PDA

View Full Version : Paul Sullivan radio interview...TV ratings


HotelWhiteSox
05-10-2006, 03:39 PM
Started this here to satisfy the haters.

Was listening to the Score, Mulligan and Hanley had Paul Sullivan of the Tribune on, talking about the demise of the Cub. During it, I found it interesting where he admitted this was turning into a Sox town. He said he didn't know if people had access to the TV ratings, but the Sox are starting to outdraw the Cubs.

Sox are right on track for a complete takeover of the city (Conan show last night was awesome BTW), right now it seems that everyone remembers that the Flubs suck, always have, always will. Tie in another White Sox dominant season, and the next step for the media will be to completely ignore the Cubs as they keep on losing. Lately, I've heard a lot of people start calling out their staff, management, premium tickets, it's coming...

miker
05-10-2006, 03:45 PM
Is it denial, spin or a combination of both?

Dan Mega
05-10-2006, 04:10 PM
The Cubs media favortism won't go away unless the Cubune sells the team.

More than half of the Cubs fans I talked to are getting really fed up with the Cubs organization, and they admit the Sox winning it all opened their eyes, and they now are not content with their team just making .500 or below every year.

Wrigley will continue to sell lots of tickets as long as its labeled the top tourist attraction in the Midwest.

Chez
05-11-2006, 12:39 PM
I honestly thought we were on the verge of taking over the city in 1994. Division title in '93, great team in '94, terrific/young starting pitching and the Cubs were crap. Then came the strike, Black Jack left, Alex left, Bere got hurt etc. Damn, now I'm depressed.

MikeLove
05-11-2006, 12:45 PM
how does one go about obtaining tv ratings? a month or so ago i was trying to find some ratings for the womens NCAA tournament to try to prove my contention that 99% of america doesnt care about it, but i couldnt find any =(

FedEx227
05-11-2006, 01:50 PM
I point mostly to 2003 and our World Series as reasons for a changing tide. The true Cubs fans are starting to see its not fun to be "lovable losers" all the time, its actually pretty nice to win once in a while.

Tom~Attitude
05-11-2006, 02:44 PM
Regarding TV ratings...couple weeks ago on WGN-Am morning show..."Spike" announced that the last night's ratings for the Sox game was 2.4 while the Cubs had a 7.2. (numbers are approximate based on my recall) So..I think "Spike" wanted us to draw our own conclusion about the drawing power of the respective teams based on these figures.

What he did not mention was that the Sox game was broadcast on CLTV and was on opposite American Idol. Cubs were on WGN as a West Coast late game and competing for viewers with reruns of Moesha.

So the Sox got a smaller share of a much larger prime time audience while broadcasting on a Cable Channel that is not received over the air or (possibly)by Dish owners. Go figure!

I'm certain that "Spike" would have explained this if time permitted, but left as it was, it seems that the Trib's team is about three times as popular as the World Champs.

maurice
05-11-2006, 02:56 PM
LMAO. It's like the time that Howard "the Natural" Sudberry compared the Sox attendance at a Wednesday day game to the Cubs attendance at a weekend night game. We looked at the numbers and found that the Sox outdrew the Cubs most recent weekday day game.
:rolleyes:

Iwritecode
05-11-2006, 03:29 PM
I point mostly to 2003 and our World Series as reasons for a changing tide. The true Cubs fans are starting to see its not fun to be "lovable losers" all the time, its actually pretty nice to win once in a while.

Yet everywhere I turn I still see people wearing Cubs gear. I never noticed it more than yesterday when I had to go to the mall with my wife. It was even worse when I walked by a sports collectable store and they had a huge foldable Gazebo plastered with Cubs material and a bunch of Cubs chairs, cups, etc... sitting underneath it. You'd' never know there's another team in Chicago that happens to have the best record in baseball walking around that place. All the "fans" are completely oblivious.

Well, not all of them. At my wife's job they are encouraged to sell extra items if they can. Well they have a bunch of Cubs lighters on the counter and a guy came in wearing a Cubs hat. She told him that he should buy a lighter to support his team. His response was "No way. Those guys suck right now!" :D:

TDog
05-11-2006, 05:46 PM
The Cubs media favortism won't go away unless the Cubune sells the team. ...

If the Tribune Co. sells to the people who own the Sun-Times, will the Tribune turn anti-Cub the way the Sun-Times is anti-Cub because of the fierce competition between the newspapers? The fact is, the Sun-Times, from a business standpoint, should be not be pro-Cub now. I don't know that they are, but people around here seem to think they are.

The fact is, that Chicago was the Cubs' city before the Reinsdorf group bought the Sox and the Tribune Co. bought the Cubs. Neither team had ever drawn 2 million fans in those days, but the Cubs were the favored team. Every time the Sox started to change that, things went wrong and the Sox ride didn't last very long.

I'm looking forward to that changing.

ChiSoxLifer
05-11-2006, 05:47 PM
how does one go about obtaining tv ratings? a month or so ago i was trying to find some ratings for the womens NCAA tournament to try to prove my contention that 99% of america doesnt care about it, but i couldnt find any =(

Perhaps no one watched it so it didn't register with the Nielsen company.

ewokpelts
05-11-2006, 06:04 PM
If the Tribune Co. sells to the people who own the Sun-Times, will the Tribune turn anti-Cub the way the Sun-Times is anti-Cub because of the fierce competition between the newspapers? The fact is, the Sun-Times, from a business standpoint, should be not be pro-Cub now. I don't know that they are, but people around here seem to think they are.

The fact is, that Chicago was the Cubs' city before the Reinsdorf group bought the Sox and the Tribune Co. bought the Cubs. Neither team had ever drawn 2 million fans in those days, but the Cubs were the favored team. Every time the Sox started to change that, things went wrong and the Sox ride didn't last very long.

I'm looking forward to that changing.

The Cub-Times is anti-cub. Marriotti sings the sox praises daily, and scowls at the cubune brass.

Dan Mega
05-11-2006, 07:07 PM
Regarding TV ratings...couple weeks ago on WGN-Am morning show..."Spike" announced that the last night's ratings for the Sox game was 2.4 while the Cubs had a 7.2. (numbers are approximate based on my recall) So..I think "Spike" wanted us to draw our own conclusion about the drawing power of the respective teams based on these figures.

What he did not mention was that the Sox game was broadcast on CLTV and was on opposite American Idol. Cubs were on WGN as a West Coast late game and competing for viewers with reruns of Moesha.

So the Sox got a smaller share of a much larger prime time audience while broadcasting on a Cable Channel that is not received over the air or (possibly)by Dish owners. Go figure!

I'm certain that "Spike" would have explained this if time permitted, but left as it was, it seems that the Trib's team is about three times as popular as the World Champs.

Seriously? They failed to mention that people are waiting for Bonds to pass Ruth as well?

Lip Man 1
05-11-2006, 07:27 PM
Ummm T-Dog...incorrect.

In 1977 Chicago was a Sox town much as 1972 and the period from 1951 through 1965 or so.

It was split about 50/50 when the Sox ownership took over.

Lip

Fenway
05-11-2006, 07:31 PM
Ummm T-Dog...incorrect.

In 1977 Chicago was a Sox town much as 1972 and the period from 1951 through 1965 or so.

It was split about 50/50 when the Sox ownership took over.

Lip

I first arrived in 81 and sensed it was 50-50 then.

Went to a few games at Wrigley were there were 3,000 in the dump, Sox always had at least 10-12,000 even in April.

vegyrex
05-11-2006, 07:44 PM
The fact is, that Chicago was the Cubs' city before the Reinsdorf group bought the Sox and the Tribune Co. bought the Cubs. Neither team had ever drawn 2 million fans in those days, but the Cubs were the favored team. Every time the Sox started to change that, things went wrong and the Sox ride didn't last very long.

I'm looking forward to that changing.
It might have been a Cub town back then but I don't remember it being that huge. More a slight edge. Cub dominance did not start until the Trib bought them. Even then the Sox could have held their own if they hadn't started losing so soon after the Cubs made the play offs in '84. Seeing 2 million + on both sides of town would have been a given. Instead the Sox faltered. The same situation developed again in the early 90's. That strike sure derailed what could have been a Sox golden era. I hope with this world series championship and future play off runs the Sox, and us fans, won't have to care about those Clark & Addison losers and just bask in the glow of White Sox championship baseball.

soxruleEP
05-11-2006, 08:12 PM
It was even worse when I walked by a sports collectable store and they had a huge foldable Gazebo plastered with Cubs material and a bunch of Cubs chairs, cups, etc... sitting underneath it.

That's because they can't give the crap away so they pile it up in plain sight in the vain hope some Cubiot will walk by and think he (or she) can't live without another piece of junk with the universal sign for stupidity on it.

TDog
05-11-2006, 08:32 PM
Ummm T-Dog...incorrect.

In 1977 Chicago was a Sox town much as 1972 and the period from 1951 through 1965 or so.

It was split about 50/50 when the Sox ownership took over.

Lip

The Sox were dead in the late '60s. When I was going to grade school in Munster in 1968, before the season even started, I was the only Sox fans, except me. And the Sox nearly went to the World Series the previous fall. The Sox were briefly fashionable in 1972, with the Sox single-season run at the A's, and 1977, with that improbable team. The Sox were a surprise again in 1981, but the strike delayed their resurgence. They didn't recapture the city until 1983. The Cubs winning in 1984 while the Sox were falling apart led to a Tribune marketing bonanza that has carried them for more than 20 years. The Sox never grabbed the opportunity to take the city because something always went wrong.

In the last 40 years, Chicago has been a Cubs city unless the White Sox were doing something special.

Lip Man 1
05-11-2006, 10:24 PM
T-Dog:

Again ummmm no.

1951 through 1965 or so T-Dog.

And notice I mentioned NOTHING, zero, nada about the late 60's anywhere in my post did I?

Yes by 1968 the Sox were awful both on and off the field and the city started to turn towards the Cubs.

The reasons?

1. The Cubs were winning.
2. The Cubs hired Leo Durocher a few years before.
3. The Cubs actually had some offense while fans started to tire of the Sox 1-0 games.
4. Most important the race riots in the mid 60's led many to think it was 'dangerous' to go to Comiskey Park.

For what it's worth T-Dog I lived through this and know it to be factual.

Saying the city always belonged to the Cubs unless the Sox were doing something special is insane. In the early 60's the Cubs and their fans (the 3,000 or so) couldn't get arrested in this town that was Sox crazy because THEY had the stars, THEY were seemingly always in contention and THEY always had the winning seasons.

Don't believe me...ask your father or check the newspaper achives and see how much space was devoted to the Cubs and their usual 95 losses.

Lip

GoSox2K3
05-11-2006, 10:50 PM
...and don't forget that in the 80s as the Trib bought the Cubs and they had 1984 to launch their team's popularity, Sox ownership was making a series of bafflingly stupid moves over a 15 year period that helped further tilt this city toward the other team.
- Fire Harry Caray and hand him on a silver platter to the Cubs
- Move most Sox games to pay TV (not "basic cable TV" like we know it today, but $20/month (1983 dollars!) for only SportsVision)
- The bad press over the stadium deal
- The strike during our '94 pennant run
- The White Flag Trade

That's finally ancient history now that we've won the world series, but it'll still take time to win back our market share. We lost a generation to the Flubs - even a WS win won't completely undo that. But the tide is turning.

TDog
05-11-2006, 11:55 PM
...
Saying the city always belonged to the Cubs unless the Sox were doing something special is insane. In the early 60's the Cubs and their fans (the 3,000 or so) couldn't get arrested in this town that was Sox crazy because THEY had the stars, THEY were seemingly always in contention and THEY always had the winning seasons.

Don't believe me...ask your father or check the newspaper achives and see how much space was devoted to the Cubs and their usual 95 losses.

Lip

I don't think I wrote anything bordering on insanity when I wrote that since the late 1960s -- for about 40 years -- Chicago was a Cubs city unless the Sox were doing something special. The Cubs resurgence actually started in 1967, which was 39 years ago.

The early 1960s were irrelevant to my point.

Considering that the Sox are only 105 years old, 39 years is a big chunk of history. And the early 1960s was a long time ago.

Viva Medias B's
05-12-2006, 07:27 AM
If the Tribune Co. sells to the people who own the Sun-Times, will the Tribune turn anti-Cub the way the Sun-Times is anti-Cub because of the fierce competition between the newspapers? The fact is, the Sun-Times, from a business standpoint, should be not be pro-Cub now. I don't know that they are, but people around here seem to think they are.

The fact is, that Chicago was the Cubs' city before the Reinsdorf group bought the Sox and the Tribune Co. bought the Cubs. Neither team had ever drawn 2 million fans in those days, but the Cubs were the favored team. Every time the Sox started to change that, things went wrong and the Sox ride didn't last very long.

I'm looking forward to that changing.

With all the issues that Hollinger has on its plate, I doubt the would be buying a major league franchise, if you could call the Cubs that.

havelj
05-12-2006, 08:00 AM
T-Dog:

Again ummmm no.

1951 through 1965 or so T-Dog.

And notice I mentioned NOTHING, zero, nada about the late 60's anywhere in my post did I?

Yes by 1968 the Sox were awful both on and off the field and the city started to turn towards the Cubs.

The reasons?

1. The Cubs were winning.
2. The Cubs hired Leo Durocher a few years before.
3. The Cubs actually had some offense while fans started to tire of the Sox 1-0 games.
4. Most important the race riots in the mid 60's led many to think it was 'dangerous' to go to Comiskey Park.

For what it's worth T-Dog I lived through this and know it to be factual.

Saying the city always belonged to the Cubs unless the Sox were doing something special is insane. In the early 60's the Cubs and their fans (the 3,000 or so) couldn't get arrested in this town that was Sox crazy because THEY had the stars, THEY were seemingly always in contention and THEY always had the winning seasons.

Don't believe me...ask your father or check the newspaper achives and see how much space was devoted to the Cubs and their usual 95 losses.

Lip

Lip is correct.

The "white-flight" of the south side in the late 60's had a large impact also.

White Sox Randy
05-12-2006, 08:19 AM
I grew up in Skokie, and in the 1970's I was a fan of both teams.

Trust me, no one was going to either place in big numbers.

Wrigley was easily accessible to me and I went to many games. Other than opening day, I can't recall a big crowd there any other day. I used to buy a cheap ticket and slowly sneak around until I was in a real good seat because there were always plenty available.

Wrigley became chic in the early 80's because the neighborhood became hot, the 83 team and Harry.