White Sox Interactive Forums
Sox Clubhouse
 Soxogram: 
Congratulations on winning the AL ROTY award unanimously, Jose!

Welcome
Go Back   White Sox Interactive Forums > Baseball Discussions > Sox Clubhouse
Home Chat Stats Register Blogs FAQ Calendar Mark Forums Read


Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #76  
Old 10-04-2012, 03:28 PM
kittle42 kittle42 is offline
WSI Prelate
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: Lakeview
Posts: 18,402
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by bunkaroo View Post
Ok, so we've established I'm the only one who stays home when it's too damn hot out.
I went to one of those 100+ degree games this year, and I can't even remember who we played. It was pretty bad.
__________________
Ridiculousness across all sports:

(1) "You have no valid opinion because you never played the game."
(2) "Stats are irrelevant. This guy just doesn't know how to win."
Reply With Quote
  #77  
Old 10-04-2012, 04:01 PM
Soxman219 Soxman219 is offline
WSI Church Elder
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Munster, Indiana
Posts: 3,164
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by nsolo View Post
Thank you. Adding more "value" to the already outrageous expense of going to a Sox game is a waste of time. USC is a great park, and I'd love to go more often, but I can't afford it.

I have no statistical proof that identifies the demographics of Sox fans, but I've always been under the impression that we were more of the blue collar variety, as I am. If this holds true for the majority of us, then maybe the the problem is that we just can't afford to attend more. Maybe its a disconnect between Sox management and reality. Times are tough and speaking only for me, my household disposable income has vanished.

Trying to add to the ballpark experience in an effort to add value is a worn out marketing trick that will not induce he to attend more game. With parking (can't take mass transportation as I live in Michigan), tickets, food and drinks its just too expensive.

My wife and I both work full time and together make $52k year. We are in our 50's and have worked hard to pay off our home. We have no credit card or car payments. But going to one or two games a year is a luxury expense. And with dynamic ticket prices, it won't be to see a quality opposing team. Also, as a side note, don't suggest we get different jobs. I've held by job for 30 years, and at my age, that is impossible.

Maybe its another example of the disappearing middle class. Should I go to the game or buy groceries/ pay taxes/ pay utilities/ pay for medicines/ ect?

Simply, maybe the average Sox fan can't afford to attend more game.
Sorry, but that's not true. I went to four Sox games last month for a combined total of $60. The Sox-Indians game on the 25th was as low as $2.88. The tickets are cheap. You don't have to buy beers and food at a baseball game. The average Sox game at Stubhub during the year was $10.
__________________
Setbacks are setups for comebacks
Reply With Quote
  #78  
Old 10-04-2012, 04:05 PM
eriqjaffe eriqjaffe is offline
WSI Church Elder
 
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: Arlington Heights, IL
Posts: 2,980
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Soxman219 View Post
Sorry, but that's not true. I went to four Sox games last month for a combined total of $60. The Sox-Indians game on the 25th was as low as $2.88. The tickets are cheap. You don't have to buy beers and food at a baseball game. The average Sox game at Stubhub during the year was $10.
I was always under the impression that the official attendance figures are based on the number of tickets sold, not the number of physical bodies through the turnstiles - tickets bought on the secondary market wouldn't have an effect on those figures. Somebody had to buy those tickets the first time around at face value and that is what's not happening.

I'm not arguing the fact that it's possible to attend a Sox game inexpensively, but I just wanted to point out that the secondary market isn't really valid when considering attendance and ticket prices.
Reply With Quote
  #79  
Old 10-04-2012, 04:06 PM
DeadMoney DeadMoney is offline
WSI Church Elder
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: Chicago
Posts: 1,544
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Soxman219 View Post
Sorry, but that's not true. I went to four Sox games last month for a combined total of $60. The Sox-Indians game on the 25th was as low as $2.88. The tickets are cheap. You don't have to buy beers and food at a baseball game. The average Sox game at Stubhub during the year was $10.
Yeah, but that's part of the problem. If there's no demand on the primary ticket market, there's little demand on the secondary ticket market. Those tickets on StubHub are already sold and already counted no matter what price people pay.

The reason they're on StubHub for so cheap is because there's no demand for tickets at the prices the White Sox are offering them for. And tickets on the secondary markets are showing the true market value of those tickets.
__________________

Reply With Quote
  #80  
Old 10-04-2012, 04:15 PM
kba kba is offline
WSI Regular
 
Join Date: Oct 2003
Posts: 412
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by 16th&State View Post
Awesome post! Thanks for the insight! The minutia of it all was a bit before my time. I knew of the Addison plans but had never seen the skeches/mock-ups. I will take original Comiskey II over anything in Addison for certain. But after reading a few articles this afternoon about South Loop plans, it really is sad that politic and happenstance led to a suburban park dropped into a sea of urban parking lots. Oh what could have been!? I do love what the US Cellular renovations have brought and I happily take in as many Sox games as I can attend!! I look forward to what Kenny & Co can and will do this offseason to put a winner on the field!
The South Loop stadium probably wouldn't have been as awesome as you're imagining it. After all, it was the 1980s.

Reply With Quote
  #81  
Old 10-04-2012, 04:26 PM
doublem23's Avatar
doublem23 doublem23 is offline
MMXXIII
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Roscoe Village
Posts: 54,333
Blog Entries: 5
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by kba View Post
The South Loop stadium probably wouldn't have been as awesome as you're imagining it. After all, it was the 1980s.

Yes, for comparison's sake, the Metrodome was opened in 1982. That's probably what we would have been stuck with.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #82  
Old 10-04-2012, 04:45 PM
16th&State 16th&State is offline
WSI Personality
 
Join Date: Jul 2011
Location: Bridgeport
Posts: 692
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by kba View Post
The South Loop stadium probably wouldn't have been as awesome as you're imagining it. After all, it was the 1980s.
Quote:
Originally Posted by doublem23 View Post
Yes, for comparison's sake, the Metrodome was opened in 1982. That's probably what we would have been stuck with.
Yeah, I saw those designs earlier...and YIKES! I have seen a few other designs out on the web and one can only dream of what could have been. But you are right, it was the 80s and retro style inter-urban park designs were certainly a few years away. I'd hate to imagine the Sox being stuck in a Tropicana-esque dome, hot South Loop locale or not...
Reply With Quote
  #83  
Old 10-04-2012, 05:01 PM
LITTLE NELL LITTLE NELL is offline
WSI High Priest
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Sebring Florida
Posts: 7,916
Post

Quote:
Originally Posted by nsolo View Post
Thank you. Adding more "value" to the already outrageous expense of going to a Sox game is a waste of time. USC is a great park, and I'd love to go more often, but I can't afford it.

I have no statistical proof that identifies the demographics of Sox fans, but I've always been under the impression that we were more of the blue collar variety, as I am. If this holds true for the majority of us, then maybe the the problem is that we just can't afford to attend more. Maybe its a disconnect between Sox management and reality. Times are tough and speaking only for me, my household disposable income has vanished.

Trying to add to the ballpark experience in an effort to add value is a worn out marketing trick that will not induce he to attend more game. With parking (can't take mass transportation as I live in Michigan), tickets, food and drinks its just too expensive.

My wife and I both work full time and together make $52k year. We are in our 50's and have worked hard to pay off our home. We have no credit card or car payments. But going to one or two games a year is a luxury expense. And with dynamic ticket prices, it won't be to see a quality opposing team. Also, as a side note, don't suggest we get different jobs. I've held by job for 30 years, and at my age, that is impossible.

Maybe its another example of the disappearing middle class. Should I go to the game or buy groceries/ pay taxes/ pay utilities/ pay for medicines/ ect?

Simply, maybe the average Sox fan can't afford to attend more game.



You are a little younger than me but I know where you are coming from. I think the younger people here at WSI do not worry about ticket prices as much as the older crowd. Part of it comes from going to the games in the 50s and 60s when a General Admission ticket was $1.50 and a Box seat was $2.50. I will never ever pay $25.00 to sit in the bleachers or 50 bucks for a Box seat. Some time in the near future all pro sports teams are going have to do something about the salary issue which has led to these high ticket prices. I think Sox fans might have figured this out before fans in other cities, it's better to sit home and watch the overpaid players on TV instead of supporting their obscene salaries with the grocery money.
__________________
Coming up to bat for our White Sox is the Mighty Mite, Nelson Fox.
Reply With Quote
  #84  
Old 10-04-2012, 05:02 PM
tebman's Avatar
tebman tebman is offline
WSI Church Elder
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: Bolingbrook
Posts: 3,610
Blog Entries: 12
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by kba View Post
The South Loop stadium probably wouldn't have been as awesome as you're imagining it. After all, it was the 1980s.

Yeah, that was a bad idea.

I couldn't find a picture of it, but the city also proposed a convertible football/baseball stadium as an alternative. I remember Harold Washington at a press conference showing off a model. It had sliding grandstand sections that would reconfigure depending on whether baseball or football was going to be played. Maybe it was a variation on the domed monstrosity in the picture.

We're lucky that none of those ideas were ever built. We'd be counting the days to see it replaced.
__________________
- tebman
Reply With Quote
  #85  
Old 10-04-2012, 05:05 PM
16th&State 16th&State is offline
WSI Personality
 
Join Date: Jul 2011
Location: Bridgeport
Posts: 692
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by tebman View Post
Yeah, that was a bad idea.

I couldn't find a picture of it, but the city also proposed a convertible football/baseball stadium as an alternative. I remember Harold Washington at a press conference showing off a model. It had sliding grandstand sections that would reconfigure depending on whether baseball or football was going to be played. Maybe it was a variation on the domed monstrosity in the picture.

We're lucky that none of those ideas were ever built. We'd be counting the days to see it replaced.
was it this one? http://www.stadiumpage.com/concepts/...goDomes_R.html

or this one?http://www.stadiumpage.com/concepts/...ertible_R.html

Edit: You are probably referring to the 2nd link. And yes, I would certainly call that a monstrosity and would be counting the days until something new came along to replace it...
Reply With Quote
  #86  
Old 10-04-2012, 05:19 PM
DSpivack DSpivack is offline
WSI Guru
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: Evanston
Posts: 29,098
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by tebman View Post
Yeah, that was a bad idea.

I couldn't find a picture of it, but the city also proposed a convertible football/baseball stadium as an alternative. I remember Harold Washington at a press conference showing off a model. It had sliding grandstand sections that would reconfigure depending on whether baseball or football was going to be played. Maybe it was a variation on the domed monstrosity in the picture.

We're lucky that none of those ideas were ever built. We'd be counting the days to see it replaced.
Quote:
Originally Posted by 16th&State View Post
was it this one? http://www.stadiumpage.com/concepts/...goDomes_R.html

or this one?http://www.stadiumpage.com/concepts/...ertible_R.html

Edit: You are probably referring to the 2nd link. And yes, I would certainly call that a monstrosity and would be counting the days until something new came along to replace it...
Kansas City had a similar proposition recently when the Chiefs and Royals were renovating their stadiums, to have a shared roof between the two (they sit next to one another). They gave up on the idea because it was way too expensive, IIRC.
__________________
Attendance records:
09 : 3-2.
10 : 2-3.
11: 0-1.
12: 2-1.
14: 2-3.
Reply With Quote
  #87  
Old 10-04-2012, 05:32 PM
tebman's Avatar
tebman tebman is offline
WSI Church Elder
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: Bolingbrook
Posts: 3,610
Blog Entries: 12
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by 16th&State View Post
was it this one? http://www.stadiumpage.com/concepts/...goDomes_R.html

or this one?http://www.stadiumpage.com/concepts/...ertible_R.html

Edit: You are probably referring to the 2nd link. And yes, I would certainly call that a monstrosity and would be counting the days until something new came along to replace it...
Yep! That's it in the second link. It sounded way cool at the time, in a Jetsons sort of way, but it would've been a kludge and obsolete the day after Camden Yards opened.

The Cubs were actually in on those talks too. It didn't get very far, but there were a lot of moving parts in those discussions and the Tribune looked into it since they were being stonewalled on putting lights in Wrigley Field.

Strange days, indeed.
Reply With Quote
  #88  
Old 10-05-2012, 11:52 AM
nsolo nsolo is offline
WSI Regular
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Si quaeris peninsulam amoenam, circumspice
Posts: 373
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Soxman219 View Post
Sorry, but that's not true. I went to four Sox games last month for a combined total of $60. The Sox-Indians game on the 25th was as low as $2.88. The tickets are cheap. You don't have to buy beers and food at a baseball game. The average Sox game at Stubhub during the year was $10.
Assuming that you can buy tickets for such a low price, where would the seats be? I have to travel nearly 150 miles each way to attend the game which involves gas and parking as extra costs.

I take my wife as she's a Sox fan, too. If we are traveling that far to sit in the nosebleed seats, and not even afford ourselves the treat of a hot dog and beer, then I might as well stay at home and take in the game on tv.

As previously stated in another post, going to a game for us is an expensive treat.
__________________
"Do the right thing. It will gratify some people, and astonish the rest".
Mark Twain - American author and Freemason

Last edited by nsolo; 10-05-2012 at 11:56 AM. Reason: typos
Reply With Quote
  #89  
Old 10-05-2012, 12:45 PM
Thome25 Thome25 is offline
WSI Church Elder
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Elkton, Maryland
Posts: 4,154
Default

I don't understand the love for the downtown ballpark.

I've been to plenty of cities up and down the east coast and in the midwest and when I talked to baseball fans in those cities about how Wrigley Field and US Cellular Field are neighborhood ballparks their faces light up and they usually think that's the coolest thing ever.

The neighborhood ballpark is a timeless part of baseball history that has gone the way of the dinosaur.

I'm personally proud that Chicago has not one but two of them.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #90  
Old 10-05-2012, 12:58 PM
doublem23's Avatar
doublem23 doublem23 is offline
MMXXIII
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Roscoe Village
Posts: 54,333
Blog Entries: 5
Default

Except that US Cellular Field's not a neighborhood ballpark, it just happens to be located in Bridgeport, but it would look and feel exactly the same if it were located in the South Loop, in Addison, or just about anywhere else. There's no thriving neighborhood around it, in fact, it's pretty easy to argue that other than the Dan Ryan, Sox Park is the biggest blight on the neighborhood.

Wrigley is a neighborhood ballpark in that it's an essential and organic part of Wrigleyville. U.S. Cellular Field looks like it was just arbitrarily dropped out of the sky. It doesn't even line up with the street grid.
Reply With Quote
Reply


Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)
 
Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off



Forum Jump




All times are GMT -5. The time now is 04:48 AM.




Design by: Michelle

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Site-specific editorial/photos Copyright ©2001 - 2008 White Sox Interactive. All rights reserved.