Jason >>>>>>>>>>> Hawk

[WBWSF]

Don't be too sure that the Cubs won't lose some of their fanbase when they have their network. I'm under the impression that all of their games will be on their network. They won't have any of their games on free TV. If this actually happens the White Sox will be the only team in Chicago on free TV.

[southsider2k5]

Don't be too sure that the Cubs won't lose some of their fanbase when they have their network. I'm under the impression that all of their games will be on their network. They won't have any of their games on free TV. If this actually happens the White Sox will be the only team in Chicago on free TV.

 

No one in Chicago is on "free" TV fully. The Cubs are on regular TV a lot, but they are on CSN a lot.

[Panerista]

Don't be too sure that the Cubs won't lose some of their fanbase when they have their network. I'm under the impression that all of their games will be on their network. They won't have any of their games on free TV. If this actually happens the White Sox will be the only team in Chicago on free TV.

The Cubs will be as popular under their own banner network as they have ever been. You can take that to the bank.

[caulfield12]

And it's not just the WGN TV aspect.

 

Look at the Braves, they had the same advantage with WTBS/TNT and even branded themselves, "America's Team."

 

They even had that incredible 14 year playoff run (albeit only 1 title), but I doubt the number of current Cubs' fans vs. Braves' fans nationally (especially outside of their home viewing regions) must be running something like 10 or 15 to 1 in favor of the Cubs over the Braves for favorite team.

 

Part of the falloff, imo, was due to Ted Turner selling the team. He was an iconic owner (and memorably, manager for one game).

Edited May 17, 2016 by caulfield12

[Black_Jack29]

The Cubs will be as popular under their own banner network as they have ever been. You can take that to the bank.

 

Around Chicago, yes. Nationally, I doubt it.

 

The Cubs being televised nationally on WGN, like the Braves being televised nationally on TBS, gave them a large nation-wide following. Since this is no longer true in either case, I don't see how either team is going to maintain a national following like that with the next generation of fans.

 

[Panerista]

Around Chicago, yes. Nationally, I doubt it.

 

The Cubs being televised nationally on WGN, like the Braves being televised nationally on TBS, gave them a large nation-wide following. Since this is no longer true in either case, I don't see how either team is going to maintain a national following like that with the next generation of fans.

 

Games are more accessible than ever for out of market teams. Heck, it's easier for me to watch the Cubs and White Sox than it is to watch my local franchises in some situations.

 

The Cubs Network is more likely to be more complicated for Chicagoans than for those outside of Chicago. MLB.tv solves all those problems. MLB.tv is a better overall experience than the local cable broadcasts.

Edited May 17, 2016 by Deadpool

[Black_Jack29]

Games are more accessible than ever for out of market teams. Heck, it's easier for me to watch the Cubs and White Sox than it is to watch my local franchises in some situations.

 

The Cubs Network is more likely to be more complicated for Chicagoans than for those outside of Chicago. MLB.tv solves all those problems. MLB.tv is a better overall experience than the local cable broadcasts.

 

Joe and Jane Average Fan aren't going to pay for MLB.TV. MLB.TV also has lots of feed problems and, outside of its replay capability, is inferior to a standard TV broadcast.

 

Don't automatically assume that the Cubs' national popularity trajection will remain the same indefinitely. They're no longer getting free airtime on standard cable/satellite packages, and that's going to make a huge difference. And we haven't even begun to consider how the growing popularity of soccer will affect baseball's popularity over the next few decades.

 

Edited May 18, 2016 by Black_Jack29

[Panerista]

Joe and Jane Average Fan aren't going to pay for MLB.TV. MLB.TV also has lots of feed problems and, outside of its replay capability, is inferior to a standard TV broadcast.

 

Don't automatically assume that the Cubs' national popularity trajection will remain the same indefinitely. They're no longer getting free airtime on standard cable/satellite packages, and that's going to make a huge difference. And we haven't even begun to consider how the growing popularity of soccer will affect baseball's popularity over the next few decades.

 

Joe and Jane average fan only watch 20% of games anyway. Joe and Jane didn't watch WGN Cubs games because Joe and Jane have jobs.

 

I get it, you don't like the Cubs. That's fine. They're the third most popular team in baseball year in and year out and they're likely to only get bigger regardless of any of your made up scenarios. If the Cubs continue to be good, fans will find them.

 

I could give a crap about the Cubs, but please stop living up to the mantra that Sox fans only care about Cubs failing. It's still not a good look for you.

Edited May 18, 2016 by Deadpool

[caulfield12]

As someone who has played soccer since 4th/5th grade and coached it and watch all the World Cup, UEFA Champions' League etc., there's no way that soccer is the sport lowering baseball viewing.

 

Part of it's about baseball representing an older generation of fans (comparatively), and also many in their 40's-80's actually prefer to follow the sport via a radio broadcast, which doesn't work quite as well for the other major sports.

 

As someone mentioned, along with At Bat (I-pad/mobile phones), you have GameDay audio, you're starting to get free games/content at YAHOO and Facebook and Twitter, etc.

 

Actually, the Cubs winning the World Series this year would be great in general for baseball as a sport because it would bring new fans (especially youngsters) to the sport, and that's where baseball has been losing to basketball, football, NASCAR, extreme sports/X-Games, Esports, mixed martial arts, etc.

 

Right now, the NBA and MLB are about on even par in terms of profitability and team valuations.

 

 

[Kyyle23]

As someone who has played soccer since 4th/5th grade and coached it and watch all the World Cup, UEFA Champions' League etc., there's no way that soccer is the sport lowering baseball viewing.

 

Part of it's about baseball representing an older generation of fans (comparatively), and also many in their 40's-80's actually prefer to follow the sport via a radio broadcast, which doesn't work quite as well for the other major sports.

 

As someone mentioned, along with At Bat (I-pad/mobile phones), you have GameDay audio, you're starting to get free games/content at YAHOO and Facebook and Twitter, etc.

 

Actually, the Cubs winning the World Series this year would be great in general for baseball as a sport because it would bring new fans (especially youngsters) to the sport, and that's where baseball has been losing to basketball, football, NASCAR, extreme sports/X-Games, Esports, mixed martial arts, etc.

 

Right now, the NBA and MLB are about on even par in terms of profitability and team valuations.

 

 

LMAO what?

 

 

Boom, qualified

[caulfield12]

The poster has a duty/obligation to prove his point.

 

Where is there any direct evidence/correlation with increasing MISL or even Men's/Women's World Cup viewership and decreasing baseball ratings?

 

There seems to be very little crossover between fans of the two sports.

 

The youth participation rates have been quite high since the 1980's, especially for girls, but it's not translating to more and more soccer on tv. If anything, the main reason driving the futbol viewership is 10X illegal gambling throughout the world vs. a fall in baseball fandom. You can PARTIALLY attribute the fall in youth baseball participation to soccer, but not necessarily broadcast revenues. There are MANY young people who enjoy playing the game, but they don't necessarily enjoy watching on tv. Same with golf, for that matter.

 

 

Boom, nobody other than PTAC is truly qualified to discuss anything here. Do all the movie and film threads require a degree from a film school or job writing reviews for the Tribune or Sun-Times?

Edited May 18, 2016 by caulfield12

[Panerista]

If I'm baseball, I want the Cubs to win the World Series ASAP while their guys are young. The media surrounding that franchise would be huge for the sport. If the Cubs had a "dynasty", it would be like the Blackhawks in the NHL magnified tenfold.

[shysocks]

Props to Benetti for getting on Twitter after the game last night and hashing out the interference rules.

 

Jason Benetti ‏@jasonbenetti 9h9 hours ago

Don't tweet without a rule book in front of you:

If a batter is out and impedes a play made on a teammate, the teammate is out. DP.

 

Jason Benetti ‏@jasonbenetti 9h9 hours ago

In the case of interference with an on-going batter, runner returns to base. In case of interference with batter who is out, runner is out.

 

Jason Benetti ‏@jasonbenetti 9h9 hours ago

As many have cited, the rule is 6.01(a)(5), and the standard is "hinders or impedes." So, no requirement of contact on catcher.

[Panerista]

Props to Benetti for getting on Twitter after the game last night and hashing out the interference rules.

 

Jason Benetti ‏@jasonbenetti 9h9 hours ago

Don't tweet without a rule book in front of you:

If a batter is out and impedes a play made on a teammate, the teammate is out. DP.

 

Jason Benetti ‏@jasonbenetti 9h9 hours ago

In the case of interference with an on-going batter, runner returns to base. In case of interference with batter who is out, runner is out.

 

Jason Benetti ‏@jasonbenetti 9h9 hours ago

As many have cited, the rule is 6.01(a)(5), and the standard is "hinders or impedes." So, no requirement of contact on catcher.

Hawk would just go silent and provide no feedback. We're lucky to have Jason.

[southsider2k5]

Hawk would just go silent and provide no feedback. We're lucky to have Jason.

 

Like hell he would. He would have had an epic meltdown.

[Panerista]

Like hell he would. He would have had an epic meltdown.

Epic meltdown with zero substance.

[lasttriptotulsa]

Epic meltdown with zero substance.

 

We get it, you don't like Hawk. You've made that abundantly clear in your 29 posts in this thread. You don't need to keep repeating yourself after every new post you broken f***ing record.

[Black_Jack29]

Joe and Jane average fan only watch 20% of games anyway. Joe and Jane didn't watch WGN Cubs games because Joe and Jane have jobs.

 

I get it, you don't like the Cubs. That's fine. They're the third most popular team in baseball year in and year out and they're likely to only get bigger regardless of any of your made up scenarios. If the Cubs continue to be good, fans will find them.

 

I could give a crap about the Cubs, but please stop living up to the mantra that Sox fans only care about Cubs failing. It's still not a good look for you.

 

That's an interesting use of straw man arguments, but they have no basis in reality.

 

I don't care much about the Cubs. Your argument that their recent and future lack free advertising via WGN will not affect their casual fan base across the country is silly. Of course it will, and very few casual fans are going to all pay for MLB.TV to watch a small percentage of games.

 

[harkness99]

I guess a lot of you enjoy the type of announcers that put on the persona that they don't give a F*** about the game.

 

Jason has some good qualities... but he sorry as dottering as Hawk can be at times I prefer his passion and the fact over the years he truly cares about the outcome.

[greg775]

If I'm baseball, I want the Cubs to win the World Series ASAP while their guys are young. The media surrounding that franchise would be huge for the sport. If the Cubs had a "dynasty", it would be like the Blackhawks in the NHL magnified tenfold.

Good comparison to the Blackhawks. I would think with the $$$ they are spending and willing to spend and the current talent assembled, Cubs probably are going to win three WS in the next 5-6 years. If they don't win it this year, then there truly is a jinx. Team is head and shoulders better than anybody. I was hopeful the Sox would have this dynamite pitching staff all year and stifle Cubs in WS. However it's all come down to earth like a boulder thrown off a 10 story building. Our pitching ain't anything special after all.

[Panerista]

I guess a lot of you enjoy the type of announcers that put on the persona that they don't give a F*** about the game.

 

Jason has some good qualities... but he sorry as dottering as Hawk can be at times I prefer his passion and the fact over the years he truly cares about the outcome.

Jason is a lifelong White Sox fan. He cares about the outcome of the game. The difference is Jason has perspective. The reality is, there is no reason to get too excited this early in the season. Hawk's "passion" is played out and boring. He gets frustrated and upset by things a month into the season. Please save some of it for when the team is really accomplishing things.

[Y2Jimmy0]

Good comparison to the Blackhawks. I would think with the $$$ they are spending and willing to spend and the current talent assembled, Cubs probably are going to win three WS in the next 5-6 years. If they don't win it this year, then there truly is a jinx. Team is head and shoulders better than anybody. I was hopeful the Sox would have this dynamite pitching staff all year and stifle Cubs in WS. However it's all come down to earth like a boulder thrown off a 10 story building. Our pitching ain't anything special after all.

 

 

Greg, that's not the way it works. You know that. Be smarter. You need to assemble a team to make the playoffs. Whatever happens in the playoffs is a random crapshoot though. Variance trumps everything. If the Sox and Cubs make it to the postseason, the Sox have as good of a chance to win the World Series as the Cubs do.

[LVSoxFan]

Jason's been awesome. Plus, he tends to drop in sly movie and pop-culture references throughout (including last night) which are so much more refreshing than Hawk's "Back in the day" ruminations. I really like the change.

[harkness99]

Jason is a lifelong White Sox fan. He cares about the outcome of the game. The difference is Jason has perspective. The reality is, there is no reason to get too excited this early in the season. Hawk's "passion" is played out and boring. He gets frustrated and upset by things a month into the season. Please save some of it for when the team is really accomplishing things.

 

Ahh k so Benetti doesn't get excited because it's early in the season...You know this how exactly? I also never said he didn't care - that is the presentation style.

 

I more I listen I'm starting to not like him and Stone together that much.

 

It's kind of like being at the movie but your friends are joking and not paying attention and you are trying to watch the movie.

[Thad Bosley]

Ahh k so Benetti doesn't get excited because it's early in the season...You know this how exactly? I also never said he didn't care - that is the presentation style.

 

I more I listen I'm starting to not like him and Stone together that much.

 

It's kind of like being at the movie but your friends are joking and not paying attention and you are trying to watch the movie.

Jason needs to curb some of his little jokes that aren't all that funny. He does have several witty barbs throughout the telecast, but just one too many nerdy comments that tend to take the focus off the game and require Stone to have to reel it back in.