PDA

View Full Version : Greg Couch: Double Spy for the Cubune?


TomBradley72
06-19-2005, 10:58 AM
23 games over .500....6.5 games ahead of the Twins...and the best topic Greggy can come up with is the 100th rehash of mistakes the White Sox have made with their TV strategy? Pathetic.

http://www.suntimes.com/output/couch/cst-spt-greg19.html

I attended the game last night...short list of what's right with the Sox and the Cell:

Plenty of parking....so a short walk for my 75 y.o Dad...escalators to get up to the Club level (which is a tremendous value if you want to make the event a little special)...donation to charity gets a Fathers Day message on the scoreboard....great food/beer all night....great presentation of the "Turn Back the Clock" with highlights/music/retro uniforms etc...including the great White Sox fight song...great fans...the ballpark looked beautiful (once the green seats are in...I'm done worrying about any other improvements)...fans totally into the game..tons of families and kids loving it...and a solid fight to the finish baseball team.

Driving north on halsted....you can see the neighborhood coming....

Some (most?) of the writers in this town are completely out of touch with what's really happening with this team and the fans...they're like politicians.

downstairs
06-19-2005, 11:06 AM
I agree that this is a re-hash, and a complete waste of newspaper space- as the story has been done word-for-word many times before.

But, as a Sox fan... I want the team to draw and make a lot of money through advertising, merchandise, ticket sales.

I do think it is an issue, and I do think the Sox need to do a better job of marketing (which means many, many things).

As a fan of the sport, I don't care. The Sox are doing well, and winning is all that matters.

As a fan of the franchise, I do care... because it means more dollars that can be spent on free agents and the like. You can't argue with that- the proof is in the pudding there.

The Racehorse
06-19-2005, 11:07 AM
***? If the timing & content of Greg Couch's article doesn't qualify as mental masturbation, then nothing does. :mad:

Tannerfan
06-19-2005, 11:20 AM
Even though the article had a negative tone to it, the points he made about why the Cubs are more popular than the Sox are pretty acurate. I live in Los Angeles and when people ask me why the Sox don't have more fans, the historical points that Couch made are the same ones I make.
If you go back to the Sixties virtually every team owner in every sport was scared of having too many games on TV because they thought no one would ever show up to games. Remember when the NFL blacked out all home games? I do. What people didn't realize is that the power of TV makes sporting events appear exciting and actually draw people in, not stay home.
The irony is that the Cubs success was not planned by PK Wrigley, he didn't really care about the team all that much and WGN just wanted programming on all those summer afternoons. I guess the rest is history.

jackbrohamer
06-19-2005, 12:13 PM
Is Couch officially a media troll yet?

RallyBowl
06-19-2005, 12:20 PM
Man, you guys all took the words out of my mouth. I read that column at about 8 this morning, and I could hardly keep my Cocoa Pebbles down. This guy sucks.I thought about posting this same thread, but then I thought- Greg Couch?:whocares Greg, you have just been "Arnoled".

Lip Man 1
06-19-2005, 12:59 PM
Historically Greg is accurate and deserves props for taking the time to do his homework.

I disagree with the inference (if in fact there is one) by him that 'the Sox have the best record therefore they should have the highest attendence...' That takes time to build on exactly for the historical reasons he discussed.

I've let him know my thoughts via e-mail to him. I know Greg and it wouldn't surprise me if he responds Monday.

Lip

slavko
06-19-2005, 01:15 PM
The JR "had to have the ballpark where it is" part isn't true, is it? He wanted Addison and Mayor Harold Washington wanted the current location, right? Tell me if I'm wrong.

PaleHoseGeorge
06-19-2005, 01:22 PM
The JR "had to have the ballpark where it is" part isn't true, is it? He wanted Addison and Mayor Harold Washington wanted the current location, right? Tell me if I'm wrong.

Reinsdorf wanted Addison until a non-binding referendum inviting the Sox to Addison was narrowly defeated. That's when the Sox kicked into high gear their search for a new home in Florida.

Governor Thompson played the key role to keep the Sox for Chicago, not Mayor Washington.

White Sox Josh
06-19-2005, 01:22 PM
I think Couch is going to the Moronotti school of Journalism.

TornLabrum
06-19-2005, 01:27 PM
I think Couch is going to the Moronotti school of Journalism.

Hey! He was going by memory. Apparently the Sun-Times doesn't have a morgue for reporters to go to check their stories anymore.

Southsider101
06-19-2005, 02:17 PM
You really wonder if these "journalists" like Couch and Sleazak really go out and TALK to average fans any more? I think not! Everything they write is nothing but canned, preconceived, stereotypical party line garbage. I have to believe that these people used to write for Pravda in a previous life in the old Soviet Union.

Sly
06-19-2005, 02:37 PM
Remember that it was Couch who unearthed the Cubs "ticketing service," perhaps one of the best pieces of local sports journalism in the past 10 or 20 years.

TommyJohn
06-19-2005, 03:16 PM
I for one find Couch's history lesson disgusting. Oh, not the part about the
1960's and WGN to WFLD, and Sportsvision, and blah and blah and blah.
That's all been hashed and rehashed and I don't contest it. What I found
interesting was his assertion that we can "blame Shoeless Joe Jackson"
for the first time around, because the Cubs outdrew the White Sox every
year but one from "1923 to 1939" thus continuing the Sports media's
obsession with the Black Sox scandal.

I find it funny that he picks the year 1923. I mean, didn't the scandal
break at the end of 1920? So that leaves 1921 and 1922. Why didn't
Greggy mention those years? Why? Because the White Sox outdrew
the Cubs both of those years, that's why!!!! Some facts, since Greg
obviously cares nothing for them:

Attendance:
1921 White Sox 543,650 Cubs 410,107
1922 White Sox 602,860 Cubs 542,283

Ah, but it gets even better. He says that between "1923 and 1939" the
Sox outdrew the Cubs only "once." And what year was that? It was 1925.

1925 White Sox 832,231 Cubs 622,610

So here we have five seasons in the aftermath of the scandal; in three of
those five seasons the White Sox outdrew the competition. That's pretty
decent for a city pissed off and ready to abandon the team to the winds,
eh?

The Cubs, on the other hand, started to dominate attendance-wise in 1926-
27. The figures:

1926 Cubs 885,063 White Sox 710,339

It really took off in 1927:

1927 Cubs 1,159,168 White Sox 614,423

Why the sudden discrepancy? Gee, maybe Sox fans had a delayed reaction
to the scandal? Did they suddenly start blaming Joe Jackson in 1926-27?
"Hey, Myrtle! I've been going to the games since 1910, but now I'm not
because of what happened in 1919! I just decided to get mad about it
today! Damn that blagarded Jackson fellow!"

My theory for it is this: Hack Wilson, Riggs Stephenson, Kiki Cuyler, et al.
In 1927 the Cubs began to field exciting, competitive teams that would
get close to NL pennants and win four in the next 12 seasons. I feel that
that, more than anything, was the factor in the Cubs' rise in the 1920's
and 1930's. Those years the White Sox finished country miles out of first
place and weren't good for much outside of comic moments from the likes
of bumbling Smead Jolley and loudmouth Art Shires, who could be counted
on for a good quote or to take a poke or two at Lena Blackburne. The tide
turned, of course, in the 1950's when the White Sox had exciting teams and
the Cubs were trotting out the likes of Eddie Miksis and Harry Chiti. They
did provide plenty of fodder for future Mike Royko Cub quizzes, though.

My point, and I know I have one, is that Couch is short on facts. He writes
with a deliberate slant, omitting what doesn't fit his history lesson and
phrasing a sentence to make it seem as if his conclusion is right. Why? Oh,
who knows. Perhaps it is to offer the same tired ass explanation that the
Black Sox scandal is the reason that the White Sox are not popular today,
or the reason that they "lost Chicago" to the Cubs back then. Perhaps it
is because the Chicago media has an obsession with the scandal,
and reminding the fans of it at every opportunity. I don't know. I just feel
that he is wrong in his assertion and his deliberate twisting and omitting
of facts just got my nose out of joint.

slavko
06-19-2005, 06:40 PM
Reinsdorf wanted Addison until a non-binding referendum inviting the Sox to Addison was narrowly defeated. That's when the Sox kicked into high gear their search for a new home in Florida.

Governor Thompson played the key role to keep the Sox for Chicago, not Mayor Washington.

Thanks, but didn't the mayor have a lot to do with the specific location of the new park?

Lip Man 1
06-19-2005, 06:46 PM
Mayor Washington threatened to pull his support for the project and his supporters who were on the Illinois Stadium Authority Board unless the stadium was built inside the 'official' confines of the City of Chicago.

Like with anything else involving Chicago, greed, personal gain and politics were a large part of eventually what happened from all sides and from many different people.

Lip

NWSox
06-19-2005, 06:54 PM
Remember when the NFL blacked out all home games?

It still does for teams that don't sell out. One of the few idiotic policies by the best managed league in the US. That and granting a monopoly on NFL Season Ticket to DirecTV are the major complaints I have with the NFL.

Sorry for the tangent...

Cubbiesuck13
06-19-2005, 07:32 PM
Call me what you will but I liked this column and here is why:But here come the Sox again. They are playing great, and the South Side is starting to boom as the housing projects come down and town houses go up. Imagine 10 years from now, if the Sox can win a few pennants and the neighborhood can blossom. All that I have asked of the sports journalists in this town is to give the credit to where credit is due. Instead of saying how the image is bad around SOX Park tell how it actually is. Couch spouted facts. Facts that many on these boards love to spit out when knocking JR. To call Couch anything that resembles a mediot or a morionotti is gross.

Soxfest
06-20-2005, 12:34 AM
Waste of time to even write

skobabe8
06-20-2005, 01:31 AM
Call me what you will but I liked this column and here is why: All that I have asked of the sports journalists in this town is to give the credit to where credit is due. Instead of saying how the image is bad around SOX Park tell how it actually is. Couch spouted facts. Facts that many on these boards love to spit out when knocking JR. To call Couch anything that resembles a mediot or a morionotti is gross.

Halsted is gonna look great when the construction is finished. Its shaping up nicely already. I wish I had enough money to buy a place in Bridgeport, because property value there 10 years from now will be through the roof. Bank on it.

IowaSox1971
06-20-2005, 01:35 AM
Read it and weep. We have a team 24 games over .500 with a lead of 7.5 games in its division, but none of this seems to matter to the media. Morrissey's Sunday column was a blatant attempt to paint the Sox as a lucky team, while Couch twists the facts while rehashing a tired topic in an effort to write a column that's critical of the facts. Meanwhile, Rogers writes a glowing Sunday piece in the Tribune about how the Cubs have a future bullpen star in Hill, who has a 20.25 ERA. What does Rogers base this prediction on? The fact that the kid struck out an over-the-hill Tino Martinez. (Then there was Rogers' gem in the Tribune last Monday, when he wrote that the Cubs' blowout loss to the Red Sox on national TV the previous night was no big deal because they were "playing with house money" after winning the first two games of the series.)

It would be one thing if the media were totally critical of both teams in town. But that's not the case.