History on the side of the Sox

[southsider2k5]

Once you get past the "You may be better, but we still draw more fans" part, this is a pretty cool historical reference to how teams preform the year after...

 

http://chicagosports.chicagotribune.com/cs...ack=1&cset=true

 

The 2005 World Series champions are off to another auspicious start while the Cubs continue to flounder. It's a recipe with all the ingredients to transform Chicago to a Sox town.

 

Yet the Cubs accounted for 66.6 percent of Chicago sports ticket sales in the month of April through one ticket broker, while White Sox fans purchased 26.3 percent from Tickets Now.com.

 

Of course, there are other means to illustrate what it means for a team to "own" a city.

 

In actual tickets sold for games played this season, the Cubs are averaging about 39,000 fans per game while the Sox are above 32,500.

 

The White Sox's 2006 season-ticket base exceeded 20,000 for the first time in club history. That allowed general manager Ken Williams to raise the team payroll to $95 million.

 

"This is a fun team to support," said Brooks Boyer, the Sox's vice president of marketing. By the way, only three teams have achieved a record better than 23-9 in the year after winning a World Series, according to researchers at White Sox Interactive. Both the 1928 and 1939 Yankees were 26-6, and the 1931 Philadelphia Athletics were 24-8.

 

Three other teams also went 23-9 after winning a World Series title, all of them the Yankees (1942, 1950 and 1951). Among those six teams defending their title with a 23-9 start, four repeated as champs: 1928 Yankees, 1939 Yankees, 1950 Yankees and 1951 Yankees. Two others won the pennant: 1931 Athletics and 1942 Yankees.

[Kyyle23]

hmmmmm, the Tribune reporting ticket sales between the Cubs and Sox? Say it aint so!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[Balance]

As the weather improves, even the weekday crowds at USCF will get larger and larger. It's just a lot of fun to see the Sox play!

[LVSoxFan]

Who keeps perpetuating the delusion that one day Chicago will become a "Sox" town?

 

The Cubs will always outdraw us and will always be the "Chicago" team. Because: they're more of a cultural phenom than a sports one. Plus the whole "Wrigley" experience/location.

 

And you know what? That's fine with me. One of the bonuses of being a Sox fan is not being one of the herd.

[Balta1701]

Who keeps perpetuating the delusion that one day Chicago will become a "Sox" town?

 

The Cubs will always outdraw us and will always be the "Chicago" team. Because: they're more of a cultural phenom than a sports one. Plus the whole "Wrigley" experience/location.

 

And you know what? That's fine with me. One of the bonuses of being a Sox fan is not being one of the herd.

Yeah, because fan-staged protests, daily bad press, and 100 year anniversaries of world series victories are exactly the way to motivate a fanbase.

 

You may be right or you may be wrong. But let's stop trying to jump to conclusions based on 1 year. Let the Sox win and the scrubs lose for 3-4 more years, and we'll see what happens, ok?

[YASNY]

Who keeps perpetuating the delusion that one day Chicago will become a "Sox" town?

 

The Cubs will always outdraw us and will always be the "Chicago" team. Because: they're more of a cultural phenom than a sports one. Plus the whole "Wrigley" experience/location.

 

And you know what? That's fine with me. One of the bonuses of being a Sox fan is not being one of the herd.

 

Chicago was once a Sox town and will be again. These things are cyclical.

[LVSoxFan]

Chicago was once a Sox town and will be again. These things are cyclical.

 

I disagree. I think the Cubs are iconic in Chicago, like the lakefront or Michigan Ave. And trust me, I hate the Cubs. Even moreso their fans.

 

Attendance-wise you're right, it has historically been cyclical, but think about it: the Cubs are in a win/win position. If they suck for years ahead (as they apparently will), they bank on that whole "loveable loser" mystique. If they somehow get in the running, then it becomes the whole "curse-ending" attraction. Or, even the fact that we won it and they haven't.

 

Me personally I do not want the Sox to become Cubs-like in attendance. No, that does not mean I want a return to 14,000 paid games because I'm some nostalgist who's bitter that the bandwagon showed up, and it's apparently pretty damn full.

 

Let me put it this way: I like being the Stones to their Beatles. Dig?

 

However, I could be wrong. Let's make it a gentleman's bet. I say that, in the next decade, the Sox will never surpass the Cubs no matter how many WS we win.

 

Also factor in the idea that, regardless of the team... location, location, location.

 

Are we on?

[southsider2k5]

Sometimes I wonder about Sox fans... We have an article talking about our place in history and attendance vs the Cubs, and even when the part about Sox history is bolded, it desends into a discussion about the Cubs and attendance... Nope we aren't obsessed all people! Get over the Cubs, we are the f***ing World Champions, and the best team in baseball, who cares about the Cubs???

[WilliamTell]

I hope one day the Sox are the team in Chicago, but sadly I also think the Cubs will be more popular aslong as they have Wrigley Field.

[Kyyle23]

I disagree. I think the Cubs are iconic in Chicago, like the lakefront or Michigan Ave. And trust me, I hate the Cubs. Even moreso their fans.

 

Attendance-wise you're right, it has historically been cyclical, but think about it: the Cubs are in a win/win position. If they suck for years ahead (as they apparently will), they bank on that whole "loveable loser" mystique. If they somehow get in the running, then it becomes the whole "curse-ending" attraction. Or, even the fact that we won it and they haven't.

 

Me personally I do not want the Sox to become Cubs-like in attendance. No, that does not mean I want a return to 14,000 paid games because I'm some nostalgist who's bitter that the bandwagon showed up, and it's apparently pretty damn full.

 

Let me put it this way: I like being the Stones to their Beatles. Dig?

 

However, I could be wrong. Let's make it a gentleman's bet. I say that, in the next decade, the Sox will never surpass the Cubs no matter how many WS we win.

 

Also factor in the idea that, regardless of the team... location, location, location.

 

Are we on?

 

 

Uh uh, I think the time for the loveable loser mystique has come and gone. I think the cubs fans got a taste of success, and losing is no longer tolerable, especially knowing that the Tribune company has deep pockets.

[YASNY]

Sure, why not. I think that lovable loser thing has about run it's course. The Sox winning it all was the one thing the north side tools couldn't take. Cub fans try and take their shots and Sox fans either say "1908" or "Defending World Champs" and that's the end of it. If the Sox win 2 more in the next 5 years and the Cubs continue lovably losing, it cycle will be complete.

[beautox]

I disagree. I think the Cubs are iconic in Chicago, like the lakefront or Michigan Ave. And trust me, I hate the Cubs. Even moreso their fans.

 

Attendance-wise you're right, it has historically been cyclical, but think about it: the Cubs are in a win/win position. If they suck for years ahead (as they apparently will), they bank on that whole "loveable loser" mystique. If they somehow get in the running, then it becomes the whole "curse-ending" attraction. Or, even the fact that we won it and they haven't.

 

Me personally I do not want the Sox to become Cubs-like in attendance. No, that does not mean I want a return to 14,000 paid games because I'm some nostalgist who's bitter that the bandwagon showed up, and it's apparently pretty damn full.

 

Let me put it this way: I like being the Stones to their Beatles. Dig?

 

However, I could be wrong. Let's make it a gentleman's bet. I say that, in the next decade, the Sox will never surpass the Cubs no matter how many WS we win.

 

Also factor in the idea that, regardless of the team... location, location, location.

 

Are we on?

 

ill take that bet , Personally i don't feel the "cubs" are iconic to Chicago, Wrigley Field is iconic to Chicago and as you've stated it has too do soley with the atmosphere. Secondly the seeds for the next generation of fans have/are already being planted, little kids will remember the White Sox winning their first World Series title in 88 years and the giant parade that followed, more so than watching people getting drunk in the bleachers and checking out cute girls.

 

Honestly i think if the sox can continue to get into the post season the tide will change, and regardless of what happens im fine with it. All of us grew up with this team and have lived through the strike/manuel years so if we do surpass the cubs and become the headlineing baseball team in Chicago thats great it puts more money back into the team, and at the end of the day im all about that.

[LVSoxFan]

Fine. Bet's on then. Because I say: the loveable loser thing will never go away--it's their fallback.

 

But really, WilliamTell is on the money: it has more to do with the park than anything.

 

In other words, put the Sox at Wrigley and the Cubs at the Cell and I s*** you not the Cubs would be lucky to sell 5,000 per game.

 

So this isn't so much about attendance/loyalty as location, location, location.

 

And the best explanation I ever heard of this whole topic was this:

 

The Cubs and Sox probably have an equal number of "diehard" fans. When it comes to CASUAL fans, though, the Cubs blow us away. Certainly, since last year, that has changed for us (hello, bandwagon!), but I thought that made a lot of sense.

 

Because, for instance, out-of-towners wanting to have a "Chicago" experience will naturally gravitate to Wrigley, just like they want to have deep dish pizza or go to a blues bar.

 

Having said all that, it's not a dig on Sox fans or their loyalty at all. It is what it is.

[RockRaines]

I hope one day the Sox are the team in Chicago, but sadly I also think the Cubs will be more popular aslong as they have Wrigley Field.

Wrigleyville was once a cesspool. Now its an incon. The city is changing, the west side, and south loop are becoming nicer, and gentrification is making its way into the downtrodden areas of the city. Bridgeport and the area around the cell has changed by leaps and bounds over the last 10 years, and I expect that to continue. Not all baseball stadiums are in neighborhoods like the cubs. The yankees play in a pretty s***t area of the city, but they continue to draw lots and lots of fans. If you win, they will come.

[YASNY]

Fine. Bet's on then. Because I say: the loveable loser thing will never go away--it's their fallback.

 

But really, WilliamTell is on the money: it has more to do with the park than anything.

 

In other words, put the Sox at Wrigley and the Cubs at the Cell and I s*** you not the Cubs would be lucky to sell 5,000 per game.

 

So this isn't so much about attendance/loyalty as location, location, location.

 

And the best explanation I ever heard of this whole topic was this:

 

The Cubs and Sox probably have an equal number of "diehard" fans. When it comes to CASUAL fans, though, the Cubs blow us away. Certainly, since last year, that has changed for us (hello, bandwagon!), but I thought that made a lot of sense.

 

Because, for instance, out-of-towners wanting to have a "Chicago" experience will naturally gravitate to Wrigley, just like they want to have deep dish pizza or go to a blues bar.

 

Having said all that, it's not a dig on Sox fans or their loyalty at all. It is what it is.

 

You get a few more post season series at the Cell and people will gravitate there because that's where "it's happening".

[LVSoxFan]

Wrigleyville was once a cesspool. Now its an incon. The city is changing, the west side, and south loop are becoming nicer, and gentrification is making its way into the downtrodden areas of the city. Bridgeport and the area around the cell has changed by leaps and bounds over the last 10 years, and I expect that to continue. Not all baseball stadiums are in neighborhoods like the cubs. The yankees play in a pretty s***t area of the city, but they continue to draw lots and lots of fans. If you win, they will come.

 

Now THIS I will concede. If the area around the Cell experiences the kind of rocket growth/gentrification that has hit, say, the West Loop, I can't argue with this.

 

Touche.

 

But I still think it's pointless to sit around and wait for the day that the Sox will become the "Chicago" team. And anyway: who cares?

 

It's OUR team. If other people don't get it, then so what?

[3RDBASE]

I think the whole Cub fan base took a hit...not by conversion but alot of people stopped wearing cub attire and more World Series Sox gear...and Sox in general...maybe bandwagon maybe the tide has turned...But needless to sayI don't stay in the city right now Im in Central Illinois and Ive noticed it...a college town that used to be fillled with tons of cubby gear is now not seen...more and more Sox gear, flags, hats, tees...it's really wierd when a year ago, you and a handful of people wore Sox gear and now you look out your window and someone strolls by wearing sox gear...it never happened like that...but I feel its better than it was, tide has changed back to black...Go Sox!

[LVSoxFan]

Dude, you should have seen the change downtown and on the north side where I live.

 

It used to be that downtown sports apparel stores had like 95% Cubs stuff and once we got to the WS it completely inverted. And yes, all of a sudden you saw people walking down Michigan Ave. wearing Sox gear, and in my 'hood now you see Sox hats way more than before.

 

But it doesn't bother me so much anymore; I think a lot of people are just showing their Chicago pride.

 

I can tell you though, for the first time in history, the gift shop in the Tribune building actually has a Sox pullover. I have NEVER seen that before. The ONLY reason they would have any Sox stuff is probably because people were asking for it.