PDA

View Full Version : Sox article on front page of Wall Street Journal


SaltyPretzel
06-15-2005, 08:07 AM
Same old garbage about attendence that's been recycled the past 10 years. :mad:

hold2dibber
06-15-2005, 08:14 AM
Most pointless article I've ever read in the Journal. Here's a synopsis:

The Sox are very good but aren't drawing many fans, unlike the Cubs.
The Sox haven't been good enough to win or bad enough to develop a lovable losers persona.
Some blame Reinsdorf for threatening to move and for his role in the strike.
The park is in a lousy part of town, surrounded by the cities "most dangerous" housing projects.
The park is sterile and unappealing.
Everyone loves the Cubs.

Hangar18
06-15-2005, 08:21 AM
I can believe it. Padre fans think that we run on the field every nite,
and that we dont ever come to the games ........... and thats because of
articles like this.

PaleHoseGeorge
06-15-2005, 08:39 AM
That's it! I'm cancelling my subscription!!!
:cool:

Seriously, it's a piece of crap. It recounts all the usual cliches and bogus stories concerning the team, the ballpark, and the neighborhood. Ahlberg even got a quote from that ****ing dope on the Snore's morning show.
:o:

The WSJ is unmatched for business news. It also does an exceptional job in technology and personal/leisure topics -- far better than any hometown rag like the Cubune. Their writing is better and their insights are deeper.

But this was just ****. Frankly, most of their sports coverage is ordinary and this was one of the worst. From coast-to coast, nobody reading that article in today's WSJ is getting a dime's worth of insight about the plight of the Sox.

Staff reporter Erik Ahlberg needs a new assignment. Better luck next time, kid.

itsnotrequired
06-15-2005, 08:42 AM
Let them gripe about attendance all they want. Under the radar!

Attendance is actually up by 77,647 through the same number of games as last year...and that reflects counting the two double-headers last year as two games. Attendance is up by nearly 118,000 if you count attendance by date rather than game.

bigdommer
06-15-2005, 09:32 AM
My boss (here in Baltimore) put the article on my desk this morning. It angered me because it's partly misleading, and it upset me because it's partly true.

I can live with the lovable loser affection. With WGN, the Tribune company, and Wrigleyville in general, it's no surprise that the Cubs get more national attention, media coverage, and attendance.

I can live with people not liking Reinsdorf. My dad still won't pay to go to a game because of the strike. The prices are also out of whack.

But don't blame the attendance on the ballpark. The White Sox are filling more of their stadium (%) than the D'backs, Indians, Reds and Brewers, all residents of the new, retro ball parks. The WS also outdraw (by avg numbers) the Pirates and Tigers, residents of retro ballparks. I understand that none of these teams are in first, but the D'Backs/Brewers/Pirates are young and having breakthrough seasons, and the Indians/Tigers/Reds had a lot of preseason buzz, and only the Reds are completely done for the season.

PatK
06-15-2005, 09:38 AM
Somebody should let them know that the majority of the housing projects are no longer there and are being replaced with $150,000 townhomes.

mccoydp
06-15-2005, 09:41 AM
Somebody should let them know that the majority of the housing projects are no longer there and are being replaced with $150,000 townhomes.

No kidding? I haven't been there since '93...did they demolish them? Just curious.

TornLabrum
06-15-2005, 09:46 AM
No kidding? I haven't been there since '93...did they demolish them? Just curious.

You'd never know it reading anything about the neighborhood The Cell is in, would you? They've been coming down for a couple of years. Last year, I think only one building remained standing. I really haven't paid attention this year to see if it has come down yet.

skottyj242
06-15-2005, 09:53 AM
I completely disagree with all of you on this article. I thought it was a great piece that let's the rest of the world know what we talk about here everyday: Our lack of media attention due to the Tribune. This is a world wide paper here, I didn't read one negative thing in the article. Although he does talk about attendance problems he also says it at the highest in the decade. For Pete's sake the guy is WEARING A SOX HAT in the picture on the front page...Kevin Smith is one of the few guys in the media that actually really is a Sox fan. If you guys can't be happy about the front page of one of the biggest newspapers in the world I honestly feel somewhat bad for you.

For those that haven't read the article I tried to provinde a link but because it's a pay subscription website I couldn't....sorry about that.

TornLabrum
06-15-2005, 09:57 AM
I completely disagree with all of you on this article. I thought it was a great piece that let's the rest of the world know what we talk about here everyday: Our lack of media attention due to the Tribune. This is a world wide paper here, I didn't read one negative thing in the article. Although he does talk about attendance problems he also says it at the highest in the decade. For Pete's sake the guy is WEARING A SOX HAT in the picture on the front page...Kevin Smith is one of the few guys in the media that actually really is a Sox fan. If you guys can't be happy about the front page of one of the biggest newspapers in the world I honestly feel somewhat bad for you.

For those that haven't read the article I tried to provinde a link but because it's a pay subscription website I couldn't....sorry about that.

So how often do you talk here about those dangerous (torn down) projects?

skottyj242
06-15-2005, 10:01 AM
The article states that many people use that as an excuse not to come to the park. Sorry for opening my mouth.

quade36
06-15-2005, 10:32 AM
My friend wrote this article. He collected a ton of data and I think the article was fair. He confronted me while he was writing it. The only thing I wished he'd talk about more was pricing i.e. the difference in attendance from a Monday game to a Wednesday game, but he said he couldn't because White Sox Management didn't want him to. They wanted to show the yearly attendance

robiwho
06-15-2005, 10:34 AM
My husband just called from work to tell me about this article. He thought it was cool to see the Sox on the front page of the WSJ, even if it was about attendance. Not having read it, I told him exactly what the article probably said -- "dangerous" part of town, etc. He thought it was funny that I could predict it so accurately and asked if I still wanted him to bring it home. :D:

Rocky Soprano
06-15-2005, 10:34 AM
My friend wrote this article. He collected a ton of data and I think the article was fair. He confronted me while he was writing it. The only thing I wished he'd talk about more was pricing i.e. the difference in attendance from a Monday game to a Wednesday game, but he said he couldn't because White Sox Management didn't want him to. They wanted to show the yearly attendance

Your friend is a dumb ass. Period.

quade36
06-15-2005, 10:40 AM
Your friend is a dumb ass. Period.

Dude I am a hardcore Sox fan and I respected that Article. Judging by most of the responses, most Sox fans agree with it as well. Look in the mirror if you want to see a dumb donkey.....

FRANK FORT
06-15-2005, 10:55 AM
Basically there is nothing wrong with this article. Sure, there are things the author could have elaborated on, such as the demolition of most of the projects, but the article can only be so long. There is nothing nasty in the article, there are no insults. There are also positives in the article, which is something rarely seen in Chicago's newpapers / media. To me, this is national attention bordering on positive.

Rocky Soprano
06-15-2005, 10:56 AM
Dude I am a hardcore Sox fan and I respected that Article. Judging by most of the responses, most Sox fans agree with it as well. Look in the mirror if you want to see a dumb donkey.....

Most Sox fans HERE are not going to agree with that article. And I refuse to believe that there are more loyal and hardcore Sox fans than the members here.

The Media loves to bitch about our attendance and just recycle stale data that they have. Why not talk about how attendace is up from last year, why not talk about how during the summer our attendance always goes way up. We are not the Cubs because our fans actually work. We are not the Cubs because we dont just go to a game for the party atmosphere, we go for the BASEBALL. And dont get started on our neighborhood, its no where near as bad as people make it. Hell check the crime reports and compare it to Wrigley.

Your friend is a dumbass for not doing more research. And the only way I will see a dumb donkey in my mirror is if you are standing in front of it.

FRANK FORT
06-15-2005, 10:58 AM
Hey Soprano, did you even read the article? I quote "Fans are slowly coming back and attendance this year is the best in decade".

Rocky Soprano
06-15-2005, 11:01 AM
Hey Soprano, did you even read the article? I quote "Fans are slowly coming back and attendance this year is the best in decade".

Yes I saw it, the article is garbage. That quote reminds me of those Geico commercials. They start with bad news but at the end they say "But there is good news, I just saved..."

The article rips our attendance but then tries to make a compliment.

jshanahanjr
06-15-2005, 11:03 AM
Awesome article! The White Sox have a front page article in the Wall Street Journal! The Sox are getting world wide attention now. What else can you ask for? There still are the Wentworth Gardens and one Taylor home left, but the area is about to explode in the next few years. You won't even recognize it. There will be a Metra stop and million dollar homes across the Ryan with great places to eat & drink. The Sox will be able to draw 2 million on a bad year and close to 3 on a good. Attendance articles will be a thing of the past.

bigdommer
06-15-2005, 11:04 AM
Dude I am a hardcore Sox fan and I respected that Article. Judging by most of the responses, most Sox fans agree with it as well. Look in the mirror if you want to see a dumb donkey.....

I agree with most of the article, but I would like to see something original written. The whole article has been written in pieces before. Your friend's tired point about the stadiums in Milwaukee and Pittsburgh is moot, as they draw less than the Sox and the stadiums have strapped the city/state financially.

I would like to see more articles written with facts and solutions, rather than with second-hand observations and problems. I did like the Burly quote from the article.

quade36
06-15-2005, 11:08 AM
Most Sox fans HERE are not going to agree with that article. And I refuse to believe that there are more loyal and hardcore Sox fans than the members here.

The Media loves to bitch about our attendance and just recycle stale data that they have. Why not talk about how attendace is up from last year, why not talk about how during the summer our attendance always goes way up. We are not the Cubs because our fans actually work. We are not the Cubs because we dont just go to a game for the party atmosphere, we go for the BASEBALL. And dont get started on our neighborhood, its no where near as bad as people make it. Hell check the crime reports and compare it to Wrigley.

Your friend is a dumbass for not doing more research. And the only way I will see a dumb donkey in my mirror is if you are standing in front of it.

Just curious, how old are you????

Forget it, there are always a few bad seeds.

Cellview22
06-15-2005, 11:09 AM
There still are the Wentworth Gardens and one Taylor home left, but the area is about to explode in the next few years. You won't even recognize it. There will be a Metra stop and million dollar homes across the Ryan with great places to eat & drink. The Sox will be able to draw 2 million on a bad year and close to 3 on a good. Attendance articles will be a thing of the past.

I've heard nothing about this. That would be awesome if it was true, esp million dollar homes, a Metra stop, and great places to eat and drink across the Dan Ryan.. it would be amazing to walk over the bridge across the Dan Ryan to a place like that..and then obviously more people would use the Green Line instead of packing the red line. And just in a few years? Do you have a source or link where I can read about this. Great news!

fincher
06-15-2005, 11:09 AM
Its a good story. Facts are facts. Thing is, I still don't like reading this stuff because it reinforces what we've all known for some time. Perception is tough to change and it takes a hot start by the Sox to slowly remove some of these long-standing perceptions.

I just don't care what is written. I am a lifelong Sox fan. That's my team and that's my ballpark. I will never get caught in the Wrigley vortex.

skottyj242
06-15-2005, 11:17 AM
I find something very wrong with what's being written and said in this thread. First of all if you've went to college, got a degree and land a job writing for the Wall Street Journal YOU ARE NOT A DUMBASS, second every day I come to this site and read people bitch and moan about lack of press on the local and national level then this morning we get a front page article in one of the biggest papers on the planet and all people are doing is bitching about what's being written? That makes no sense to me, I might be wrong but that's just my opinion.

Cellview22
06-15-2005, 11:20 AM
I'm not bitching because I haven't seen it; I'm not gonna jump to conclusions. How long is the article, and can anyone quickly type it out? I'd love to read it.

fado
06-15-2005, 11:29 AM
I've heard nothing about this. That would be awesome if it was true, esp million dollar homes, a Metra stop, and great places to eat and drink across the Dan Ryan.. it would be amazing to walk over the bridge across the Dan Ryan to a place like that..and then obviously more people would use the Green Line instead of packing the red line. And just in a few years? Do you have a source or link where I can read about this. Great news!

The Metra stop was actually a topic in here last week or so and will be started 2007 IIRC. Million dollar homes are already being built in Bridgeport and further west down 35th with Bridgeport Village along the river. On the east side of the Ryan, the only project left is one of the old Robert Taylor homes and that is located around 43rd. Stateway Gardens which was on 35th has been completely demolished and they are built mixed income townhomes starting at $150,000 on its old site.

IIT is expanding its size with its new dorms that were built two years ago and with the addition of the new police headquarters on 35th and Michigan, the city is trying to build a bridge and join Bridgeport with the East side of the Ryan especially since a large amount of teenagers go to DeLaSalle which is on 35th and Wabash.

IMHO, in two years the area around the ballpark will be drastically different and within five years we loyal fans will be having problems getting tickets.

itsnotrequired
06-15-2005, 11:29 AM
I've heard nothing about this. That would be awesome if it was true, esp million dollar homes, a Metra stop, and great places to eat and drink across the Dan Ryan.. it would be amazing to walk over the bridge across the Dan Ryan to a place like that..and then obviously more people would use the Green Line instead of packing the red line. And just in a few years? Do you have a source or link where I can read about this. Great news!

The Stateway Garden homes are gone and re-development is well under way.

http://www.parkboulevardchicago.com/about.html

With projects like Park Boulevard moving in, restaurants, bars, etc. will follow shortly.

fincher
06-15-2005, 11:30 AM
Here's the story in PDF format you can download:
WSJ story in PDF format (http://www.mrpdf.com/wsi)

Cellview22
06-15-2005, 11:35 AM
Cool, thanks for the info. This is some of the best news I've heard all day. We need restaurants, bars, and some sort of a pedestrian street/ maybe a Borders like by PacBell Park to make the area more alive.

As for the front page article on WSJ, I just noticed it's posted over at soxtalk.

Iwritecode
06-15-2005, 11:59 AM
The article isn't real bad but it does contain some half-truths and some points that could have been expanded upon further. It surely could have been much better.

When the Sox recently faced another first-place team, the Los Angeles Angels, only about 20,000 showed up, despite delightful weather and a 2-for-1 ticket special.

How about mentioning the fact that it was a weekday series at the end of May and the kids were still in school? The Sox still promote mostly to families.

“The Sox are averaging only 23,000 fans a game”

Which is pretty good considering the season ticket base is about 12,000. That means they average about 11,000 walk-ups per game. What do the Cubs average in walk-ups? 6,000? 8,000?

He mentions that Wrigley was packed for a Sox/Cubs game. Duh?!?

He says that “many people fault Comiskey Park” for attendance problems because “some of Chicago’s toughest housing projects loom beyond the outfield fence”.

Why not mention that they are coming down and that the area around the park has been on the rise for years?

Cellview22
06-15-2005, 11:59 AM
OK, I just read the article, and being fair and honest, I'd have to say it's the worst article I've ever read on the White Sox. That's just my 2 cents.

It's embarrassing that it's in the WSJ, esp the front page. This won't do anything to help the Sox. Negativity will only keep the casual fan away, esp if they're like sheep and figures no one cares, so why should I. Only a completely positive article would have them going. It won't matter though because by the end of the year, we'll be averaging 27K or more, way up from last year.

It's a negative article, with only 1 sentence in the whole article that's on the positive side, and he waited to put it in the 2nd to last paragraph, "Fans are slowly coming back and attendance this year is the best in a decade." He makes excuses throughout the whole article why fans should be coming. And the first paragraph, which the majority of readers will see and not get through the whole article, is the worst. "The Chicago White Sox have the best record in baseball, and their best chance in years of ending an 88-year drought of World Series championships. But here in one of America's great sports towns, hardly anyone seems to care." That's what the majority of readers will remember.

Iwritecode
06-15-2005, 12:00 PM
As for the front page article on WSJ, I just noticed it's posted over at soxtalk.

I've noticed that they don't pay much attention to copyright laws over there... :?:

kitekrazy
06-15-2005, 12:19 PM
Somebody should let them know that the majority of the housing projects are no longer there and are being replaced with $150,000 townhomes.

Amazing isn't it? Last year I was quite surprised how that area has changed since the Veeck years. I don't think many outside of Chicago are aware of this.

But I think within 20 years everyone will know.

PaleHoseGeorge
06-15-2005, 12:23 PM
The Cubune could have written this exact same article five years ago. I'm holding the WSJ to a higher standard than that rag. The article was nothing but a recap of the usual stuff we hear here every week... no insights whatsoever. That's why it sucked. The WSJ should deliver more than just the usual b.s.

maurice
06-15-2005, 12:30 PM
Recycling old news stories and misrepresenting the facts does not = a good story.

Lip Man 1
06-15-2005, 12:35 PM
Overall I thought it was a fair story. It's not perfect but I thought it tried to give an honest account of what is taking place.

Lip

TornLabrum
06-15-2005, 12:37 PM
I find something very wrong with what's being written and said in this thread. First of all if you've went to college, got a degree and land a job writing for the Wall Street Journal YOU ARE NOT A DUMBASS, second every day I come to this site and read people bitch and moan about lack of press on the local and national level then this morning we get a front page article in one of the biggest papers on the planet and all people are doing is bitching about what's being written? That makes no sense to me, I might be wrong but that's just my opinion.

I agree. The writer may not be a dumbass. He definitely is lazy, though, just recycling what has already been written.

hsnterprize
06-15-2005, 12:41 PM
The really sad thing about this article is that it's just re-hashing the same, old, "Cubs (and anything assoiated with them) good, Sox (and anything associated with them) bad" mantra we've been subject to for the past umpteen years. It seems like unless the Sox dominate their opponents in Biblical-style fashion, they'll never get any legitimate respect.

I think it's good that a newspaper like WSJ is writing about the Sox, but as much as we've complained about not getting national attention like some other teams, it's even worse when the attention we do get is more negative than positive. How are we supposed to convince people who are just now starting to show interest in the White Sox the good about them when nationally-known papers like the Wall Street Journal are putting out this mess?

It's stuff like this Brooks Boyer is constantly having to fight against in order to convince people it's actually OKAY to see the White Sox play.

PaleHoseGeorge
06-15-2005, 12:42 PM
I agree. The writer may not be a dumbass. He definitely is lazy, though, just recycling what has already been written.

It could have been worse, Torn. Ahlberg could have lifted some material from Jayson Blair, another writer from a respected news organization.

Come to think of it, maybe he did?

:roflmao:

miker
06-15-2005, 12:50 PM
I am waiting for the corresponding leftist article on the Sox from the New York Times before jumping to any conclussions...

(Teal purposely omitted.)

Fenway
06-15-2005, 01:07 PM
It has become more obvious to me that the major gap in attendance between the North Side and South Side comes from tourism.

The New York and Los Angeles markets can support 2 teams simply through the vast numbers of people living in the market.
http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0884087.html

Chicago "should" be able to but there is a large segment of the Chicago population that simply doesn't care for baseball. (either team) There is a very good reason why both the Cubs and White Sox have had trouble keeping the games on Hispanic stations, it is a tough ad sell.

Wrigley Field became a shrine for the same reason that Fenway Prk did. The inability to build a new park in the 60's when everybody else build new stadiums. NOBODY called Shibe Park, Forbes Field, Sportsman Park, Crosley Field etc great shrines, just old parks that had to go. When the dust settled you had 4 parks left from the 1910's. ( Wrigley, Fenway, Comiskey and Tiger Stadium )

Comiskey and Tiger Stadium were not kept up in the 70/80's and were allowed to reach the point of no return. Fenway came dangerously close to that as recently as 6 years ago under Harrington. Wrigley is in tough shape and I question how many more Chicago winters it can withstand without crumbling.

maurice
06-15-2005, 01:11 PM
Chicago obviously can support 2 teams. It has done so for quite awhile now, and presently has two teams with $70+ mil. payrolls.

Fenway
06-15-2005, 01:21 PM
http://maps.google.com/maps?q=333+w+35th+Street+Chicago+il&spn=0.005386,0.007693&t=k&hl=en

I know everybody I have gone to a game with at USCF wonders the same thing, why couldn't the park have been pointed to allow the skyline to be seen from behind the outfield. Just from a TV standpoint the views would be breaktaking.

In looking at the shot from the satellite I wonder if the big hurdle in that was the apartment building right behind the scoreboard.

TornLabrum
06-15-2005, 01:59 PM
http://maps.google.com/maps?q=333+w+35th+Street+Chicago+il&spn=0.005386,0.007693&t=k&hl=en

I know everybody I have gone to a game with at USCF wonders the same thing, why couldn't the park have been pointed to allow the skyline to be seen from behind the outfield. Just from a TV standpoint the views would be breaktaking.

In looking at the shot from the satellite I wonder if the big hurdle in that was the apartment building right behind the scoreboard.

The story I've heard was that the Sox wanted to keep their 35th St. address. If they put home plate in the usual southwest location, the address would have been on 37th St.

itsnotrequired
06-15-2005, 02:11 PM
The story I've heard was that the Sox wanted to keep their 35th St. address. If they put home plate in the usual southwest location, the address would have been on 37th St.

I've heard that as well. Also, stadiums built in that era didn't place a premium on a city skyline for a backdrop as done so today.

hold2dibber
06-15-2005, 02:12 PM
The story I've heard was that the Sox wanted to keep their 35th St. address. If they put home plate in the usual southwest location, the address would have been on 37th St.

That doesn't make any sense to me. Why would the position of home plate necessarily dictate the address? Couldn't they put home plate on the 37th street side and the mail box on the 35th street side? I can't imagine Reinsdorf couldn't have pulled some strings and gotten a 35th street address regardless of home plate's positioning.

Foulke You
06-15-2005, 02:18 PM
That doesn't make any sense to me. Why would the position of home plate necessarily dictate the address? Couldn't they put home plate on the 37th street side and the mail box on the 35th street side? I can't imagine Reinsdorf couldn't have pulled some strings and gotten a 35th street address regardless of home plate's positioning.
The address wasn't the only issue. If you watch the last night game at Old Comiskey, Dan Roan from WGN was speaking of the new ballpark being built and mentioned that the Sox organization wanted a hitters park since Old Comiskey was such a pitcher's haven. Part of their reasoning for the new park facing the way it is was that wind patterns would benefit the hitters since the park was facing the opposite direction that the old park was. Thus, the winds that used to hold up homers in the old park would now carry them over the fence in the new park.

It largely failed for the most part because the Upper Deck was so massive, it caused most of the wind to swirl in the park. It wasn't until the upper deck was revamped to allow the wind to shoot straight through the park that it became more of a hitters haven.

dirty_k
06-15-2005, 02:22 PM
that is based on stereo-types to make its points. Only new thing to me in article was Ozzie's funny comment about that the Mayor should bring a bunch of friends out. Story could be of interest to someone not following the Sox but does not paint an accurate picture. I'll talke future WJS general interest stories now with more of a grain of salt.

dcb33
06-15-2005, 02:59 PM
http://maps.google.com/maps?q=333+w+35th+Street+Chicago+il&spn=0.005386,0.007693&t=k&hl=en

I know everybody I have gone to a game with at USCF wonders the same thing, why couldn't the park have been pointed to allow the skyline to be seen from behind the outfield. Just from a TV standpoint the views would be breaktaking.

In looking at the shot from the satellite I wonder if the big hurdle in that was the apartment building right behind the scoreboard.


:offtopic:
This is off-topic, but google's aerial photographic maps are pretty cool. I love how you can just drag and pull the map along without waiting for the computer to load. I was disappointed when maquest took all of their photographic maps off a couple years ago, and I'm glad to learn there's another site that has them.

For kicks I scrolled over to Washington, DC, and it surprises me they have such detailed and easily accessible photographs of the Mall area.
What really cracks me up is if you zoom in close above the Capitol building, the area surrounding it is blurred, but the areas around the White House, Pentagon, and Supreme Court Building are not.

Iwritecode
06-15-2005, 03:03 PM
It has become more obvious to me that the major gap in attendance between the North Side and South Side comes from tourism.

Well you got that part right but I believe it's mostly because the Cubs are owned by a national newspaper and play half their games on nationally televised TV station.

That means that a lot of the people in states that don't have a specific hometown team to root for get to see/read about the Cubs a whole lot. Then they "adopt" them as their favorite team. Hence the hundreds of buses from Iowa you see heading to the Urinal everyday.

Of course with the Cubune's completely unbiased coverage of both the Sox and Cubs, you'd think it would help the Sox build a larger fan base... :rolleyes:

jdm2662
06-15-2005, 03:30 PM
I'll put this perspective: The number of Cubbie fans have gotten out of control the last ten years because it is "cool" to be a Cubs fan. My high school was about 3 to 1 Sox fans when I was there. I live in the west burbs where it's generally split, at least when I was growing up. I'm willing to bet it mostly Cub fans now. Why? In the early 90s, it was "cool" to be a Sox fan. New stadium, good young team, an MVP and a Cy Young, etc. The strike killed that momentum, and ten years later, they are still trying to recover. The '98 Sosa run didn't help matters, either. Now, none of us here became Sox fans because it was "cool" that's for damn sure. The nation noticed the Sox as well. Go back to 1994, there were two baseball movies made that year. Which team was the team to "beat" and the featured opponent? The White Sox. People will start flocking back to Comiskey once it's "cool" to be seen there. Then, we will all be complaining how hard is it get tickets...
________
Hermann lang (http://www.mercedes-wiki.com/wiki/Hermann_Lang)

jehosaphat
06-15-2005, 06:23 PM
“The Sox are averaging only 23,000 fans a game”

[/QUOTE]

There was a time, not so long ago, when 1.8 million fans a year was excellent - how much do the Sox need to draw to be considered sucessful?

Pasqua's Posers
06-15-2005, 06:36 PM
I'll put this perspective: The number of Cubbie fans have gotten out of control the last ten years because it is "cool" to be a Cubs fan. My high school was about 3 to 1 Sox fans when I was there. I live in the west burbs where it's generally split, at least when I was growing up. I'm willing to bet it mostly Cub fans now. Why? In the early 90s, it was "cool" to be a Sox fan. New stadium, good young team, an MVP and a Cy Young, etc. The strike killed that momentum, and ten years later, they are still trying to recover. The '98 Sosa run didn't help matters, either. Now, none of us here became Sox fans because it was "cool" that's for damn sure. The nation noticed the Sox as well. Go back to 1994, there were two baseball movies made that year. Which team was the team to "beat" and the featured opponent? The White Sox. People will start flocking back to Comiskey once it's "cool" to be seen there. Then, we will all be complaining how hard is it get tickets...

I AGREE. Being a Cub Fan is the "in" thing to do now-just like converting to Scientology.

Lip Man 1
06-15-2005, 11:42 PM
Jeho:

I've asked that question myself. I always thought 2 million is good but apparently a number on MLB teams have been drawing far more then 2 million a season for a long time. Maybe the 'successful' number is not up to 2.3 or 2.5 million. I don't know...

Lip

PaleHoseGeorge
06-16-2005, 08:44 AM
Overall I thought it was a fair story. It's not perfect but I thought it tried to give an honest account of what is taking place.

Lip

I disagree. It's only an "honest account of what is taking place" if you ignore all the points we raise in this forum all the time. It's a load of pedestrian bull****, the smoking gun being Ahlberg and Konerko laying the blame on the fans themselves. That's a truly revolutionary concept -- laying the blame for management's incompetence on their paying customers. That's RICH coming from the Wall Street Journal.
:roflmao:

Ahlberg didn't do his homework, and I invite anybody who reads the WSI front page to challenge the point. Only the clueless would blame Sox Fans for this mess...
:kukoo:

With this kind of garbage, Ahlberg ought to apply for Moronotti's job. The Scum-Times is probably looking to hire.
:cool:

ode to veeck
06-16-2005, 08:59 AM
I AGREE. Being a Cub Fan is the "in" thing to do now-just like converting to Scientology.

LMAO!

Was L Ron Hubbard a Scrubs fan?, that would explain a lot, LOL! Where do you we could go with the conspiracy theories on that one? Hangar won't even need a tin hat!

chidonez
06-16-2005, 10:11 AM
If it hasn't already been mentioned, the Cubune ran a spot with Veeck, who had some nice points. First, he likes the park, and especially the new improvements. But his most important observation was that our fans our relatively young. Maybe they aren't old enough or wealthy enough to afford season tickets or a luxury suite yet, but they are loyal, a dream target for advertisers, and will be around a while. That's good news.

hsnterprize
06-16-2005, 10:17 AM
Wrigley Field became a shrine for the same reason that Fenway Prk did. The inability to build a new park in the 60's when everybody else build new stadiums. NOBODY called Shibe Park, Forbes Field, Sportsman Park, Crosley Field etc great shrines, just old parks that had to go. When the dust settled you had 4 parks left from the 1910's. ( Wrigley, Fenway, Comiskey and Tiger Stadium )

Comiskey and Tiger Stadium were not kept up in the 70/80's and were allowed to reach the point of no return. Fenway came dangerously close to that as recently as 6 years ago under Harrington. Wrigley is in tough shape and I question how many more Chicago winters it can withstand without crumbling.

IMHO, Wrigley Field and Fenway Park became the over-romanticized ballparks they are now because of the new stadium boom of the 90's. Let's face it...if new Comiskey Park were designed and built like Oriole Park at Camden Yards, then the Sox would be a whole lot more popular than they are now...winning or not. The "tourist attractionness" of those places is a huge reason why they draw so well, and U.S. Cellular Field simply isn't a tourist attraction. Granted, the place hasn't been marketed as well as Wrigley, but the casual fan doesn't have to think about baseball at Wrigley...just the surroundings and the "fun loving" aspect of going to a game there. If you're going to a Sox game, you're already mentally prepared not to like the place...and that's why there are so many people who are "pleasantly suprised" when they actually go there. U.S. Celluar Field isn't hyped up as being a "fun" place to watch a game...even though we know better.

And when Wrigley finally meets its appointment with Dr. Wrecking Ball, it'll be an over-hyped, much bally-hooed event since so many people will be coming to grips with losing the "Shrine". However, the air will be so much cleaner when that stale beer and urine smell is finally eliminated.

hsnterprize
06-16-2005, 10:22 AM
If it hasn't already been mentioned, the Cubune ran a spot with Veeck, who had some nice points. First, he likes the park, and especially the new improvements. But his most important observation was that our fans our relatively young. Maybe they aren't old enough or wealthy enough to afford season tickets or a luxury suite yet, but they are loyal, a dream target for advertisers, and will be around a while. That's good news.

Veeck's comments about the kids at the ballpark is EXCELLENT news. If the Cubune would hype that up as much as it does with anything Cub-related, then U.S. Cellular Field might get a little more respect.

I know this is a "beating a dead horse" kind of statement, but you shouldn't have to be a die-hard Sox fan to appreciate U.S. Cellular Field. The Sox have gone way above their heads to make the place more of a fan-friendly park than ever before. They deserve a TON of credit for the renovations, and folks from Bristol to wherever ought to get off their butts and take notice. It's not a "retro" ballpark, but it does the job...and it will keep doing the job once the "retro" ballpark craze is dead and buried.

maurice
06-16-2005, 03:30 PM
I have no problem with publications who like to publish old crap,
but they shouldn't be allowed to call themselves newspapers.

MIgrenade
06-16-2005, 03:45 PM
The Sox desperately need a World Series ring or this crap will never stop.