shoota Posted December 23, 2006 Share Posted December 23, 2006 (edited) Baseball, clearly. When the Sox or the Cubs clinch playoff births, the city is buzzing; when the Bears clinched the division this year, people were happy, but nowhere near the mass excitement of when the Sox or Cubs clinch. The Sox and Cubs celebrations are greater in number than Bears. I think the seasonal formats of the two sports has a lot to do with baseball's reign over football. Edited December 23, 2006 by shoota Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
IlliniKrush Posted December 23, 2006 Share Posted December 23, 2006 Pure numbers standpoint, bears. Intensity/knowledge standpoint? I'd go baseball. As 101 said, every chump in this city follows the Bears, whether they are really passionate or know anything about the game at all. There's too many 'da bears!' fans out there. To me, that doesn't make it a dominant football town. If anything, i'd put it at a tie. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Random Posted December 30, 2006 Share Posted December 30, 2006 QUOTE(knightni @ Dec 20, 2006 -> 11:29 PM) Chicago is a Bears town. Anyone who votes baseball hasn't paid attention in the last 20+ years. '85 Bears >>>> 6 Bulls champs and 1 Sox champ in most people's eyes. Not mine, but in the casual (Cubs) fan's eyes. well, before the last 10 years, it was definitely a Hawks town. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
knightni Posted December 30, 2006 Share Posted December 30, 2006 QUOTE(Random @ Dec 29, 2006 -> 10:54 PM) well, before the last 10 years, it was definitely a Hawks town. No way. I just can't believe that. I've been a Chicago fan all my life and except for playoff flirtation in the early 90s with Mike Keenan, the Hawks have been duds since the early 70s. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Random Posted December 30, 2006 Share Posted December 30, 2006 QUOTE(knightni @ Dec 29, 2006 -> 11:04 PM) No way. I just can't believe that. I've been a Chicago fan all my life and except for playoff flirtation in the early 90s with Mike Keenan, the Hawks have been duds since the early 70s. playoff flirtation? they made the playoffs every year in the 80's and were in the stanley cup in 93. The Stadium was always sold out. It was louder in there than soldier field ever was. Im not saying its currently a hockey town, but 80's and early 90's, it definitely was... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kwolf68 Posted December 31, 2006 Share Posted December 31, 2006 George Stanley Halas basically started the NFL...the Bears are the pioneering/charter franchise of the NFL with arguably the most colorful history in the sport. The Bears of the 1940s were probably the greatest franchise prior to the 1960s Packers and could have done more had the war not broken that amazing team up. The Bears have what many consider the greatest single season team in history (1985)...Chicago is a Bears town. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
santo=dorf Posted December 31, 2006 Share Posted December 31, 2006 QUOTE(southsider2k5 @ Dec 21, 2006 -> 06:26 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Football and its not even close. I disagree. The average attendance of a Cubs game + the average attendance of a Sox game > average attendance of a Bears game. ...but I still think it's a "football" town. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
IlliniKrush Posted December 31, 2006 Share Posted December 31, 2006 QUOTE(Random @ Dec 30, 2006 -> 04:43 PM) playoff flirtation? they made the playoffs every year in the 80's and were in the stanley cup in 93. The Stadium was always sold out. It was louder in there than soldier field ever was. Im not saying its currently a hockey town, but 80's and early 90's, it definitely was... Hardest ticket in town at that time. Christ you couldn't steal one if you wanted to. Also, if playoff flirtation means making it to the Cup Finals, then i'm not familiar with the English language. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mmmmmbeeer Posted January 1, 2007 Share Posted January 1, 2007 I'll disagree and say Chicago is a baseball town. I've been out of the Chicago area for about 12 years and every time I come home I'm surprised by just how much love baseball gets in that city, moreso than any other city I've ever visited. Sure you can say that the Bears were the first in the NFL, but the Sox and Cubs go back atleast another generation. 100+ years of two franchises in the same city tends to create a pretty deep bond, one that 60+ years of football cannot compete with. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
santo=dorf Posted January 1, 2007 Share Posted January 1, 2007 (edited) Assuming an unlimited capacity, which game has the biggest attendance figure and higher TV ratings; A Bears-Packers game, or a Sox-Cubs game? Edited January 1, 2007 by santo=dorf Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
IlliniKrush Posted January 2, 2007 Share Posted January 2, 2007 Scheduled at the same time? Are the records all the same (say, .500?) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Random Posted January 2, 2007 Share Posted January 2, 2007 QUOTE(santo=dorf @ Dec 30, 2006 -> 08:24 PM) I disagree. The average attendance of a Cubs game + the average attendance of a Sox game > average attendance of a Bears game. if soldier field held 50,000 more people, there would be 50,000 more people there. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DrunkBomber Posted January 2, 2007 Share Posted January 2, 2007 QUOTE(Jordan4life_2006 @ Dec 22, 2006 -> 01:54 AM) How many people showed up at the Sox parade? Like 2 million, right? Well, let's just say the Bears had a championship parade that same day. The Sox parade would have had about as many people as the Cell does when the Royals come to town in April. Chicago belongs to the Bears. That would be terrible planning Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
santo=dorf Posted January 2, 2007 Share Posted January 2, 2007 QUOTE(IlliniKrush @ Jan 1, 2007 -> 07:14 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Scheduled at the same time? Are the records all the same (say, .500?) Let's say the Sox are playing like they are in 2006, and the cubs are average. Since it's interleague, it'll be a day in June. The Bears and Packers are playing in the third week of the season. ....and Random, don't Cub fans say the say thing about Wrigley Field even if the Cards or Sox aren't there? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
southsider2k5 Posted January 2, 2007 Share Posted January 2, 2007 QUOTE(santo=dorf @ Jan 1, 2007 -> 05:55 PM) Assuming an unlimited capacity, which game has the biggest attendance figure and higher TV ratings; A Bears-Packers game, or a Sox-Cubs game? The question shouldn't be about the biggest game, it should be about the smallest game. Anyone will show up for a big game, that doesn't prove anything. Put the Sox against Tampa, the Cubs in their usual 5th place against Pittsburgh and the Bears against Arizona and tell me how many people will show up to each, and which one will get the bigger ratings. That tells me which team is bigger in Chicago. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
knightni Posted January 2, 2007 Share Posted January 2, 2007 Football by nature draws larger crowds because there are fewer games. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SoxFan76 Posted January 3, 2007 Share Posted January 3, 2007 I'm very surprised by these answers. I was going to say baseball, but if it is football, it's not by much. The city was just buzzing so much more when the Sox made the playoffs than the Bears. And that's in a city with TWO baseball teams. Ratings and **attendance say the White Sox are more popular, but I'd still say the Cubs top us because they are owned by the media. But the gap is shrinking by the day. Bears-Cubs-White Sox-Bulls-Wolves-Blackhawks **Correct me if I'm wrong, but the AL counts people through the turnstyles, not tickets paid, and the NL is the opposite? Or do I have those mixed up. Turnstyle counts would lower overall attendance numbers, that's why I'm asking. If this is true the attendance numbers are virtually the same. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
santo=dorf Posted January 3, 2007 Share Posted January 3, 2007 QUOTE(southsider2k5 @ Jan 2, 2007 -> 11:44 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}> The question shouldn't be about the biggest game, it should be about the smallest game. Anyone will show up for a big game, that doesn't prove anything. Put the Sox against Tampa, the Cubs in their usual 5th place against Pittsburgh and the Bears against Arizona and tell me how many people will show up to each, and which one will get the bigger ratings. That tells me which team is bigger in Chicago. We're not arguing teams, we're arguing sports. It's also really not that fair to compare MLB atttendance's to NFL's. If the Sox or Cubs played only 8 home games a year, they sell out. Easily. Look at the coverage the Sox and Cubs get when they play each other. They broadcast 2 hours of BP on comcast now. QUOTE(knightni @ Jan 2, 2007 -> 11:49 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Football by nature draws larger crowds because there are fewer games. Bingo. I highly dount the Bears would draw 67K to every home game if there were 81 of them. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
southsider2k5 Posted January 4, 2007 Share Posted January 4, 2007 QUOTE(santo=dorf @ Jan 3, 2007 -> 05:59 PM) We're not arguing teams, we're arguing sports. It's also really not that fair to compare MLB atttendance's to NFL's. If the Sox or Cubs played only 8 home games a year, they sell out. Easily. Look at the coverage the Sox and Cubs get when they play each other. They broadcast 2 hours of BP on comcast now. Bingo. I highly dount the Bears would draw 67K to every home game if there were 81 of them. The Bears also have by far the highest ticket prices in town too. If they cost what a baseball game cost, their attendance would also be much higher over the course of a longer season too. The Bears also get 3 hours of pregame on their radio station, the game broadcast and then 3 more hours of post game for each game they play. It doesn't even have to be a rival game. You are getting about 9 hours of coverage on just their station, not counting all of the stuff on stations like comcast. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
IlliniKrush Posted January 4, 2007 Share Posted January 4, 2007 QUOTE(southsider2k5 @ Jan 4, 2007 -> 09:02 AM) The Bears also get 3 hours of pregame on their radio station, the game broadcast and then 3 more hours of post game for each game they play. It doesn't even have to be a rival game. You are getting about 9 hours of coverage on just their station, not counting all of the stuff on stations like comcast. Sox/Cubs play 16, they'd get that too. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
southsider2k5 Posted January 4, 2007 Share Posted January 4, 2007 QUOTE(IlliniKrush @ Jan 4, 2007 -> 12:26 PM) Sox/Cubs play 16, they'd get that too. Do they get that for the Tampa Bay Devil Rays or Pittsburgh Pirates? That is what really shows how faithful fans. People will show up for the big games, a town is defined by being behind a team all of the time.... The only thing the big games show is how big the bandwagon is. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
IlliniKrush Posted January 4, 2007 Share Posted January 4, 2007 For only 16 games, i believe they would without a doubt. If the sox play only every other sunday at home, people would jam the place regardless of opponent. It's way easier to be a bears fan in this town than it is a baseball fan, as it's a shorter season. As i said earlier, they attract the 'dumb' fan very easily. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jordan4life_2007 Posted January 5, 2007 Share Posted January 5, 2007 This question is better left unanswered until 'hopefully' the Bears get to the SB. There won't be any debating if that happens. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CanOfCorn Posted January 5, 2007 Share Posted January 5, 2007 QUOTE(IlliniKrush @ Jan 4, 2007 -> 01:22 PM) For only 16 games, i believe they would without a doubt. If the sox play only every other sunday at home, people would jam the place regardless of opponent. It's way easier to be a bears fan in this town than it is a baseball fan, as it's a shorter season. As i said earlier, they attract the 'dumb' fan very easily. That may be true...but there is a split between two teams in Chicago and yet everyone gets behind the Bears. Plus, I think there have been more memorable personalities that have resonated with the Bears fans than almost every other team. Blackhawks are probably second in that category. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
santo=dorf Posted January 5, 2007 Share Posted January 5, 2007 QUOTE(CanOfCorn @ Jan 4, 2007 -> 06:06 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}> That may be true...but there is a split between two teams in Chicago and yet everyone gets behind the Bears. Plus, I think there have been more memorable personalities that have resonated with the Bears fans than almost every other team. Blackhawks are probably second in that category. Am I the only one who read the title? The starter is asking about a particular SPORT, not TEAM. Chicago Baseball = Cubs + White Sox + Cardinals Chicago Football = Bears + Packers Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.