florida marlins rant with chicago references

youre not understanding...
 >> Stay informed about: florida marlins rant with chicago references 

I'm still not getting your point, when has any Sox fan ever whined over
attendance versus the Cubs. In any conversation I've been in with people
regarding Cub-Luv it's consistently the Cub fans that throw out the
attendance issue. Myself I'm glad they outdraw the Sox. It's much easier to
not be the premier draw and win versus have the gate and loose. And if the
tables were turned in Chicago I don't doubt it a bit that Reinsdork would
get his jollies from attendance $'s versus a ring.
"boca brian" <bocabrian DeleteThis @hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1134421162.304487.18440@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com...
> no inferiority complex? that is exactly the point I am making, it
> takes my than a winning team to generate strong attendance...
>
 >> Stay informed about: florida marlins rant with chicago references 

This message is not archived
 >> Stay informed about: florida marlins rant with chicago references 

T or G,

I appreciate the kind words. Thanks!

I agree running a SUCCESSFUL sports franchise is difficult, especially
in baseball. I think football is easier.

You have made a lot of points I either don't understand or disagree
with.

Microsoft does not blame the customer and in recent years people have
moved away from some of their products (internet explorer to firefox,
among others) I don't understand how a company could create a
monopoly (legally) without satisfying its customers (unless it was
exempt from anti trust laws like baseball).

Your point about good management, smart money et al is true, winning is
important, but point is that it does not cure all attendance problems.
I think a fan friendly stadium in a good location is also necessary. I
think there are other things that contribute to someone's decision to
attend a game beyond a winning team. I used the cubs/white sox as
evidence of my contention. I think fans dislike for an owner can impact
their desire to shell out money for a team. I agree there are no
guarantees, but winning is not the only thing fans (casual and die
hards) care about.

The difference between Huzinga and these cads is that Huzinga realized
he could not make a go of it and sold the team to someone else. These
knuckleheads seemingly are trying to do what they did in Montréal and
destroy baseball in the region. They have refused to entertain offers
and have said they will not sell the team. Huzinga was honest these
guys are morally reprehensible and bad business men IMHO.

I also disagree that interesting team is not important, no doubt
winning is typically more important, but there are several examples of
teams that were not winners that were very compelling national and
locally. Remember when MJ first showed up, attendance went up, well
before the championships, same with Walter Payton and Barry Sanders and
many others right?

I agree with you that a new stadium is not a panacea, and Pittsburgh is
the best example of this, but I think you would agree that a fan
friendly stadium in a convenient location with interesting pre and post
game activities would be preferable to a concrete stadium in a bad part
of town that people cant wait to leave?

thanks for an intelligent post, even though i disagree with some it was
well reasoned and articulated.
 >> Stay informed about: florida marlins rant with chicago references 

On 2005-12-10 17:38:06 -0800, "boca brian" <bocabrian RemoveThis @hotmail.com> said:

Interesting thoughts, but the issues are more complex and deeper than
you probe. To wit:

> In 2000, the Astros moved into their retro digs, the 42,000-seat Minute
> Maid Park. The team's $25 average ticket price is the seventh-highest
> in the majors, though it plays in the 11th largest market. Every game
> is either sold out or close to it, which was not the case when the team
> played in the Astrodome.

How about the fact that the Astros have been consistently competitive
for a number of years now? Enron is a beautiful park (went there 2
years ago), but it is always the product that drives the audience, not
the park

> We all know what happened when Baltimore and Cleveland built new retro
> stadiums, attendance went through the roof.

And what happens the years after? My quick a quick study for one of her
MBA classes last year, and I believe that for every recent park (except
for San Fran), every one's attendence declined after the first two
seasons. I can't find her sources now, but did find there other ones:
--------------
http://www.usatoday.com/sports/baseball/2003-05-09-attendance-dip_x.htm
"And, the first five weeks show that new baseball parks aren't the
answer. All five ballparks that opened between 2000-02 show attendance
declines, although the average attendance at Pac Bell Park in San
Francisco is down only 1%, with an average attendance of 38,768."
....
"It's a myth to think that new stadiums are sold out from the first
day. When Cleveland opened Jacobs Field in 1994, the Indians had an
opening-day sellout but didn't begin a streak of 40,000-plus crowds
until June 13."
----------------
also
----------------
http://www.usatoday.com/sports/baseball/allstar/2005-07-11-new-parks-c...r_x.htm

DETROIT
Year

entered AL: 1901
Last winning record: 1993
Last playoff: 1987
New park: 2000
First-year attendance: 2.53M
Last year's attendance: 1.92M

PITTSBURGH
Year entered NL: 1887
Last winning record: 1992
Last playoff: 1992
New park: 2001
First-year attendance: 2.44M
Last year's attendance: 1.58M

CINCINNATI
Year entered NL: 1876 (left after 1880, rejoined for 1890 season)
Last winning record: 2000
Last playoff: 1995
New park: 2003
First-year attendance: 2.36M
Last year's attendance: 2.29M


If they are not wiling to spend their own money to build a stadium,
> their only choice is to sell the team back to a competent local owner
> (huzinga perhaps) that is willing to put up his own money to finance a
> stadium (as Joe Robbie did).
>
> Do these knuckleheads really think they could do something that two
> local smart business men (Huzinga/Henry) were unable to do? Did they
> really think that they would get the city/county/state government to
> build them a stadium after Huzinga and Henry failed? These guys ought
> to realize they have no business acumen and get the hell out of
> baseball and out of south florida.
>
Correct me if I am wrong, but didn't Huzinga do a big version of the
Monty Shuffle (hiding expenses and revenues) and basically rape/ruin
the franchise??

The cubs drew over 3 million and had a sub 500 team in 2005. The white
> sox were in first place almost the entire year and won the world series
> and drew only 2.3 million. The cubs filled their park to 98% of
> capacity (total available seats/total attendance). If the Cubs had a
> larger park their attendance would have been significantly higher.
>
> Faulty.
Part of the interest in the location and the size of the park. You
build a bigger park somewhere else, and the local support may
significantly dwindle (or stay the same) instead of getting larger.
Just because you build a larger stadium does not mean it will fill.
Otherwise everyone would have a Michigan Stadium.

My point is, it takes more winning to generate attendance (winning of
> course helps, but there are other things).
>
> Let's see...

It takes a fan friendly ball park in a good location, (not a ball mall
with a steep upper deck in a
> poor neighborhood)
>
> If you mean good, well-designed ballpark, then I agree.

with interesting pre and post game activities,
>
> Maybe, maybe not... have not seen any evidence here to support this statement.

it takes an interesting team,
>
> No. It takes a good team.
Interesting is optional.

if might take a likeable owner (Reinsdork is hated in Chicago),
>
> Completely irrelevant.

it might take a fan friendly atmosphere (there are a lot of fights at
Comisery),
>
> There's a ton more at Dodger stadium, so what does that say about your
> hypothosis?

it may take likable superstars, (the cubs had sosa, sandburg, santo,
jenkins, sutter, maddox, banks) the white sox had the surly (Frank
Thomas, Dick Allen),
>
> See comment regarding interesting team.

it may take a superstation broadcasting games cross country,
>
> That significantly extends the reach for a fan base, yes. Does not
> guarantee it though.

My point, there are many things that contribute to a
> successful franchise.
>
> Yes, but you miss the most important ones: good management, smart money
> spending, and excellent scounting and player analysis.

There is one thing that never works, blaming the fans or potential
> customers. No business survives by alienating its customers.
>
> Not true. Look at Microsoft. Businesses constantly attempt a monopoly
> for this very reason.


The post is a nice effort, and a lot of work (the vegas point is nicely
framed), but there is a reason that running a successful sports
franchise is difficult... It takes *alot* of juggling to get things
done right, and priorities constantly change.


G
 >> Stay informed about: florida marlins rant with chicago references 

"There is a reason the Cell doesn't fill and Wrigley does. Sox fans
care
about good teams, work hard long hours on the job, and have other
commitments. Wrigley fills whether the team sucks or not because it
gives
people downtown a chance to play hooky from work, unemployed a chance
to
hang out and teens and young adults a chance to take off their shirts
and
get drunk. you could put the Chicago Bandits at Wrigley at fill that
stadium in the afternoon or evening. Well, except the gals that play
on the
Bandits have better taste than to be caught hanging out at Wrigley"

Pure silliness! Nothing here is true, its just what sox fans tell
themselves in attempt to explain the popularity differences. You dont
think the unemployed or those playing hooky have a choice of which
stadium to attend?

It kinda like the logic yogi berra used when he said :no one goes there
anymore, its too crowded.
 >> Stay informed about: florida marlins rant with chicago references 

"boca brian" <bocabrian DeleteThis @hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1134531594.465542.42090@g49g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...

Your point about good management, smart money et al is true, winning is
important, but point is that it does not cure all attendance problems.
I think a fan friendly stadium in a good location is also necessary. I
think there are other things that contribute to someone's decision to
attend a game beyond a winning team. I used the cubs/white sox as
evidence of my contention. I think fans dislike for an owner can impact
their desire to shell out money for a team. I agree there are no
guarantees, but winning is not the only thing fans (casual and die
hards) care about.

You finally said something I agree with. I haven't been to Comiskey since 94
and won't go back as long as Reinsdork owns them. And winning is not the
only thing I care about, I've followed the Sox for 47 years regardless of
the W/L record.

I agree with you that a new stadium is not a panacea, and Pittsburgh is
the best example of this, but I think you would agree that a fan
friendly stadium in a convenient location with interesting pre and post
game activities would be preferable to a concrete stadium in a bad part
of town that people cant wait to leave?

This is the typical Cub-Luv mantra I been hearing since 91, and expect to
hear as long as the Sox win more than the Cubs.
 >> Stay informed about: florida marlins rant with chicago references 

maybe you hear it cause its true?? there has to be reasons why there
are so many more cubs fans than white sox fans, right?
 >> Stay informed about: florida marlins rant with chicago references 

"Jed Taylor" <asbcc RemoveThis @offthedial.com> wrote in message
news:oqttp15e1gqgm4jvqmgik29tp92oos81cj@4ax.com...
> On Tue, 13 Dec 2005 00:30:21 -0600, "Ken Zwyers" <zeker RemoveThis @anet.com>
> wrote:
>
> >Can you give any facts to back that up? It's a nice, airy, wide open,
and
> >fairly clean stadium. And, in the last few offseasons, it's been spruced
up
> >so that it is no longer such a sterile place.
>
> Sure, that's easy. Over the past decade+, numerous articles
> concerning the design of ballparks coming online have pointed to
> abject failure of New Comiskey and how architects (most notably HOK, I
> believe) have studiously avoided making the same mistakes.
>
> Several years ago, I had dinner with a guy whose firm was responsible
> (and he was in charge of the project itself) for building the new
> minor league park in Dayton, OH, and we discussed this very subject.
> He, too, spoke at length about how NC defined what-not-to-build, and
> how virtually every design following it, including the ballpark he was
> responsible for, strove for a retro feeling that clearly "borrowed"
> from classic stadiums (stadiae?) such as Wrigley and Fenway.
>
> No amount of "sprucing up" is going to change the mountain range of
> concrete that envelops both player and fan. No amount of "sprucing
> up" is going to change the pitch of the upper deck, where one feels
> like the slightest misstep forward will cause a tumble into the lower
> deck. What's been done is just putting lipstick on a pig.
>

Well, that's your opinion. My opinion is that it wasn't as bad as it was
made out to be from the start. And the improvements the last few off
seasons has made major improvements. Again, it's a matter of one's
preferences.

>
>
> >
> >Look, you don't like the place? Fine - that's your right. But if you're
> >going to trash the place, at least give some examples as to why.
>
> I have. It has all the panache of an Elvis-in-black-velvet painting.
> And we haven't even touched on its location and all the entertainment
> options surrounding it. Now that would make for one very, very short
> paragraph.
>

Again, if that's how you feel, that's your opinion. Being familiar with the
area, I know where the fun places to go are, and I like the easy access to
the highway if I'm going straight home. Location is fine with me. If you
don't like it, if you'd rather fight through the side streets surrounding
Wrigley, more power to you.

>
>
> >
> >And, yes, the stadium was ramrodded through Springfield. I'm a Sox fan,
not
> >necessarily a Reinsdorf fan. But you Cubs fans have been getting screwed
> >with, as well.
>
> The Tribune company doesn't use tax dollars to conduct its business,
> at least as it relates to running an MLB franchise. In fact, because
> King Richard objects to accurate reporting of his corruption and is a
> Sux fan, the Cubs suffer because of local and state government rather
> than benefit from it, as have the Sux, the Bearlys, and the Bulls.
>

It doesn't matter where the money's going, it's needlessly coming out of
your pockets, and you're ok with it! As far as the rest of your statement,
sounds like sour grapes. The mayor hasn't had an accurate reporting to who?
To you? Who are you to decide what's accurate or not. Yeah, the Cubs are
suffering all the way to the bank. They're the ones who shoved the new
stands down the city's throat. They're the ones who keep messing with the
building owners across the street over nickels and dimes. And they're the
ones who are scalping their own tickets. And they're the ones who have
their fans so duped that they constantly sell out for a second-rate team.
Yeah, they've got it really tough.

>
>
> > The team keeps giving you the impression that they're
> >putting a quality team together, and every year you get disappointed.
Why?
>
> Whatever my level of disappointment may be regarding the personnel of
> the Cubs, it has nothing to do with the joke foisted upon IL taxpayers
> called NC. We're taking about stadiums. No one every tells a visitor
> to Chicago that they must visit NC at least once, and no one flies in
> from all over the country to attend a game there. Oh, and Wrigley
> doesn't have to change its name every few years upon the latest
> application of said lipstick in the hopes that people will forget
> that, yes, the park sucks.
>

I don't know what to say - the deal for the new stadium was made over 15
years ago - get over it. And, between the two latest Sox stadiums, the name
has been changed once in the past 95 years. That can hardly be described as
"every few years". But, then again, why muck up a discussion with an
accurate description of the facts?

>
>
> >Because they're not really trying to put together a first rate team.
>
> Well, that's not true. They are. How good of a job they're doing is
> what's in question, not their intention.
>
>
> > Why
> >should they spend that much money?
>
> You mean, why should they have one of the highest payrolls in
> baseball, as they do? When you get done Googling about how no one
> wants a stadium remotely like NC, check out MLB team payroll numbers.
>
>
> > They already sell out most games. They
> >just have to spend enough to make sure that you keep coming back. Why do
> >you think that, out of nowhere, they signed two free agents and traded
beans
> >for a center fielder?
>
> Out of nowhere? Just returned from a vacation to Pluto?
>

Well, what big deals did they do last winter? Jerry Hairston Jr.? Chad
Fox? Jeromy Burnitz?

>
> > Because, all of a sudden, everyone's interested in
> >the Sox.
>
> Hardly. Even Sux fan's aren't interested in the Sux, at least judging
> by attendance figures. And no one watched them in the playoffs,
> either, much to the dismay of Fox. At least you recognize that what
> attention there is is "all of a sudden".
>

Once again, you paint a different picture than the truth. The Sox had 2.3
million show up. Not Cubs numbers, but that's over 28,000 per game - hardly
the picture you paint.

>
>
> > Why do you think that they kept trotting Corey Patterson out
> >there? He's been a bust since day one - but he was cheap, and they kept
> >touting how good he'd be once he "matured".
>
> I'm no Korey fan, but he was the team's MVP in 2003 until he broke his
> ankle. Some bust that season.

Anyone can be an MVP for two months. Big deal.

>
> Stick to the Sux. What you actually know about the Cubs is rivaled
> only by how little you know about the stadium your team plays in.
>

And, as usual, when you guys can't come up with an argument based on the
facts, you resort to name calling. I haven't said anything personal about
you, why do you have to resort to that? Maybe it just shows your mentality.

> BTW - how's the father & son promotion coming for 2006?

Huh?
>
>
>
>
>
> >
> >"Jed Taylor" <asbcc RemoveThis @offthedial.com> wrote in message
> >news:lvvrp11id9uan9u7m4a65chi5d72so8jto@4ax.com...
> >> On Mon, 12 Dec 2005 08:58:49 -0600, "poka yoke" <a RemoveThis @b.c> wrote:
> >>
> >> >The Cell is a fine ballpark and will be recognized as such as time
goes
> >on.
> >>
> >>
> >> New Comiskey is a concrete albatross that has been specifically used
> >> as a the model for what-not-to-build ever since its completion. The
> >> only thing that will ever make it a "fine ballpark" is a fleet of
> >> trucks filled with C-4.
> >>
> >> It's also a fine testament to how rich owners screw taxpayers out of
> >> hundreds of millions of dollars. That characteristic, however, hardly
> >> makes it unique.
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> -------------------------
> >> "I am the federal government."
> >> - Rep. Tom DeLay (R-TX)
> >
>
>
> --------------------
>
> "What I'm hearing which is sort of scary is that they all want to stay in
Texas. Everybody is so overwhelmed by the hospitality. And so many of the
people in the arena here, you know, were underprivileged anyway so this
(chuckle) -- this is working very well for them."
> - Barbara Bush
 >> Stay informed about: florida marlins rant with chicago references 

As mentioned before, marketing, marketing, marketing.

"boca brian" <bocabrian.DeleteThis@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1134591728.663100.100540@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
> maybe you hear it cause its true?? there has to be reasons why there
> are so many more cubs fans than white sox fans, right?
>
 >> Stay informed about: florida marlins rant with chicago references 

It's because you've got a bunch of yuppies that don't care about the game.
They just care about following the herd. It's a fad, except that this fad
is different in that it hasn't gone away, yet.

"boca brian" <bocabrian RemoveThis @hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1134566462.501248.160770@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
> "There is a reason the Cell doesn't fill and Wrigley does. Sox fans
> care
> about good teams, work hard long hours on the job, and have other
> commitments. Wrigley fills whether the team sucks or not because it
> gives
> people downtown a chance to play hooky from work, unemployed a chance
> to
> hang out and teens and young adults a chance to take off their shirts
> and
> get drunk. you could put the Chicago Bandits at Wrigley at fill that
> stadium in the afternoon or evening. Well, except the gals that play
> on the
> Bandits have better taste than to be caught hanging out at Wrigley"
>
> Pure silliness! Nothing here is true, its just what sox fans tell
> themselves in attempt to explain the popularity differences. You dont
> think the unemployed or those playing hooky have a choice of which
> stadium to attend?
>
> It kinda like the logic yogi berra used when he said :no one goes there
> anymore, its too crowded.
>
 >> Stay informed about: florida marlins rant with chicago references 

Ken Zwyers wrote:
> "Jed Taylor" <asbcc.RemoveThis@offthedial.com> wrote in message
> news:oqttp15e1gqgm4jvqmgik29tp92oos81cj@4ax.com...
> > On Tue, 13 Dec 2005 00:30:21 -0600, "Ken Zwyers" <zeker.RemoveThis@anet.com>
> > wrote:
> >
> > >Can you give any facts to back that up? It's a nice, airy, wide open,
> and
> > >fairly clean stadium. And, in the last few offseasons, it's been spruced
> up
> > >so that it is no longer such a sterile place.
> >
> > Sure, that's easy. Over the past decade+, numerous articles
> > concerning the design of ballparks coming online have pointed to
> > abject failure of New Comiskey and how architects (most notably HOK, I
> > believe) have studiously avoided making the same mistakes.
> >
> > Several years ago, I had dinner with a guy whose firm was responsible
> > (and he was in charge of the project itself) for building the new
> > minor league park in Dayton, OH, and we discussed this very subject.
> > He, too, spoke at length about how NC defined what-not-to-build, and
> > how virtually every design following it, including the ballpark he was
> > responsible for, strove for a retro feeling that clearly "borrowed"
> > from classic stadiums (stadiae?) such as Wrigley and Fenway.
> >
> > No amount of "sprucing up" is going to change the mountain range of
> > concrete that envelops both player and fan. No amount of "sprucing
> > up" is going to change the pitch of the upper deck, where one feels
> > like the slightest misstep forward will cause a tumble into the lower
> > deck. What's been done is just putting lipstick on a pig.
> >
>
> Well, that's your opinion. My opinion is that it wasn't as bad as it was
> made out to be from the start. And the improvements the last few off
> seasons has made major improvements. Again, it's a matter of one's
> preferences.
>
> >
> >
> > >
> > >Look, you don't like the place? Fine - that's your right. But if you're
> > >going to trash the place, at least give some examples as to why.
> >
> > I have. It has all the panache of an Elvis-in-black-velvet painting.
> > And we haven't even touched on its location and all the entertainment
> > options surrounding it. Now that would make for one very, very short
> > paragraph.
> >
>
> Again, if that's how you feel, that's your opinion. Being familiar with the
> area, I know where the fun places to go are, and I like the easy access to
> the highway if I'm going straight home. Location is fine with me. If you
> don't like it, if you'd rather fight through the side streets surrounding
> Wrigley, more power to you.
>
> >
> >
> > >
> > >And, yes, the stadium was ramrodded through Springfield. I'm a Sox fan,
> not
> > >necessarily a Reinsdorf fan. But you Cubs fans have been getting screwed
> > >with, as well.
> >
> > The Tribune company doesn't use tax dollars to conduct its business,
> > at least as it relates to running an MLB franchise. In fact, because
> > King Richard objects to accurate reporting of his corruption and is a
> > Sux fan, the Cubs suffer because of local and state government rather
> > than benefit from it, as have the Sux, the Bearlys, and the Bulls.
> >
>
> It doesn't matter where the money's going, it's needlessly coming out of
> your pockets, and you're ok with it! As far as the rest of your statement,
> sounds like sour grapes. The mayor hasn't had an accurate reporting to who?
> To you? Who are you to decide what's accurate or not. Yeah, the Cubs are
> suffering all the way to the bank. They're the ones who shoved the new
> stands down the city's throat. They're the ones who keep messing with the
> building owners across the street over nickels and dimes. And they're the
> ones who are scalping their own tickets. And they're the ones who have
> their fans so duped that they constantly sell out for a second-rate team.
> Yeah, they've got it really tough.
>
> >
> >
> > > The team keeps giving you the impression that they're
> > >putting a quality team together, and every year you get disappointed.
> Why?
> >
> > Whatever my level of disappointment may be regarding the personnel of
> > the Cubs, it has nothing to do with the joke foisted upon IL taxpayers
> > called NC. We're taking about stadiums. No one every tells a visitor
> > to Chicago that they must visit NC at least once, and no one flies in
> > from all over the country to attend a game there. Oh, and Wrigley
> > doesn't have to change its name every few years upon the latest
> > application of said lipstick in the hopes that people will forget
> > that, yes, the park sucks.
> >
>
> I don't know what to say - the deal for the new stadium was made over 15
> years ago - get over it. And, between the two latest Sox stadiums, the name
> has been changed once in the past 95 years. That can hardly be described as
> "every few years". But, then again, why muck up a discussion with an
> accurate description of the facts?
>
> >
> >
> > >Because they're not really trying to put together a first rate team.
> >
> > Well, that's not true. They are. How good of a job they're doing is
> > what's in question, not their intention.
> >
> >
> > > Why
> > >should they spend that much money?
> >
> > You mean, why should they have one of the highest payrolls in
> > baseball, as they do? When you get done Googling about how no one
> > wants a stadium remotely like NC, check out MLB team payroll numbers.
> >
> >
> > > They already sell out most games. They
> > >just have to spend enough to make sure that you keep coming back. Why do
> > >you think that, out of nowhere, they signed two free agents and traded
> beans
> > >for a center fielder?
> >
> > Out of nowhere? Just returned from a vacation to Pluto?
> >
>
> Well, what big deals did they do last winter? Jerry Hairston Jr.? Chad
> Fox? Jeromy Burnitz?
>
> >
> > > Because, all of a sudden, everyone's interested in
> > >the Sox.
> >
> > Hardly. Even Sux fan's aren't interested in the Sux, at least judging
> > by attendance figures. And no one watched them in the playoffs,
> > either, much to the dismay of Fox. At least you recognize that what
> > attention there is is "all of a sudden".
> >
>
> Once again, you paint a different picture than the truth. The Sox had 2.3
> million show up. Not Cubs numbers, but that's over 28,000 per game - hardly
> the picture you paint.
>
> >
> >
> > > Why do you think that they kept trotting Corey Patterson out
> > >there? He's been a bust since day one - but he was cheap, and they kept
> > >touting how good he'd be once he "matured".
> >
> > I'm no Korey fan, but he was the team's MVP in 2003 until he broke his
> > ankle. Some bust that season.
>
> Anyone can be an MVP for two months. Big deal.
>
> >
> > Stick to the Sux. What you actually know about the Cubs is rivaled
> > only by how little you know about the stadium your team plays in.
> >
>
> And, as usual, when you guys can't come up with an argument based on the
> facts, you resort to name calling. I haven't said anything personal about
> you, why do you have to resort to that? Maybe it just shows your mentality.
>
> > BTW - how's the father & son promotion coming for 2006?
>
> Huh?
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > >
Ken, I read the post again, I don't really see where he is calling
you any names? But I do see where you impugn all cubs' fans with the
trite, inaccurate, overused, ...."and they're the ones who have their
fans so duped that they constantly sell out for a second-rate team"...I
don't think any cub fan is duped. They spend their money and their
time supporting their team and enjoy going to a wonderful ball park in
a great location. Don't be jealous, simply understand that different
people like different things. Just because far more people enjoy
Wrigley and the cubs does not mean you can't enjoy the sox.

The purpose of this thread was to try and identify reasons why the cubs
are so much more popular, not try to refute the fact that they are and
use it to provide some information that might be used to refute the
opinion in south Florida that the fans are to blame.

Just as reinsdork has made decisions that have negatively impacted the
sox attendance, the marlins are foolishly following the same path.
Maybe with new ownership and better business people the situation would
be different





> > >"Jed Taylor" <asbcc.RemoveThis@offthedial.com> wrote in message
> > >news:lvvrp11id9uan9u7m4a65chi5d72so8jto@4ax.com...
> > >> On Mon, 12 Dec 2005 08:58:49 -0600, "poka yoke" <a.RemoveThis@b.c> wrote:
> > >>
> > >> >The Cell is a fine ballpark and will be recognized as such as time
> goes
> > >on.
> > >>
> > >>
> > >> New Comiskey is a concrete albatross that has been specifically used
> > >> as a the model for what-not-to-build ever since its completion. The
> > >> only thing that will ever make it a "fine ballpark" is a fleet of
> > >> trucks filled with C-4.
> > >>
> > >> It's also a fine testament to how rich owners screw taxpayers out of
> > >> hundreds of millions of dollars. That characteristic, however, hardly
> > >> makes it unique.
> > >>
> > >>
> > >>
> > >>
> > >> -------------------------
> > >> "I am the federal government."
> > >> - Rep. Tom DeLay (R-TX)
> > >
> >
> >
> > --------------------
> >
> > "What I'm hearing which is sort of scary is that they all want to stay in
> Texas. Everybody is so overwhelmed by the hospitality. And so many of the
> people in the arena here, you know, were underprivileged anyway so this
> (chuckle) -- this is working very well for them."
> > - Barbara Bush
 >> Stay informed about: florida marlins rant with chicago references 

I think youre begining to understand. Youre right, the cubs appeal to
a number of demograpics, yuppies as you have wrote, the unemployed,
people who work downtown, teens, young adults as other sox fans have
wrote (see above). I am not sure if there are many groups left. So
youre right the cubs appeal to more people and different types of
people. I am trying to understand/confirm why. It has to be more than
just a winning team, players, owners, stadium, location, history all
play a role right?
 >> Stay informed about: florida marlins rant with chicago references