florida marlins rant with chicago references

> Heck even within the sox fan base, its gonna be tough to find people that
like dick allen.

That's where you're way off - Sox fans that have been around that long
haven't forgotten Dick Allen, nor the players from those 1972-1974 teams.
Just because you aren't interested in those Sox teams, don't just assume
that Sox fans aren't, either.

Regarding Cub marketing, my point was previously stated. I'll try to
elaborate here:

In the late '70's, the Sox were arguably more popular than the Cubs. At the
least they were equals in that department. However, two huge marketing
divides occurred to give the Cubs a huge lead in that department:

1) The Cubs stayed with WGN TV, which subsequently became a superstation,
broadcasting Cubs games nationwide. At the same time, the Sox went to pay
TV, which no one paid for, meaning that even local Sox fans couldn't watch
the game. A whole generation of kids got to watch the Cubs every day, with
little or no exposure to the Sox.

2) The Sox decided to let Harry Caray go, because he didn't mince words, and
didn't sugarcoat it when the players were bad. He was just as beloved by
Sox fans as he became with Cubs fans. The Cubs then picked him up. And it
didn't hurt when, as he got older, he became more of a "loveable uncle" than
the straight-shooting broadcaster he had been. Not saying that's bad, just
different.

The Cubs were successful at marketing Wrigley Field as a classic ballpark,
while Comiskey Park was touted by management as old and decrepit. This
despite the fact that both parks have their problems (poor sightlines at
Wrigley, and the infrastructure has shown wear and tear lately).

The Cubs and Sox both have been adeptat picking up formerly good-to-great
players on the downside of their careers (Cubs examples: Ron Cey, Larry
Bowa, Gary Matthews, the return of Greg Maddux, countless closers after Lee
Smith left, among others. Sox examples: George Bell, Tom Seaver, Jerry
Koosman, Charlie Hough, Ron Santo, among others). Cubs marketing had these
players coming in as saviors, while the Sox did nothing to market these
players.

There are countless additional examples. My point is this - you stated the
following, and I'll give my take:

"the better stadium" - Wrigley Field isn't necessarily better. You think
that it is - great - that's your opinion. I happen to like US Cellular
better. My point is that the Cubs marketing has been successful in making
Wrigley out to be a shrine, while US Cellular is some kind of monstrosity.
But Wrigley has it's faults, just like US Cellular. If you're more than
halfway back in Wrigley, forget about following the entire flight of any
popup. The stadium has had recent concrete problems. The food is lacking.
I'm not trying to bash the place, as it does have its good points, as well.
My point is that it isn't the perfect stadium that it's made up to be, and
that's a victory for the Cubs marketing department, because that's what it's
perceived to be.

"the more likable players" - Again, I can't agree with that. First of all,
the 2005 Sox went WAY out of their way to be fan friendly all season long.
Their fans have noted their "common man" personality, and have taken to them
big time. And the fact that almost 2 million people attended their parade
shows that they are pretty popular as well. But Cubs marketing has
successfully been able to make the team into "lovable losers", with scores
of people rooting for the underdog to finally triumph. Again, I'm not
trying to bash anyone - what it is is a triumph for the Cubs marketing
people.

"the festive atmosphere at wrigley" - I can't argue with you there. What I
can say is that there is just as festive an atmosphere at Sox games. The
constant brawling in the stands left Sox games 25 years ago, but the
negative connotation remains. The new stadium, especially with the recent
updates, is very fan friendly. Scores of different types of food, most of
which are pretty good. Given that it's a newer stadium, facilities such as
restrooms, gift shops, and even walkways are superior - not a slam of
Wrigley, but facilities on this scale just couldn't have been imagined in
1915. There are multiple kids sections in the ballpark, including a new one
where kids can go to a batting cage, take fielding practice, test their
speed down the basepath, try to hit a home run in a mini-wiffle ball park,
and even get batting instruction.

"pre and post game activities" - I don't see how you can say that the Cubs
have better activities than the Sox. There are fireworks after every
Saturday night game, and some Friday night games. And their 4th of July
fireworks are among the best in the city every year. There's tailgating in
the parking lots - the Cubs don't even have parking lots. There are some
games where randomly selected children get to "greet" the players at their
positions when they take the field. This is one area where, for years now,
the Sox have had the upper hand, as they've needed to do things like this to
compete with the Cubs.

"more likeable ownership" - not going to argue with you there, but winning a
championship goes a long way towards improving this one.

"better announcers" - depends on what you mean by "better". I like Hawk
Harrelson - he's a little blustery, but he's fun to listen to. DJ's OK as
long as he isn't the lead guy. But the Cubs announcers are pretty bland, as
far as I'm concerned. And, as much as I like Ron Santo as a person, as an
announcer, he's horrible. Half of his "commentary" are grunts and groans.
And he loves the Cubs so much, he can't say anything bad about them, no
matter how obviously bad a situation may be. This is another area where
"better" is subject to ones taste.

"better tv advertisements" - Frankly, I don't pay attention to either teams
advertisements - I avoid advertisements as much as possible. But
historically, yes, Cubs marketing has won here, as well. "Cub Fan, Bud
Man", etc. But, again, having a championship team can go a long way towards
a good ad campaign, as well.

"boca brian" <bocabrian RemoveThis @hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1135002056.152106.34010@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com...
> 2b) you do understand my point right? cub players are more popular with
> national media, national wide fans and chicago fans. Heck even within
> the sox fan base, its gonna be tough to find people that like dick
> allen. Remember albert bell?
>
> When you say "Cub marketing" what specifically do you mean (the better
> stadium, the more likable players, the festive atmosphere at wrigley,
> pre and post game activities, more likeable ownership, better
> announcers, better tv advertisements?)
>

I'm not arguing with you here. My point is, from our perspective, Cubs fans
seem to be the same way regarding the Sox. For example, you wanted to make
a point regarding Wrigley Field vs. US Cellular, in favor of Wrigley Field.
Fine - you're entitled to your opinion. But, if you're a Cub fan, as you
seem to be, and your preference is Wrigley, then why post on the White Sox
newsgroup? Why not let us enjoy our postseason and post this on the other
two newsgroups? You probably had a good reason, but that's the perception
from this angle.

My point is, when you ask a Cubs fan, they say that Sox fans are more
ignorant towards the Cubs. When you ask a Sox fan, they say that Cubs fans
are more ignorant towards the Sox. The reality probably is that both sides
are equally ignorant (or non-ignorant) towards each other. It's all a
matter of perspective.

"boca brian" <bocabrian.DeleteThis@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1135002230.691169.45170@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com...
> Most of the sox fans I know, are not ignorant cub hating lunnies, but
> certainly believe that the cubs rivarly is the moost important thing on
> their mind. beating the cubs is more important than anything, heck even
> ozzie said so, yet to cub fans st louis is typically number one.
>