's (Concast SportsNet) clothing? No real difference. And no difference from the famed Yes network that has funded George's recent dynasties...

I think the biggest difference with the new Comcast SportsNet is the simple fact that it will have ALL the chicago teams on it. Not just the Sox.

That can only help...

Mickster
04-27-2004, 02:11 PM
Originally posted by Iwritecode
I think the biggest difference with the new Comcast SportsNet is the simple fact that it will have ALL the chicago teams on it. Not just the Sox.

That can only help...

Agreed. Identical in principle, though.

Iwritecode
04-27-2004, 02:11 PM
Originally posted by VaSoxfan
if the Yanks were at Wrigley can any of you honestly say the crowds would have been low because of the weather?


Interleague play is in June, so unless it rained the weather wouldn't be a factor.

Besides, the when the Yankees played the Cubs last year the media played it up so much you would have thought it was the first time they came to this city since Babe Ruth called his shot.

I didn't exactly see a big media frenzy surronding the Yanks coming to face the Sox last week.

The media affects the lemmings er... "casual fans" more than you think. If they say the Yanks/Cubs series is the greatest thing since sliced bread, there are thousands that believe it and go to the game because of it...

Fridaythe13thJason
04-27-2004, 02:14 PM
Originally posted by Iwritecode
Interleague play is in June, so unless it rained the weather wouldn't be a factor.

Besides, the when the Yankees played the Cubs last year the media played it up so much you would have thought it was the first time they came to this city since Babe Ruth called his shot.

I didn't exactly see a big media frenzy surronding the Yanks coming to face the Sox last week.

The media affects the lemmings er... "casual fans" more than you think. If they say the Yanks/Cubs series is the greatest thing since sliced bread, there are thousands that believe it and go to the game because of it...

C'mon, Code, you're a smart guy. Please don't tell me you don't see the difference between the Yanks - Cubs and the Yanks - White Sox. We play them every year. The Cubs haven't played them in, wow, a long time. There's a major difference in the world of mystique and intrigue.

When I was in LA and the White Sox came to town, it was really interesting to see. It was the first time since the series, and there was plenty of excitement. While, I can agree there wasn't as much as there should've been, it was definitely different than our yearly trip to Anaheim.

Iwritecode
04-27-2004, 02:14 PM
Originally posted by Mickster
Agreed. Identical in principle, though.

True, but this time people won't have a choice. Before it was either pay to watch the Sox or watch the Cubs for free.

Now it's pay to watch baseball at all or move to Milwaukee and watch the Brewers for free...

Iwritecode
04-27-2004, 02:19 PM
Originally posted by UICJason
C'mon, Code, you're a smart guy. Please don't tell me you don't see the difference between the Yanks - Cubs and the Yanks - White Sox. We play them every year. The Cubs haven't played them in, wow, a long time. There's a major difference in the world of mystique and intrigue.

When I was in LA and the White Sox came to town, it was really interesting to see. It was the first time since the series, and there was plenty of excitement. While, I can agree there wasn't as much as there should've been, it was definitely different than our yearly trip to Anaheim.

I understand that but I'm remembering the stupid questions they were asking the Yankee players about the food and nightlife in the city. It's not like they'd never tasted the food or experienced the nightlife...

It also proves my point about the original comment. You can't compare the Yankess/Sox attendance to the Yanks/Cubs attendance. Especially when the weather is horrible...

mweflen
04-27-2004, 02:25 PM
southsidesoxfan - do you have a link? i don't want to search all over the Cub-Times site :smile:

southsidesoxfan1
04-27-2004, 02:39 PM
Sure do. Good luck reading it without loosing your lunch.

www.suntimes.com/output/sports/cst-spt-soxfans27.html

My whole point to this is that in comparison to the rest of the league we are by far drawing plenty of interest. But with sad reporting shills like Jenny Jones who couldn't find a story if it hit her with a car, the same negative media spotlight is shined brightly on the sox. As sox fans we got to put a stop to this bull, and proudly adorn our gear, and show the media were it matters, at the park.

I also noticed that the online edition of the article is different from the print version. The print version title is "Saddled with 'the Cell,' new promotions chief faces daunting task. But the online version title is even more sickening, "Without a Wrigley Field, new promotions chief faces an uphill battle".

Good luck keepin the lunch down.

Also, I was curious to see what are central division foes were averaging attendance wise through nine home games. Here are the results:

1. KC 23,169 (Opened the year against the sox)
2. MINN 22,653 (Surprising for the reigning AL Central champs)
3. SOX 22,605 (Damn Devil Rays)
4. DET 19,927 (Yawn)
5. CLE 19,044 (I though they had a nice park)

How about some worthy reporting, something with a headline like

CUBS SUCK BUT STILL MANAGE TO FILL PARK, SCIENTISTS POINT TO IDIOCY AS MAIN CULPRIT

Iwritecode
04-27-2004, 02:54 PM
OK, so I finally read the article. Two interesting quotes at the end:

The Angels, averaging 39,802 fans to the Dodgers' 43,096, expect to set a franchise record for total attendance after selling a record number of season tickets.

Winning the World Series in 2002 increased the Angels' popularity.

Hello? Bueller?

Maybe that's the reason the Sox aren't drawing 30,000+ in April???

It's a good thing these reports never let facts get in the way of a good story...

Iwritecode
04-27-2004, 03:03 PM
Originally posted by southsidesoxfan1
My whole point to this is that in comparison to the rest of the league we are by far drawing plenty of interest.

How are we doing so far compared to the rest of the league? If anyone has the time and energy, one could add all the numbers up on ESPN.com and figure out where the Sox stand.

Also, is there really any other team we can compare to? By that I mean is there another team that plays in a fairly large market with upredictable (bad) weather in April and low expectations coming into the season? Detroit? Milwaukee?

kittle42
04-27-2004, 03:13 PM
Originally posted by Hangar18
Lip, your 20 years enough time for an ENTIRE Wgn Generation to grow up "cub" fans .......is ENTIRELY on the MARK.

This is why you will consistently hear the argument from Cub fans that this town "has always been a Cubs town."

In their lifetimes (the young teen-twentysomething crowd), this is actually very true.

Iwritecode
04-27-2004, 03:15 PM
Originally posted by Iwritecode
How are we doing so far compared to the rest of the league? If anyone has the time and energy, one could add all the numbers up on ESPN.com and figure out where the Sox stand.


Nevermind, I found it. (http://sports.espn.go.com/mlb/attendance)

The Sox are at #23 and averaging less per game than Tampa Bay...

:(: :whiner:

cheeses_h_rice
04-27-2004, 03:19 PM
Originally posted by Iwritecode
OK, so I finally read the article. Two interesting quotes at the end:





Hello? Bueller?

Maybe that's the reason the Sox aren't drawing 30,000+ in April???

It's a good thing these reports never let facts get in the way of a good story...

The Angels' new owner also forked over a boatload of cash for Bartolo, Vlad, et al.

Mickster
04-27-2004, 03:25 PM
Originally posted by Iwritecode
Nevermind, I found it. (http://sports.espn.go.com/mlb/attendance)

The Sox are at #23 and averaging less per game than Tampa Bay...

:(: :whiner:

Interesting to note: 2003 Attendance Figures:

1. LA (Angels/Dodgers) 6.2M
2. New York (Yanks/Mets) 5.6M
3. SF / Oakland 5.5M
4. Chicago (Sox/Cubs) 4.9M

I am not sure how the population of SF/Oakland and surrounding areas compares with Chicagoland, but they seem to be doing outstanding. Obviously LA and NY will get more total attendance. It's a given....

Iwritecode
04-27-2004, 03:25 PM
Originally posted by cheeses_h_rice
The Angels' new owner also forked over a boatload of cash for Bartolo, Vlad, et al.

That's my point. If the Sox had won a WS in the past few years and went out and spent some money on a few good FA's this year, the attendance wouldn't be an issue.

Those facts are noticably absent from the article...

Lip Man 1
04-27-2004, 10:09 PM
Mickster:

It would take far to long to reprint excerpts from a historical story on SportsVision here but let me give you this link. After you read it you'll see exactly what went wrong and why it was an idea ahead of its time. It was a good idea but it backfired and cost the Sox a potential generation of fans who had no choice but to watch the Cubs. A Cubs team that happened to win a division in 1984 about the same time WGN-TV went national as Superstation WGN.

Let me hear what you think.

http://www.whitesoxinteractive.com/rwas/index.php?category=2&id=2096

Lip

Clarkowski
04-27-2004, 10:17 PM
As much as I was excited about the Sox and Dodgers series last year.....one must remember that the Sox-Cubs head to head World Series tally stands at : Sox- 1 Cubs-0

Hondo
04-27-2004, 10:39 PM
Who is Jennifer Jones anyway?

miker
04-28-2004, 10:09 AM
Maybe if the weather doesn't get better on this homestand we can burn copies of the Sun-Times for warmth...

...other than that, I can't think of any reason to buy that paper.

Mickster
04-28-2004, 10:22 AM
Lip,

Excellent article. As I told you by IM, the economic conditions of the Chicagoland area at the time certainly sheds a different light on Einhorn's timing.

Although it backfired, Einhorn's idea certainly was forward thinking. Had it gone well, do you think that the Sox in general would be in a better position with a larger fanbase than today? Would the organization use proceeds to "better the team" and "increase fan base" or would it turn into massively increased profits for the owners?

Lip Man 1
04-28-2004, 12:52 PM
Mickster:

Honestly I don't know...what I do know if that the fact that the Cubs stayed on 'free TV,' at a time when Superstations exploded across America (WGN,WPIX,WWOR,WTBS,KWGN,WSBK,KTLA and for a few years a station in Dallas.)

The White Sox were on 'pay per view' in the exact same market. Couple that with economic situation and you had a recipe for disaster.

But worse, as I said, the Sox lost a whole generation of potential fans. They are paying for that now dearly.

SportsVision was a good idea...a great idea, but the timing was wrong and the market was wrong for the first test of it.

Chalk it up to typical Sox luck (or lack of same...)

Lip