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

 
 
Old 06-11-2019, 03:52 PM
 
2,154 posts, read 1,077,995 times
Reputation: 2853

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by Bitey View Post
No, the Cubs get way more attention because they have way more fans

Not only are sellouts rare at Guaranteed Failure Field, but even when the Sox are gunning for a post-season spot and they're practically giving away tickets you'll STILL see 10,000 empty seats. The last time they even cracked the top HALF for attendance was 12 years ago -- right at #15. Average attendance ranking over the last 20 years? 21st -- that is, the bottom third.

You Sox fans would have a lot more room to talk smack about being the "real" fans if you'd actually, like, maybe show up for games.

Same could be said of Braves fans, and Marlin fans; who only show up post-season.
And a lot of other teams have empty seats for a good portion of the season.
Now that the Cubs have a title, the north side/south side rivalry has cooled a bit.
No more Michael Barrett punching AJ Pierzinski on the front page.
As a Cub fan, I prefer attending games on the south side.
I just checked tics for August against the Twins, $60 for be on television seats behind home plate.

And the food is better, and cheaper than Wrigley.
Rate this post positively Quick reply to this message

 
Old 06-11-2019, 04:16 PM
 
2,347 posts, read 1,375,911 times
Reputation: 1467
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bitey View Post
In other words... there are a lot more Cubs fans than Sox fans.

It's hilarious how you dismiss the Cubs' broader fan base as merely a product of marketing, as if marketing isn't the fundamental means of broadening a franchise's fan base. You know why Wrigley Field is a tourist attraction? BECAUSE THEY HAVE FANS WHO ACTUALLY WANT TO ATTEND GAMES. Like, duh?

Sox fans don't show up WHEN they win, they show up AFTER they win -- sometimes, for a while anyway. The Sox didn't even crack the attendance top HALF in 2005. They did in 2006 and 2007, and then sank right back into obscurity where they've remained to this day even during some pretty competitive seasons. If Sox Fans don't pay attention to the Sox, why should anyone else?

Meanwhile Cubs fans didn't wait until AFTER they won it all to finally show their support, they've been doing it consistently for decades. They were attending games and watching them on TV and buying up their merchandise through an awful lot of really thin times. Their average attendance ranking in the previous 10 years was 7th out of 30. Their lowest in that 10-year-span? 12th, in a season where they lost 96 games. So don't give me this "2016 bandwagon" crap. 2016 was the payoff, not the launching point.

"Sox fans stick with the team no matter what." LOL. Yeah, maybe 10 of you do. The other 5 are passed out on William Laguie's sectional with Slipknot blaring in the background.
As a Sox fan, it's not difficult to admit there's more Cubs fans, but lets not exaggerate the facts.

Regarding the Cubs, they haven't been doing it "consistently". There's just less elasticity to whether or not people will show up. In 2013 the Cubs ranked 12th in attendance, which is good for being a **** poor team, but they were averaging 32k per game, which is their lowest attendance since prior to Sosa roiding up and chasing the home run record in 1998. Imagine if the Cubs were a middling team winning about 75 games a year through 2016 or 2017? I can't imagine attendance would've gotten much better. What drove attendance from 1999-2002? Dingers. Not because the Cubs were good or the fans loved the team so much. A false idol. Did they care if the Cubs won? That was a byproduct or a meaningless point in those years.

In 2005, Sox attendance did pretty well in the summer, and that even happened in 2003 and 2004 when they were pretty competitive (though in '04 it fell off once Ordonez got injured). But Sox attendance tends to fall off in September because they're not as reliant on people that live around the stadium with disposable income. So once kids are back in school, it falls off. 2006-2008 they had pretty good attendance because there were expectations of a good product on the field. But the current attendance is what happens after no playoff appearances in 11 years. Fun fact, the Sox are one of 3 teams in baseball with increasing attendance compared to 2018. The other two: Phillies and Padres.

The Cubs are the exception in MLB, not the rule in terms of attendance. Every baseball team sees declining attendance as the team performs worse. Is it because Cubs fans are better or more loyal? No. There are a lot of them, but as another poster pointed out, 1) it IS a tourist destination (see every thread on this forum started by a tourist looking for stuff to do) and 2) there's a fair amount of people that go to the game for non-baseball reasons or in spite of some great understanding/following of baseball.

Regarding your Willson Contreras example, I'm sure plenty of fans understood the significance of that moment. I'm sure there were plenty of people going "what are we cheering for?" Look at Yoan Moncada's first game on the Sox. It got pretty loud and attentive for a walk. Was it full? No because it was the middle of 2017 and pieces were still being sold off. But Moncada's first game generated significant walkup sales and people wanted to see his first game.
Rate this post positively Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-11-2019, 04:24 PM
 
Location: Brackenwood
6,325 posts, read 2,528,586 times
Reputation: 13741
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sunbiz1 View Post
Same could be said of Braves fans, and Marlin fans; who only show up post-season.
And a lot of other teams have empty seats for a good portion of the season.
And I'd say the same thing to anyone trying to claim sell-outs are a regular occurrence at these stadiums or that their fans show up when they win, or stick with their teams "no matter what."

I have nothing against the Sox or Sox fans, even the ones who don't feel like showing up at games after years of a so-so product on the field. But I'm not about to humor Sox fans talking smack about how they're the "true" Chicago baseball fans while their stadium is 60% empty during any given game and their team's franchise revenue is near the league bottom.

Quote:
Originally Posted by fusillirob1983 View Post
. . .
Again, I don't understand how explaining WHY the Cubs have a bigger fan base is supposed to be a COUNTERPOINT to the claim the Cubs have a bigger fan base. "No they don't, but here's why they do..." Huh??

Last edited by Bitey; 06-11-2019 at 04:38 PM..
Rate this post positively Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-11-2019, 05:09 PM
 
2,154 posts, read 1,077,995 times
Reputation: 2853
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bitey View Post
And I'd say the same thing to anyone trying to claim sell-outs are a regular occurrence at these stadiums or that their fans show up when they win, or stick with their teams "no matter what."

I have nothing against the Sox or Sox fans, even the ones who don't feel like showing up at games after years of a so-so product on the field. But I'm not about to humor Sox fans talking smack about how they're the "true" Chicago baseball fans while their stadium is 60% empty during any given game and their team's franchise revenue is near the league bottom.


Again, I don't understand how explaining WHY the Cubs have a bigger fan base is supposed to be a COUNTERPOINT to the claim the Cubs have a bigger fan base. "No they don't, but here's why they do..." Huh??

The Mets and Angels also play second fare in their respective cities, MLB just has never been popular enough to support a split market...anywhere.
What I'd like is a crosstown series in October.

No team has a following like the Cubs do, a book was written on the psychology of following a losing team for an entire lifetime before the title season. While I've been a fan for 40 years, there were just some seasons I refused to pay higher than league average prices to see bad baseball at Wrigley.
Rate this post positively Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-11-2019, 05:10 PM
 
Location: The Stinky Onion
2,536 posts, read 1,491,726 times
Reputation: 2632
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bitey View Post
In other words... there are a lot more Cubs fans than Sox fans.

It's hilarious how you dismiss the Cubs' broader fan base as merely a product of marketing, as if marketing isn't the fundamental means of broadening a franchise's fan base. You know why Wrigley Field is a tourist attraction? BECAUSE THEY HAVE FANS WHO ACTUALLY WANT TO ATTEND GAMES. Like, duh?

Sox fans don't show up WHEN they win, they show up AFTER they win -- sometimes, for a while anyway. The Sox didn't even crack the attendance top HALF in 2005. They did in 2006 and 2007, and then sank right back into obscurity where they've remained to this day even during some pretty competitive seasons. If Sox Fans don't pay attention to the Sox, why should anyone else?

Meanwhile Cubs fans didn't wait until AFTER they won it all to finally show their support, they've been doing it consistently for decades. They were attending games and watching them on TV and buying up their merchandise through an awful lot of really thin times. Their average attendance ranking in the previous 10 years was 7th out of 30. Their lowest in that 10-year-span? 12th, in a season where they lost 96 games. So don't give me this "2016 bandwagon" crap. 2016 was the payoff, not the launching point.

"Sox fans stick with the team no matter what." LOL. Yeah, maybe 10 of you do. The other 5 are passed out on William Laguie's sectional with Slipknot blaring in the background.
Nowhere did I ever deny at all the Cubs have more fans than the Sox do. Even a blind person or extremely ignorant person/ die hard Sox fan would be insane to think anything else is true.

All I did was point out why the Cubs have more fans, despite not at all being better than the Sox (until recently of course) in terms of actual baseball skill/competence. To summarize so I don't need to type a huge block of text again, the Cubs are more popular because (in this order)

1) WGN

2) Wrigley Field still exists and is a tourist attraction, whereas old Comiskey was razed to the ground in the early 90's

3) Wrigleyville is a massive bar district in the city, and definitely gives fans things to do before/after games, whereas Bridgeport/Armour Square (where the Sox play) has almost nothing to do and is too isolated from the "lively" and touristy parts of the city.

I'm also not denying Cubs fans come out more often than Sox fans, but again how much of that is because games at Wrigley are more like parties/ social gatherings rather than actual ball games? At White Sox games, the bland field forces fans to pay attention to the action on the field. At Wrigley, it seriously is just one giant, drunk gathering where yes, fans feel more comfortable going to. The game on the field could easily be a side show for people at Wrigley. Wrigley is drastically more of an intimate ballpark than the Cell (as almost all older ballparks are). Not to mention, Wrigley, again, is a tourist attraction and is overall a more enjoyable ballpark to be at. It's hard to factor out who is a real fan and who is a tourist.

In general, fun places that attract people will inevitably bring people out to games. The problem with "the Cell", "New Comiskey", "Sox Park", or whatever you want to call it, is that it's one of the most cookie cutter and blandest ballparks in the entire league. The field is positioned to face a bunch of brick apartment buildings and the Dan Ryan Expressway, not the beautiful Chicago skyline. Many people have referred to it as "A suburban ballpark in the city", and as someone who's been there well over a hundred times, that's an absolutely true description. It's not a field that attract fans to come out to games, and there's not much to do outside of only watching the game. This will inevitably lower fan turnout when the team is performing badly. But again, the White Sox attendance, while certainly nowhere near the Cubs on an average game day, is certainly overblown by a lot of people and exaggerated a lot. The White Sox are not as bad as the Rays, Athletics, Indians, Marlins, Royals, Rockies... the list goes on.

Last edited by CCrest182; 06-11-2019 at 06:08 PM..
Rate this post positively Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-11-2019, 05:10 PM
 
2,347 posts, read 1,375,911 times
Reputation: 1467
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bitey View Post
And I'd say the same thing to anyone trying to claim sell-outs are a regular occurrence at these stadiums or that their fans show up when they win, or stick with their teams "no matter what."

I have nothing against the Sox or Sox fans, even the ones who don't feel like showing up at games after years of a so-so product on the field. But I'm not about to humor Sox fans talking smack about how they're the "true" Chicago baseball fans while their stadium is 60% empty during any given game and their team's franchise revenue is near the league bottom.


Again, I don't understand how explaining WHY the Cubs have a bigger fan base is supposed to be a COUNTERPOINT to the claim the Cubs have a bigger fan base. "No they don't, but here's why they do..." Huh??
Yes, I literally started out by saying the Cubs have a bigger fan base. I've said that multiple times in this thread, actually. I said, "let's not exaggerate the facts." It was in the first sentence of my previous post, and that was the point of the post.

Cubs attendance has not been consistent. It dips with performance, but the Cubs turned around their performance pretty quickly in late 2014 and into 2015, telegraphed it, and then people showed up.

The Cubs didn't have the same attendance in 2012 and 2013 as 2008. If you re-read my post. You'll see the point I was attempting to make, and it was not the same point the other poster may have been trying to make.

The Cubs attendance in 1999 through 2002 was largely driven by 1 player and one other marketing gimmick. Look at 1998 attendance. It didn't pick up til July. Yes, the Cubs made the playoffs that year, but attendance was driven by Sosa during the home run chase. What else started in 1998? Celebrities singing the 7th inning stretch. I'm not saying there's not more Cubs fans. I'm saying it's ignorant to label them some superior group of fans. The marketing team did a good job to get people to games, to some extent just through the 7th inning. People go to Cubs games beyond being these superior "through thick and thin" fans.
Rate this post positively Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-11-2019, 05:33 PM
 
Location: Brackenwood
6,325 posts, read 2,528,586 times
Reputation: 13741
^^ Cubs' attendance has been REMARKABLY consistent over the years, win or lose, "one player" or not, "gimmick" marketing or not. I'm not sure how pointing out the their attendance has varied from 80% to 95%+ capacity depending on their performance or the varying reasons for their higher-than-average attendance is somehow evidence that it HASN'T been consistent. And if you think it's all just Wrigleyville/socializing, watch a Cubs away game where you'll find a sea of blue jerseys in the seats.

Quote:
Originally Posted by CCrest182 View Post
To summarize so I don't need to type a huge block of text again
. . . followed by a huge block of text that a quick skim reveals just covers the same ground.

Every reason you folks seem to think diminishes or explains away the Cubs' popularity is, in the final analysis, still an affirmation of their popularity.
Rate this post positively Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-11-2019, 06:27 PM
 
Location: The Stinky Onion
2,536 posts, read 1,491,726 times
Reputation: 2632
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bitey View Post
^^ Cubs' attendance has been REMARKABLY consistent over the years, win or lose, "one player" or not, "gimmick" marketing or not. I'm not sure how pointing out the their attendance has varied from 80% to 95%+ capacity depending on their performance or the varying reasons for their higher-than-average attendance is somehow evidence that it HASN'T been consistent. And if you think it's all just Wrigleyville/socializing, watch a Cubs away game where you'll find a sea of blue jerseys in the seats.


. . . followed by a huge block of text that a quick skim reveals just covers the same ground.

Every reason you folks seem to think diminishes or explains away the Cubs' popularity is, in the final analysis, still an affirmation of their popularity.
That has nothing to do with it. Tourists can easily just buy a Cubs jersey and watch a game at Wrigley. That doesn't = genuine fan.

Also, it is largely socializing. I've been to multiple games at Wrigley before. That's literally what it is there, and the game on the field is in many ways a side show to a lot of people.

Nobody here is "explaining away" the Cubs' popularity or writing it off. We're saying that they aren't more well known/cared about because they're "better" at baseball or because their fans are better. Neither of those claims, in the long run, are true at all. Remember the Cubs had the longest championship drought in not just baseball history, but pro sports history. They aren't known as the "lovable losers" for no reason.

The Cubs are loved over the Sox because of WGN, the historic Wrigley Field, and to a lesser extent the bars outside the park. That's literally it.
Rate this post positively Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-12-2019, 07:43 AM
 
2,347 posts, read 1,375,911 times
Reputation: 1467
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bitey View Post
^^ Cubs' attendance has been REMARKABLY consistent over the years, win or lose, "one player" or not, "gimmick" marketing or not. I'm not sure how pointing out the their attendance has varied from 80% to 95%+ capacity depending on their performance or the varying reasons for their higher-than-average attendance is somehow evidence that it HASN'T been consistent. And if you think it's all just Wrigleyville/socializing, watch a Cubs away game where you'll find a sea of blue jerseys in the seats.


. . . followed by a huge block of text that a quick skim reveals just covers the same ground.

Every reason you folks seem to think diminishes or explains away the Cubs' popularity is, in the final analysis, still an affirmation of their popularity.
Right, 80% to 95% is not noise if you follow a trend. You're also ignoring that (surprise!) Sosa's home run chases led to the initial bump. Prior to that, they were averaging approx. 70% capacity.
The one thing the Cubs have done is not be bad for long enough spurts to see the attendance drops that many other teams see.

Cubs attendance in 1997 was 2.1 million. In 1998 it was 2.6 million. I think you're trying very hard to ignore that attendance to see these garbage teams had anything to do with "Cubs fans are so great and so plentiful". As Ccrest pointed out, the ballpark and neighborhood are a destination.

1996- 2.2 million (76 wins, 12GB)
1997 - 2.2 million (68 wins, 12GB)
1998 2.6 million (90 wins, WC, Sosa 66 HR)
1999 - 2.8 million (67 wins, 30GB, Sosa 63 HR)
2000 - 2.8 million (65 wins, 30GB, Sosa 50 HR)
2001 - 2.7 million (88 wins, 5GB, Sosa 64 HR)
2002 - 2.7 million (67 wins, 30GB, Sosa 49 HR)

Yes, that shows consistency from 1998 to 2002, but it's not consistent with the years prior to that (worse attendance) and 2003 and later when they were better (a bit better attendance) It also shows that prior to the home run chase, the Cubs had pretty good attendance but not remarkably consistent with those later years.

The one stretch of remarkable consistency: 2003 through 2011, which is a period in which they won 3 division titles. After 2011, attendance began to dip noticeably. Also, paid attendance does not equal actual attendance. As someone who used to live 2 blocks from the stadium and sold a parking space, I can tell you that from 2008 to 2014 not just paid attendance dropped, but the amount of people actually going to the game dropped.

2008 was a guaranteed $30 per game. 2009 was typically $30 for a day game or weekend, $25 for a night game, 2010 $25/$20, 2011 typically $20. 2012-2014 was $20 if I had absolutely nothing better to do than stand outside for 90 minutes and crossing my fingers, but by that point it wasn't worth it.

In 2008 and 2009, my cell phone service was spotty pretty frequently during games. It gradually improved year after year, and I don't believe it was necessarily because of improved cell service. Even in the thinner seasons, they would still have good attendance for weekend day games, so I had cell service issues during those games as well as concerts, but during night games in 2011-14 I had noticeably better cell service because there were fewer people in the area.

Let's look at 2008 through 2013. It's 5 consecutive years of declining attendance from 3.3 million in 2008 to 2.64 million. That's a 20% decrease, as you stated. What was consistent - that fewer people went to the game than the year prior. I managed to attend several games for free from 2011 to 2013 because people knew I lived nearby and they had no desire to waste their time going to a game. Those are paid tickets whether someone was in the seat or not. Stubhub frequently had August/September seats listed for $3-$10. 2014 only drew a few thousand more than 2014, but they played .500 in the second half, so it stopped the bleeding. Again, the Cubs were not bad for long enough to see the drop that you're not acknowledging was happening. They of course have been good after that, so attendance is back up. Perhaps you have a different definition of the word consistent than I do. I think if the Cubs attendance never dropped below 3 million in those down years from 2012-15 I'd have no problem agreeing with you, but that is not what happened.
Rate this post positively Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-12-2019, 09:28 AM
 
Location: Chicago
6,360 posts, read 7,366,326 times
Reputation: 5760
Chicago Cardinals? The Big Red. Not only the most popular, but the easiest to see play. Free admission. Just head over to 35th and Shields, the big parking lot across the street from Name-Guaranteed-For-Two-Years-Only Field. (bring folding lawn chair)
Rate this post positively 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.


 
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