U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Covid-19 Information Page
Go Back   City-Data Forum > U.S. Forums > Illinois > Chicago
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
View Poll Results: What is the most popular professional sports team in Chicago?
Cubs 47 57.32%
White Sox 4 4.88%
Bears 23 28.05%
Bulls 6 7.32%
Blackhawks 2 2.44%
Voters: 82. You may not vote on this poll

Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 06-02-2019, 10:15 PM
 
2,347 posts, read 1,376,707 times
Reputation: 1467

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by Chicago_Person View Post
Most popular team is the most embarrassing team.
Bears.

Only team not to win in my lifetime.
That just means you're pretty young. The Cubs made it to 10 World Series through 1945, then never made it again until 2016. Aside from the losing, they also found incredibly creative ways to lose over that period. The past 4 seasons have been an anomaly for the Cubs.

The Bears were pretty much the winningest and most storied franchise until the Super Bowl era, struggled in the 70s, won a SB in the 80s and had some other good seasons. They are for sure the most embarassing team in your lifetime if you've mainly seen them since the 90s and later, though.
Rate this post positively Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 06-02-2019, 10:48 PM
 
382 posts, read 219,598 times
Reputation: 757
Quote:
Originally Posted by fusillirob1983 View Post
That just means you're pretty young. The Cubs made it to 10 World Series through 1945, then never made it again until 2016. Aside from the losing, they also found incredibly creative ways to lose over that period. The past 4 seasons have been an anomaly for the Cubs.

The Bears were pretty much the winningest and most storied franchise until the Super Bowl era, struggled in the 70s, won a SB in the 80s and had some other good seasons. They are for sure the most embarassing team in your lifetime if you've mainly seen them since the 90s and later, though.
29 isn't young.
Rate this post positively Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-02-2019, 11:16 PM
 
2,347 posts, read 1,376,707 times
Reputation: 1467
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chicago_Person View Post
29 isn't young.
No, but in context, it's enough to miss the Bears being good in the 80s and only remembering them being embarassing in the 90s. I was born in '83, but I was aware of the Super Bowl Shuffle when it happened and although I didn't understand a lick of football til some time in the 90s, I had fond memories of the Bears help me give them the benefit of the doubt in the 90s.

As a further example, I didn't follow baseball closely until 1991 but attended my first Sox game at the end of 1990 and knew about some of their players. Had I been a couple years older and followed baseball in 1989, it's possible I would've liked the Cubs (although my parents never brought them up like the Bears ). The Cubs did nothing impressive from the time I started watching regularly until the time I was in 8th grade.
Rate this post positively Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-02-2019, 11:23 PM
 
Location: The Stinky Onion
2,538 posts, read 1,492,677 times
Reputation: 2637
Quote:
Originally Posted by fusillirob1983 View Post
No, but in context, it's enough to miss the Bears being good in the 80s and only remembering them being embarassing in the 90s. I was born in '83, but I was aware of the Super Bowl Shuffle when it happened and although I didn't understand a lick of football til some time in the 90s, I had fond memories of the Bears help me give them the benefit of the doubt in the 90s.

As a further example, I didn't follow baseball closely until 1991 but attended my first Sox game at the end of 1990 and knew about some of their players. Had I been a couple years older and followed baseball in 1989, it's possible I would've liked the Cubs (although my parents never brought them up like the Bears ). The Cubs did nothing impressive from the time I started watching regularly until the time I was in 8th grade.
I was born in the early 90's, and at talent shows in elementary/middle school, I saw multiple re-enactments of the SB shuffle. That was in the early-mid 2000's. Probably because that's the last time they were decent.

I really think this upcoming season is the one. No Cody Parkey, let's roll.
Rate this post positively Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-03-2019, 12:28 AM
 
2,347 posts, read 1,376,707 times
Reputation: 1467
Quote:
Originally Posted by CCrest182 View Post
I was born in the early 90's, and at talent shows in elementary/middle school, I saw multiple re-enactments of the SB shuffle. That was in the early-mid 2000's. Probably because that's the last time they were decent.

I really think this upcoming season is the one. No Cody Parkey, let's roll.
Undoubtedly, but at that point (15-20 years later) it's a cultural phenomenon. I was trying to explain how only a couple years extra/less exposure can explain the difference in one's perspective.
Rate this post positively Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-04-2019, 01:25 PM
 
Location: Chicago
6,360 posts, read 7,367,661 times
Reputation: 5760
Quote:
Originally Posted by MassVt View Post
Have to pity the White Sox a bit---they never seem to have a whole lot of backing, from any part of the city. You get the sense ( or at least, I do) that some White Sox fans are fans of the team purely out of spite, so as to defy the more numerous Cub fans...
Through most of our MLB history in Chicago (and we are unique as the only city to have both an NL and AL team every year throughout MLB history, the city (and metro) area were generally divided pretty 50/50. As for who was on top, it varied. In the 1950s, Chicago was a Sox town and the Cubs were virtually just Ernie Banks and a college of coaches. The early 60's was still the Sox era.

With 1969 and the Cubs burst into contention, their epic battle with the Mets for the First NL/E title was the year the Cubs started turning things around.

On field play was certainly a factor, but then so were other reasons for Cub ascendancy:

1. For much of Chicago's history, the North and South sides played on a more level playing field. But during those post WWII years, the South Side suffered with racial change and with the rusting out of the strong industrial base which always was south of Madison. North Side vs. South Side started to take on a different meaning and demographics and socio-economic factors were key.

2. WGN has shown more television games than any other station in history. No one can pass them up. And Jack Brickhouse has the honor of having broadcasted the most baseball games. WGN was Cubs and Sox and neither was the Trib's team...the newspaper didn't own a chunk of either. When in the mid-60's the White Sox went with developing their own cable network during the start up era of cable, the team shot itself in the foot. It was WGN, the huge Chicago station that had developed into a superstation broadcasted nationally (just like Turner and the Braves in Atlanta). Chicago saw more of the Cubs; the nation got to see the Cubs.

3. Wrigley Field became an attraction: at the end of WWII, all MLB teams were playing in old parks, mostly developed from the 1910s-1920s. Wrigley and Comiskey were just one of many. And the condition of each was quite similar. While new parks were built in the post-war years of franchise moves and expansion (i.e. County Stadium, Candlestick, Dodger Stadium), it wasn't until the 1960s in St. Louis, I believe, where the first team still in its original city opened a new park (multipurpose stadium). That started an avalanche of "cookie cutter" baseball/football stadiums with the treasured old parks falling. Wrigley and Comiskey were among the last of their era. But Comiskey was falling apart in a part of town which had fallen on hard times.....so Wrigley became like Fenway the attraction of the old neighborhood park. The park draws, just like the team does.

4. Wrigley Field, a North Side that was dominating and a new lifestyle where the city, particularly the North Side lakefront was becoming poular for those who sought a particular life style. the Cubs became part of the mix for so many of the folks who moved in, particularly the young adults.

5. the "new Comiskey" had the misfortune of opening the year before Camden Yards in Baltimore and thus missed out on the retro park craze that encouraged the "park as experience" shtik.

6. And, of course, 2016 and all it meant for the Cubs, the curse and their fans (although admittedly 2005 didn't register in Chicago the same way)

Despite all, Chicago is still a two team city. And all four markets with two MLB teams each have a dominant/less dominant pairing: Yankees/Mets, Giants/A's, Dodgers/Angels. Chicago still throughly gets into the crosstown classic and the Cub-Sox rivalry may be stronger than it ever was since after 2000, the Cubs and Sox have been in the same league and play each other yearly. And a big part of the personality of each of the two teams is reflective of them being a two team market. The Cubs and Sox help define each other by comparison. And both teams benefit when interest is greater for both of them.

And for the record, I'm one of those rare people who like both teams. My favorite MLB teams in order: Cubs, White Sox, Giants, Brewers.
Rate this post positively Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-04-2019, 11:19 PM
 
Location: The Stinky Onion
2,538 posts, read 1,492,677 times
Reputation: 2637
Quote:
Originally Posted by edsg25 View Post

2. WGN .
This is literally the only reason there are more Cubs than Sox fans today.
Rate this post positively Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-06-2019, 12:10 AM
 
772 posts, read 2,337,437 times
Reputation: 735
If we’re looking at all things being equal (e.g. assuming relatively equal success at a certain point in time), the ranking is:

1. Bears
2. Cubs
3. Bulls
4. Blackhawks
5. White Sox

This obviously fluctuates when a team is winning championships (such as the Bulls in the 1990s or the Blackhawks this past decade), but this list is the “normal” state of affairs. I’m as big of a White Sox fan as anyone, but I’ll admit that our fan base is the weakest of all of the franchises in town. We have a strong set of very hardcore Sox fans on a regional basis, but we don’t have anywhere near the casual fans of the other teams.

Another observation that I’ve seen over the years: while it’s unquestioned that native Chicagoans put the Bears first, we have to remember that much of the Chicagoland population consists of people that have moved from elsewhere since this is a global city. With that in mind, the Cubs BY FAR have the highest adoption rate by people that move in from elsewhere (with the only exception being Cardinals fans). The Cubs are definitely unique in that regard. All of those Big Ten and other college grads from across the Midwest keep their childhood loyalties to the Packers, Vikings, Red Wings and other teams... but a disproportionate number of them move to the North Side of Chicago and, from that point, a similarly disproportionate number of them adopt the Cubs very quickly and easily. Essentially, the Cubs become their “post-college” team in a way that the Bears and other Chicago teams aren’t able to ever do. (That’s how we get so many Packers/Cubs fan combos.) In that sense, the Cubs are very unique among all sports teams everywhere in that regard - the Red Sox are probably the only comparable team with a high adoption rate by transplants moving in.

There is a high concentration of young people that (1) move in within striking distance of Wrigley Field annually, (2) adopt the Cubs, and (3) move elsewhere within the Chicago area within a few years while retaining their Cubs fandom. The cycle then repeats with a whole new set of young people moving in. As a result, I think the board here is actually underestimating the relative power of the Cubs here (and I say that as a diehard White Sox fan). It’s not just about WGN or even winning recently. The Cubs really do have a uniquely large and constantly expanding fan base among all American sports teams (much less the other Chicago teams).

Last edited by Frank the Tank; 06-06-2019 at 12:30 AM..
Rate this post positively Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-06-2019, 12:31 AM
Status: "all photos ©2007-2021/jfre81" (set 24 days ago)
 
Location: ✶✶✶✶
15,066 posts, read 27,708,247 times
Reputation: 10530
All I know is at the store where I work, I sell more Bulls stuff to international tourists than I do to anyone else, Chicagoans or visitors from elsewhere in the US. These are people might barely know what baseball is, but they know the NBA and they know the Bulls. I guess it only helps that the face of the league for so many years played here.

The American tourists buy the Cubs swag. Except people from St. Louis. They'd just as soon jump on the third rail on the Loop.

I deal mostly with tourists, as opposed to locals, but when I see someone in Sox gear I tend to assume they're locals, or at least live somewhere within day-drive range of Chicagoland.
Rate this post positively Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-06-2019, 12:37 AM
 
772 posts, read 2,337,437 times
Reputation: 735
Quote:
Originally Posted by jfre81 View Post
All I know is at the store where I work, I sell more Bulls stuff to international tourists than I do to anyone else, Chicagoans or visitors from elsewhere in the US. These are people might barely know what baseball is, but they know the NBA and they know the Bulls. I guess it only helps that the face of the league for so many years played here.

The American tourists buy the Cubs swag. Except people from St. Louis. They'd just as soon jump on the third rail on the Loop.

I deal mostly with tourists, as opposed to locals, but when I see someone in Sox gear I tend to assume they're locals, or at least live somewhere within day-drive range of Chicagoland.
That doesn’t shock me at all. The Bulls became a global brand in the 1990s and, even putting that aside, the NBA has much more of an international fan base compared to the other American sports leagues. (That’s why if I were a billionaire, I’d want to buy an NBA team over any other type of franchise. A critical mass of people outside of the United States, particularly in China and other parts of Asia, are legitimately basketball fans without any clue about baseball or football.)
Rate this post positively Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:


Settings
X
Data:
Loading data...
Based on 2000-2020 data
Loading data...

123
Hide US histogram

Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > U.S. Forums > Illinois > Chicago

All times are GMT -6.

© 2005-2021, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Contact Us - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37 - Top