Welcome to City-Data.com Forum!
U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
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)
Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 04-06-2015, 03:04 PM
 
8,276 posts, read 11,876,944 times
Reputation: 10075

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by Lookout Kid View Post
I agree, the "Jumbotron" (do they even call them that anymore?) is ridiculously stupid-looking in that location, and it's a just a shame to take the focus of the back of the park off the old 1930's score board. Wrigley Field has been seriously defaced, and the Rickett's should be ashamed. The one reason I had to go to Cubs games, the traditional feel and ambiance of the park, has been marginalized to the point that I will not feel compelled to support more losing teams with my attendance.

They should have gone with multiple smaller screens that were better-integrated in to the building. The idea of a single giant screen is silly, and adds very little to the game that couldn't be accomplished with smaller screens.
I honestly think that all this has something to do with the decreased attention spans of sports fans. Apparently , there's some need to keep everyone "occupied" for every second, and Jumbotron-watching fills the bill. Pretty sad that the game itself, even in its "sped-up" version, isn't enough to hold one's attention anymore..
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 04-06-2015, 06:16 PM
 
Location: Chicago
38,707 posts, read 102,951,116 times
Reputation: 29981
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lookout Kid View Post
. . . They should have gone with multiple smaller screens that were better-integrated in to the building. The idea of a single giant screen is silly, and adds very little to the game that couldn't be accomplished with smaller screens.
Not only does it add very little to the game, it takes away a very important element that differentiated Wrigley from every other stadium in the league. For all the flak Wrigley attendees get for supposedly not being interested in the game, it was the one stadium left in the league where the focus of attention was still what was happening on the field: the actual game. No T-shirt cannons, no sausage/pierogi/dead-president/etc. races, no "kiss cam," no La-Z-Boy seating... just a baseball game with a smattering of ancillary distractions. And if you wanted to watch the game, you paid attention to the game, not a facsimile of the game on a jumbotron despite the fact that the actual thing is happening right in front of you. Now, people will be watching the jumbotron instead of the game. That's what happens when you put one in, a fact they count on for ad revenue.

Best I can tell, Wrigley is about one small step away from being Chicago's own Yankee Stadium: technically still the same historic structure, but altered to such a degree that it's no longer recognized as such.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-06-2015, 08:03 PM
 
Location: West Loop Chicago
1,059 posts, read 1,554,268 times
Reputation: 855
Quote:
Originally Posted by Drover View Post
Not only does it add very little to the game, it takes away a very important element that differentiated Wrigley from every other stadium in the league. For all the flak Wrigley attendees get for supposedly not being interested in the game, it was the one stadium left in the league where the focus of attention was still what was happening on the field: the actual game. No T-shirt cannons, no sausage/pierogi/dead-president/etc. races, no "kiss cam," no La-Z-Boy seating... just a baseball game with a smattering of ancillary distractions. And if you wanted to watch the game, you paid attention to the game, not a facsimile of the game on a jumbotron despite the fact that the actual thing is happening right in front of you. Now, people will be watching the jumbotron instead of the game. That's what happens when you put one in, a fact they count on for ad revenue.

Best I can tell, Wrigley is about one small step away from being Chicago's own Yankee Stadium: technically still the same historic structure, but altered to such a degree that it's no longer recognized as such.
They are taking the exact same playbook as the Red Sox did. It's about selling advertising, and they need to do things like this in order to compete with teams in modern ballparks that are more geared toward revenue.

Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-06-2015, 10:25 PM
 
Location: Chicago
38,707 posts, read 102,951,116 times
Reputation: 29981
Yes I know it's about selling advertising. I don't know why you feel the need to repeatedly point that out as if it weren't obvious and I hadn't already acknowledged that. But I'm sorry, I don't buy that a team that is still in the top 5 in both revenue and franchise value after fielding consistently crappy teams needs a monstrosity that completely overshadows (and frankly makes useless) one of the most iconic features that hugely contributes to the park's historic ambiance to be competitive in today's marketplace.

A huge part of why they're still one of the top revenue-generating teams is precisely because they've been able to leverage the "we're a different experience" angle of the historic ambiance that this grotesque atrocity nearly annihilates single-handedly. So the Ricketts can spare us the "this is necessary to remain competitive" BS. If they expect us to believe that, they should just stop insulting our intelligence, knock the place down, build the stadium they really want in Rosemont or wherever, and be done with it.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-07-2015, 08:11 AM
 
11,973 posts, read 31,712,480 times
Reputation: 4644
Quote:
Originally Posted by Drover View Post
Best I can tell, Wrigley is about one small step away from being Chicago's own Yankee Stadium: technically still the same historic structure, but altered to such a degree that it's no longer recognized as such.
Yankee Stadium was actually razed. The new Yankee Stadium is an entirely different structure shifted over a few hundred feet.



This will be more like Fenway. Yet I argue the old Fenway was actually less charming than the old Wrigley, though I know that is a controversial opinion.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-07-2015, 08:21 AM
 
Location: West Loop Chicago
1,059 posts, read 1,554,268 times
Reputation: 855
Quote:
Originally Posted by Drover View Post
Yes I know it's about selling advertising. I don't know why you feel the need to repeatedly point that out as if it weren't obvious and I hadn't already acknowledged that. But I'm sorry, I don't buy that a team that is still in the top 5 in both revenue and franchise value after fielding consistently crappy teams needs a monstrosity that completely overshadows (and frankly makes useless) one of the most iconic features that hugely contributes to the park's historic ambiance to be competitive in today's marketplace.

A huge part of why they're still one of the top revenue-generating teams is precisely because they've been able to leverage the "we're a different experience" angle of the historic ambiance that this grotesque atrocity nearly annihilates single-handedly. So the Ricketts can spare us the "this is necessary to remain competitive" BS. If they expect us to believe that, they should just stop insulting our intelligence, knock the place down, build the stadium they really want in Rosemont or wherever, and be done with it.
If it hurts you that badly, boycott the Cubs. Whatever. Or wear your finest suit and fedora to the games in protest - but day games only.

You mentioned Yankee Stadium and I countered with a better, more accurate example that the Cubs are following. Fenway is just as iconic as Wrigley, with an equally recognizable manual scoreboard. The Red Sox also had a similar history (less "lovable" and more tragic, but still...), and a similar franchise value with limitations on revenue growth.

They also have a new owner that had to borrow a lot of $ for the purchase, and do the same soul searching about whether to modernize their old ballpark, or tear it down and build a new one. 10 years and 3 World Series titles later, Red Sox fans aren't complaining about their massive video boards, premium seats on the green monster or closing off Yawkey Way.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-07-2015, 09:55 AM
 
Location: Cleveland
4,637 posts, read 4,945,167 times
Reputation: 5979
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hendu View Post
Let me preface this with I'm a Sox fan, and I have absolutely no love for the Cubs.

But the guy is spending $500 million of his own money to make badly needed upgrades to the park that will keep the franchise competitive for decades to comes. Sure, he should have admitted defeat and played a season in Milwaukee rather than a construction zone. And sure the Jumbotron will take getting used to, though it's going to be a big revenue generator.

He's also brought in some very smart baseball people to run the draft and on-the-field operations. If I were a Cubs fan, I'd be feeling pretty good about the future with Ricketts in control.
I agree with a lot of what you're saying, but I always bristle at the phrase "badly needed upgrades," because they're only badly needed -- or needed at all -- in order to bring in revenue. To the average fan, they're the opposite of "badly needed." They're unneeded.

I'd just say he spent $500 million to increase the revenue-making potential of Wrigley Field.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-07-2015, 10:11 AM
 
8,276 posts, read 11,876,944 times
Reputation: 10075
This might also represent the need for baseball team owners to be competitive in the entertainment market, in order to ensure that there WILL be a next generation of baseball fans. We all know the story--kids don't play baseball in vacant lots and fields anymore ( I think that stuff went out with my generation, in the 60s), and baseball is in danger of being gradually left behind in favor of more continuous action-oriented games.

I still think that it's overkill..
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-07-2015, 10:26 AM
 
Location: West Loop Chicago
1,059 posts, read 1,554,268 times
Reputation: 855
Quote:
Originally Posted by tribecavsbrowns View Post
I agree with a lot of what you're saying, but I always bristle at the phrase "badly needed upgrades," because they're only badly needed -- or needed at all -- in order to bring in revenue. To the average fan, they're the opposite of "badly needed." They're unneeded.

I'd just say he spent $500 million to increase the revenue-making potential of Wrigley Field.
Considering that the Cubs had to install mesh to catch the falling concrete from the upper deck, the bleachers were practically on the verge of being condemned, the clubhouse is so cramped and out-dated that the Cubs had to over-pay to lure free agents, and the TV broadcast electronics are protected by an improvised umbrella when it rains...many of the upgrades are indeed badly needed. Sure, a $500 million investment is going to also include plenty of revenue generating items in the mix.

You can certainly make an argument that it was a mistake to rush an in-your-face revenue-first upgrade at the beginning of the project while half the stadium is still a construction zone. But when it all comes together, I bet Cubs fans will be pretty happy with the changes.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-07-2015, 10:33 AM
 
Location: Chicago
38,707 posts, read 102,951,116 times
Reputation: 29981
That POS is not an "upgrade" at all, much less a "badly needed one."
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
Similar Threads

All times are GMT -6. The time now is 05:52 PM.

© 2005-2024, 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