Cubs Move? Hope It Never Happens (Chicago, Rosemont: home, ticket, transit)

[plates]

Originally Posted by BRU67

Name a team other than Cubs and Red Sox who draw when the team is sub-par.

The Yankees, Dodgers, Anaheim, Cardinals, Giants, and Philly. And depending on your definition of "draw" and sub-par", many other teams.

[Drover]

Originally Posted by plates

The Yankees, Dodgers, Anaheim, Cardinals, Giants, and Philly.

When's the last time the Yankees had a sub-par team? They're perennial contenders for their division and it's been something like 20 years since they even had a sub-.500 season. The Angels drew around 27K per game until they started putting together consistent winning/contending seasons. Same with the Phillies whose attendance was as low as 20K per game in 2002 before they became consistent contenders/winners in their division. Even with a new stadium the Mets drew less than 30K per game last season and the season before, putting in the bottom half for attendance.

Of the teams listed above, the only one that can be said to have consistently high attendance with good or bad teams would be the Dodgers, and even they have winning seasons about 75% of the time in recent history.

[Lucky Clover]

Originally Posted by BRU67

Name a team other than Cubs and Red Sox who draw when the team is sub-par.

There isn't. That's what makes Boston and Chicago the two best sports towns in the country. That's my point. People enjoy baseball in this city. It's known as a baseball town even when the Bears are #1, the Bulls are popular, and the Blackhawks are popular.

Originally Posted by plates

The Yankees, Dodgers, Anaheim, Cardinals, Giants, and Philly. And depending on your definition of "draw" and sub-par", many other teams.

Nope...

The Red Sox and Cubs are two and three respectively in terms of popularity in MLB. Add to that, both cities are baseball cities and top 2 sports towns in the country. There's a reason for that. Fans show up regardless of how good/bad the team is because they enjoy baseball.

On that list of teams you mentioned.. the Yankees shouldn't even be mentioned. They contend every year. The only fan base I'd take from that list would be St. Louis. St. Louis is all about baseball, even moreso than football.

[NoJiveMan]

Cubs most profitable team in baseball!

Cubs ranked as most profitable team in MLB, according to Forbes Magazine - Chicago Sun-Times

Not too shabby for a team some people call "losers".

Maybe this is because of fan loyalty!

[css9450]

Originally Posted by tawfiqmp

The Red Sox and Cubs are two and three respectively in terms of popularity in MLB.

It wasn't that long ago, though, that the Cubs couldn't draw flies. They'd leave the upper deck blocked off and empty unless it was a particularly nice weekend or a hot team was in town. We used to go see the first-place Reds back in the late-70s and sit in the upper deck but total attendance was usually along the lines of 15,000. I remember another game against Pittsburgh where we had lower deck seats and there were like 6000 people in the place.

It wasn't until the 80s and the Tribune ownership and the marketing of the "Wrigley Field Experience" that they started to draw well.

[MassVt]

I've also learned, from this forum, that Wrigleyville was actually a bit dumpy in decades past, and not the draw it is today; if the Cubs moved away, I suppose it would revert back to its less-glamerous days..

[Chi-town Native]

hi-yo:

Ald. Tunney: ‘This is Not Wrigleyville, This is Lake View’

[Drover]

Originally Posted by css9450

It wasn't that long ago, though, that the Cubs couldn't draw flies. They'd leave the upper deck blocked off and empty unless it was a particularly nice weekend or a hot team was in town. We used to go see the first-place Reds back in the late-70s and sit in the upper deck but total attendance was usually along the lines of 15,000. I remember another game against Pittsburgh where we had lower deck seats and there were like 6000 people in the place.

It wasn't until the 80s and the Tribune ownership and the marketing of the "Wrigley Field Experience" that they started to draw well.

They didn't even draw that well in the 80s except the years they won the division. Otherwise throughout the 80s they drew at or below the league average. The sudden surge in Cubs attendance corresponds with a surge in overall MLB attendance that started in the mid-90s or so when a) divisions were re-organized to produce more competitive division races, 2) new stadiums were being built across the landscape, and 3) the steroid era quite frankly made baseball a lot more exciting to watch. The resurgence of the neighborhood around the stadium and the integration of the neighborhood experience with the Wrigley experience is how they've managed to hold on to higher attendance numbers through the years. If the neighborhood today were still like it was in the 80s the Cubs would probably still be struggling to draw more than 25K or so per game.

[Chicago South Sider]

I heard that the Cubs are the most profitable team in baseball. That's a pretty amazing feat for a bunch of losers.

[Drover]

Originally Posted by Chicago South Sider

I heard that the Cubs are the most profitable team in baseball. That's a pretty amazing feat for a bunch of losers.

No kiddin'. It's almost enough to make your average Sox fan resentful.