PDA

View Full Version : Dumb Cub fan needs a clue.


DVG
01-13-2002, 01:16 AM
I was listening to the Score yesterday. Some host was asking
callers to name the most exciting Chicago sports team "in his-
tory." Hyperventilating aside, I found the topic interesting.
That is, until a Cub fan called up and nominated the 1984 Cubs.
Said he was at the Sandberg-Sutter game. Was 11, remembers
it all. Then, he started blathering about how the Cubs lost the
home-field advantage in the NL playoffs. DOH!!!!

How long does it take for some people to get a clue? The Cubs
did not lose home-field advantage in the playoffs! It was sched-
uled for the first two at the NL East park, last three at the NL West park, just as it had been going since 1969. That was the
turn the playoff schedule took in 1984. NBC did not conspire to cost our Cubbies the pennant. The San Diego Padres did that.

This wasn't the first time I've heard that on the Score. I've
heard a couple Cubbie fans say the same thing, and the hosts
don't bother to correct them. The only host that I heard correct a
caller who tried to whine about this myth was Les Grobstein.
Way to go , Les. Hope you come back soon. Chicago sports-talk
radio needs more of you and fewer morons.

I know this is no big deal, but I get tired and annoyed when I
hear people spout crapola that I know for a fact is NOT TRUE.
The myth of the lost home-field advantage in the 1984 playoffs
is just one example. It's especially funny to hear this talk come
from supposedly knowledgable "live-and-die with my Cubbies"
fans who claim they remember 1984 so fondly yet don't remem-
ber a simple fact like the playoff schedule. This rant doesn't
include all Cub fans, just the yappy ones I heard on the radio
and anyone else who believes this myth without wanting to
know the facts.

Not that facts or evidence matters much to people like that
caller. You could present all the evidence you could muster and
he still will persist. To paraphrase a line from one of my favorite
writers, Richard Matheson- there's no stopping a person who is
bent on creating a delusion for himself.

nut_stock
01-13-2002, 01:51 AM
Don't expect much from the Score!

ihatethecubs
01-13-2002, 03:21 AM
Stupid
Cub fans
On
Radio
Everyday

SOXSINCE'70
01-13-2002, 12:18 PM
Yes,I heard "cubby boy" George Offman discussing this topic yesterday.As soon as this asswipe came on to talk about
"his cubbies",I had to immediately turn off the radio for fear i'd side swipe a parked car.Offman's choice for most exciting team,btw,was the '77 Sox.

I rarely listen to the Score during the week.On the weekend,it's a little easier,but it's still a stretch.The so called "flagship" station of the Sox is no better.Last summer,I swore Mcneil Jurco and Harry were on WGN with all the sCrUBS talk I heard.
I know they're more popular than the Sox,but I don't need people on the so called "flagship station" to rub my face in fecies.

Soxboyrob
01-14-2002, 09:56 AM
Originally posted by SOXSINCE'70

I rarely listen to the Score during the week.On the weekend,it's a little easier,but it's still a stretch.The so called "flagship" station of the Sox is no better.Last summer,I swore Mcneil Jurco and Harry were on WGN with all the sCrUBS talk I heard.
I know they're more popular than the Sox,but I don't need people on the so called "flagship station" to rub my face in fecies.

Actually, the Score has a slight bent toward the Sox during the week.

Early show...Murph: Cubs fan, Huebner: Sox fan
8am-12noon.............Bernsie: Sox fan, Boers: Sox fan
12-4pm.............North: Sox fan
4-8pm...............Jiggets & Buffone: Hard to tell either way.
8-12midnight.............J. Hood: Sox fan
Overnight.....Tommy Williams: Pirates fan

There is an obvious bias toward the Sox on the Score. Offman is just the news update guy and happens to be a Cub fan.

Fisk Fan
01-14-2002, 11:04 AM
12-4pm.............North: Sox fan

That is the biggest load of crap I've heard today. North may claim to be a Sox fan, but all I heard last year was a Cubbie Sack Stroking Session from Noon to Four. He actually spoke about the Cubs using "our team" and "we need to..." and so on.

Mike North Sucks!!!

bjmarte
01-14-2002, 11:48 AM
Originally posted by Fisk Fan


That is the biggest load of crap I've heard today. North may claim to be a Sox fan, but all I heard last year was a Cubbie Sack Stroking Session from Noon to Four. He actually spoke about the Cubs using "our team" and "we need to..." and so on.

Mike North Sucks!!!

Is that why the label for his tag is chimp? I wondered what the rap on him was, he never seemed that bad to me.

Fisk Fan
01-14-2002, 11:54 AM
Well, I guess he is an acquired taste. I don't like him for many reasons, but mostly because of his bandwagon hopping when it comes to the Sox and Cubs. Two years ago, when the Sox were winning the Division and going to the Playoffs, he was the first in line to get aboard the Playoff bus. This past year, when it appeared that the Cubs would be going to the playoffs, he was front-running with those idiots!!

As far as him being labeled Chimp, I'm not really sure. I have always called the Cubs announcer Chimp (Caray).

Soxboyrob
01-14-2002, 12:12 PM
Originally posted by Fisk Fan


That is the biggest load of crap I've heard today. North may claim to be a Sox fan, but all I heard last year was a Cubbie Sack Stroking Session from Noon to Four. He actually spoke about the Cubs using "our team" and "we need to..." and so on.

Mike North Sucks!!!

North is a huge Sox fan who claims to also root for the Cubs. He just felt that the Cubs were good last season and went to lengths discussing that point. He's said thousands of times that he's a Sox fan before a Cub fan and roots for the Sox to beat the Cubs when they meet.

NUCatsFan
01-14-2002, 12:24 PM
Originally posted by DVG
I was listening to the Score yesterday. Some host was asking
callers to name the most exciting Chicago sports team "in his-
tory."

<massive snippage>

By the way, for those of us who don't get the Score, what were some of the answers? Personally, I would nominate the 95 Northwestern football team. Nicknamed the "Cardiac Cats", they almost always gave you something to remember. The 96 version wasn't too bad either.

FarWestChicago
01-14-2002, 01:11 PM
Originally posted by bjmarte


Is that why the label for his tag is chimp? I wondered what the rap on him was, he never seemed that bad to me. :chimp

I am Chimp!


:ass

I'm an ass!

Soxboyrob
01-14-2002, 01:16 PM
Originally posted by NUCatsFan


By the way, for those of us who don't get the Score, what were some of the answers? Personally, I would nominate the 95 Northwestern football team. Nicknamed the "Cardiac Cats", they almost always gave you something to remember. The 96 version wasn't too bad either.

They were the most common answer, along w/ the 2001 Bears. I think the 2000 Sox got a few votes along w/ the Bulls championship teams.

FarWestChicago
01-14-2002, 01:29 PM
Originally posted by Soxboyrob


They were the most common answer, along w/ the 2001 Bears. I think the 2000 Sox got a few votes along w/ the Bulls championship teams. Geez, did they have a bunch of kids calling or something? How about the '85 Bears? They were the greatest show on Earth at the time and are still regularly mentioned as perhaps the greatest one year team of all time. And the city hadn't seen a championsip in 22 years. This one ain't even close, ferrchrissakes.

Fisk Fan
01-14-2002, 01:39 PM
Hey FWC! Is that Angel on your tagline at the bottom of every post? Just curious.

bjmarte
01-14-2002, 02:34 PM
Originally posted by FarWestChicago
:chimp

I am Chimp!


:ass

I'm an ass!

Sorry, I got confused. I am in pain today. Is there a specific reason he his tag is ass FWC?

FarWestChicago
01-14-2002, 03:55 PM
Originally posted by bjmarte


Sorry, I got confused. I am in pain today. Is there a specific reason he his tag is ass FWC? If the shoe fits...

oldcomiskey
01-14-2002, 05:53 PM
like Yosemite Sam says---Cub fans is so stupid

bjmarte
01-14-2002, 06:24 PM
Originally posted by FarWestChicago
If the shoe fits...

I understand that you think he is an ass. I was just wondering why, his personality in general or some specific incident?

bjmarte
01-14-2002, 06:51 PM
Originally posted by bjmarte


I understand that you think he is an ass. I was just wondering why, his personality in general or some specific incident?
Never mind FWC. I went back and did a search on "Mike North" and read the posts. I understand now. In fact this quote from your 536th post seems to say it pretty well

He's a gutless, fairweather front runner from what I can tell from a distance. That's why his tag is : ass, without the space, of course

Actually it sounds like you should have added "reactionist racist" and your description would be more complete. I've never listened to him for more than a few minutes at a time. I should have never questioned you. :smile:

FarWestChicago
01-14-2002, 07:40 PM
Originally posted by bjmarte
Actually it sounds like you should have added "reactionist racist" and your description would be more complete. I've never listened to him for more than a few minutes at a time. I should have never questioned you. :smile: Crap, I don't remember what sandybrown means. :smile:

CLR01
01-14-2002, 09:46 PM
Originally posted by FarWestChicago
Crap, I don't remember what sandybrown means. :smile:

Perhaps you should add the color meanings to the tag index, or Board User guide.

doublem23
01-14-2002, 09:56 PM
Originally posted by FarWestChicago
Crap, I don't remember what sandybrown means. :smile:

Sandybrown??? Only the cool kids use teal.... Always give into peer pressure. :D:

Spiff
01-14-2002, 10:08 PM
Originally posted by FarWestChicago
Crap, I don't remember what sandybrown means. :smile:

Sandy brown is the half-kidding color, of course.

FarWestChicago
01-14-2002, 10:49 PM
Originally posted by Wh1teSox00


Sandy brown is the half-kidding color, of course. Thanks. I can always count on the ever observant 00. :smile:

CubKilla
01-15-2002, 02:21 AM
FWC got it right when he picked the 85 Bears as the most exciting team. As for baseball, my Sox fan bias would lead me to choose the 2000 White Sox as the most exciting baseball team. And as for Mike North, does any one really take this guy seriously? I mean, he was pinched for picking up a transvestite hooker for chrissakes! Guess he goes with whatever feels right at the time (Cubs/Sox or Men/Women).

Soxboyrob
01-15-2002, 09:38 AM
Originally posted by CubsF'nBlow
And as for Mike North, does any one really take this guy seriously? I mean, he was pinched for picking up a transvestite hooker for chrissakes! Guess he goes with whatever feels right at the time (Cubs/Sox or Men/Women).

Are you confusing him w/ Eddie Murphy?
As for North, I don't think he's meant to taken seriously. He's mostly just a reactionary blowhard that likes to say things to rile up his listeners and thus, get them to call his show. He's very very good at what he does, which is to promote listenership and calls to the show. I listen to him at work daily just for something to laugh about and not for any kind of thoughtful analysis.

Blueprint1
01-18-2002, 01:03 PM
Tommy Williams is a CUBS fan have you ever heard the show. Its Cubs this and Cubs that he never stops talking about them. When they signed Alou he was chanting world series so much i had to turn the radio off I coudnt even fall asleep to it. tommy williams never has one good thing to say about the sox. tommy williams also never has anything objective to say about any team

Soxboyrob
01-18-2002, 01:18 PM
2 things...
Tommy has repeatedly noted that he's a Pirates fan and has no feelings toward either Chicago team and that he roots against the Cubs when they play the Pirates.

Tommy knows that this town leans toward the Cubs more than the Sox(whether those here wish to admit it or not) and he knows that if the listeners lean toward the Cubs. Why shouldn't he cover them more than the Sox? Making listeners happy is what butters these guys' bread if you know what I mean. I don't blame any of these guys for giving extra coverage to the Cubs on occasion, especially during the Cubs' hot spell last season. They were playing excellently during that span and deserved extra coverage. During that same time, the Sox looked like the biggest group of pathetic losers that I've seen on the Southside since I was a kid. Be reasonable....on the occasion that the Cubs are good and the Sox suck, the Cubs are gonna get a LOT of coverage.

Iwritecode
01-18-2002, 02:56 PM
Originally posted by Soxboyrob
Tommy knows that this town leans toward the Cubs more than the Sox(whether those here wish to admit it or not) and he knows that if the listeners lean toward the Cubs. Why shouldn't he cover them more than the Sox? Making listeners happy is what butters these guys' bread if you know what I mean. I don't blame any of these guys for giving extra coverage to the Cubs on occasion, especially during the Cubs' hot spell last season. They were playing excellently during that span and deserved extra coverage. During that same time, the Sox looked like the biggest group of pathetic losers that I've seen on the Southside since I was a kid. Be reasonable....on the occasion that the Cubs are good and the Sox suck, the Cubs are gonna get a LOT of coverage.

It's always been quite obvious that the Sox have always been the red-headed step-children of Chicago. The really sad thing is that the Cubs ended up falling back to earth (and third place) while the Sox made history by being the first team to finish over .500 after being 15 games under and the Sox still got ignored.

It wouldn't be so bad if when you reverse your statement around
"Be reasonable....on the occasion that the Sox are good and the Cubs suck..."
that it still ends with "the Cubs are gonna get a LOT of coverage."

Soxboyrob
01-18-2002, 03:06 PM
Originally posted by Iwritecode


It wouldn't be so bad if when you reverse your statement around
"Be reasonable....on the occasion that the Sox are good and the Cubs suck..."
that it still ends with "the Cubs are gonna get a LOT of coverage."

You're right. I truly wish we'd get more coverage when it's deserved. Our time will come, hopefully in our lifetimes. I feel an ownership change could really turn around the current public opinion on the Sox. Until then, we'll be the bridesmades of popularity in Chicago.

Fisk Fan
01-18-2002, 04:06 PM
It doesn't help that the media glorifies the Cubs and Wrigley. For example, I had a chance to catch part of the MTV Real World from Chicago, and the house is located on North Ave. In all of the promos and part of the episode, they show Wrigley in the background. That show is National and a lot of people watch it. It really makes me sick that when people think in terms of Chicago, they automatically think of the Cubs and Wrigley. Just another worthless example of mis-representation...

Nellie_Fox
01-19-2002, 02:39 AM
Originally posted by Iwritecode
It's always been quite obvious that the Sox have always been the red-headed step-children of Chicago.
Most of you are not old enough to know that this is not true. In the fifties, when the Cubs sucked big time and the Sox were solid, Wrigley field was not cute and quaint yet, and being a loser wasn't loveable yet. The Sox were by far the dominant team in Chicago. It was the move to Channel 32, then 44, then Sportsvision subscription television that made the Sox a baseball afterthought in Chicago.

irish rover
01-21-2002, 11:15 AM
If I may add this too Rome wasn't built in a day.

Wrigleyville wasn't always a nice area, Wrigley Field also went through numerous changes before what it looks like now, So I think with the projects coming down(the avg. home price around Comiskey is 285k and going up) the renovations Comiskey the area will surpass Wrigley. Its down fall is that it is old an they really can't improve anthing to make it better. Thus they will continue to raise price and hopefully the sox still stay reasonable they will out price themselves too

DrCrawdad
01-23-2002, 12:03 AM
Interesting facts:

26 of the last 59 years, the White Sox outdrew the Cubbies.

1951-1967 the Sox outdrew the Cubbies every year except 1958!

1974-1984 the Sox outdrew the Cubbies in 7 of those years.

Here's the best part, in the last 59 years...

The WS had a better record than the Cubbies 40 of those 59 years.
90+ Wins: Cubbies 5, WS 12
.500 or better: Cubbies 17, WS 31

PaleHoseGeorge
01-23-2002, 12:14 AM
Originally posted by DrCrawdad
Interesting facts:

26 of the last 59 years, the White Sox outdrew the Cubbies.

1951-1967 the Sox outdrew the Cubbies every year except 1958!

1974-1984 the Sox outdrew the Cubbies in 7 of those years.

Here's the best part, in the last 59 years...

The WS had a better record than the Cubbies 40 of those 59 years.
90+ Wins: Cubbies 5, WS 12
.500 or better: Cubbies 17, WS 31

When I was in college (early-80's) the lakefront north of Belmont was pretty seedy. The center of Boystown was Clark & Diversey. It wasn't until 1984 (when the Cubs finally won the division) that they started selling out nearly every home game and the neighborhood became trendy to live in and visit.

The Sox have never been able to keep up since.

:reinsy
"What, I just own the team!"

irish rover
01-23-2002, 11:44 AM
dr. where did you get those facts

DrCrawdad
01-23-2002, 12:20 PM
Originally posted by irish rover
dr. where did you get those facts

http://www.baseball-reference.com/

This is the site that lists the stats, record, attendance, etc. Go to the team link and then choose Miscellaneous.

I found those facts interesting 'cos they debunk the common refrain of 'the Cubbies always draw better than the Sox...'

Last year it was common to hear that 'no one goes to Sox games'. In 2001 the Sox drew 1.7 million. In the 'storied' history of the Cubbies, how many years did they draw LESS THAN 1.76 MILLION?

I'd like to send that question to WGN's David Kaplan. During Cubbie Con Kaplan broadcast his show from there. Kaplan took repeated shots at the White Sox during interviews with Bobby Hill & Buckner. Interestingly, both Buckner and Hill refused, for the most part, to take shots at the Sox. The Cubbie fans in the audience whooped it up for Kaplan's barbs. So much for Cubbie fans being above this petty stuff.

I should just avoid Kaplan's schtick.