Why do Cubs fans continue to go to the ballpark?

halfcentman

I had to answer this question for my 13-year-old daughter who is pretty intelligent.

HERE'S WHAT SHE (EMPHASIS ON SHE) SAID:

1) They have not won a WS in 103 years.
2) They have not won a pennant since 1945.
3) They choked in 1969, in 1984, and the "Bartman" thing in 2003 was an embarassment to the franchise because the Cubs were the ones that blew it. People need to get a life.
4) At least the Red Sox went to 4 WS after 1918 before they won in 2004.
5) I think hearing lousy singers belt out "Take Me Out To The Ball Game" is lame.
6) No lights until 1988? Crosley Field had light 50 years prior. What took them so long? I'm 13, and I know that playing all of your home games in the middle of the day is tiring.
7) Black cat? Last time I checked that was the 20th century.

To her, it is inconceivable why any baseball fan worth their salt would support a franchise in major city that has not even come close to winning a WS in 103 years. When I told her about the traditions, her reply was "the Yankees have traditions to, and 27 WS and 40 pennants to go along with them."

LET IT RIP!

Brick

Because they sell Beer.

57loaded

kids can't understand traditions, they're too young, IMO. she seems normal, though.

what is meant by "major city"?

stevek

I forget the year, but I once went to the final game of the Phillies season when they were like 30 games out of first place, had to be less than two thousand in the stands, if that, and I'm still trying to figure out why I went to that game. LOL

WTCG

Because true fans are the ones who stick with their teams through thick and thin, for better and for worse. They cheer for their teams when they're in the cellar of their division and they cheer when they're world champions. They disparage their teams at times and lose confidence but they are always there no matter what.

The "fans" who become fans after a championship (or a winning season) are bandwagon fans. They ride the crest of the success wave and jump when times get rough. Bandwagon followers are the worst type of "fans". In 2008 they wore Phillies jerseys. In 2009 they were Yankees fans and this year they "fear the beard", yet they probably can't tell apart the two beards of Sergio Romo and Brian Wilson.

Speaking of bandwagon followers, with the exception of the Yankees I can't think of another team with more bandwagon followers than the Red Sox. Anywhere you go you'll find troves of people wearing Red Sox jerseys and ballcaps attempting to masquerade as true fans. Ask them who their five favorite players on the 25-man roster are and they'd be hard pressed to be able to name more than one player.

Since Wrigley Field was brought up, Fenway Park isn't any better.

PowderedH2O

I pulled for the New Orleans Saints for years (still do) and have attended roughly 200 games in person (either in New Orleans or on the road). For a lot of those years, we were the laughingstock of the NFL, especially before Jim Mora came along. There were entire seasons in which I attended all 7 or 8 regular season home games and saw only 1 or 2 wins (and in 1980, no wins). Yet, I loved those games. Even when we got beat, there was something about suffering along with the others that was soothing. And when we finally won it all last year, it was all the more special. But, I also get frustrated to see people wear Saints hats/jerseys and when I ask them about Rickey Jackson or Bobby Hebert they just look at me like I am speaking another language. I guess those fans are wearing Packers gear this season...

jdip9

<<<Speaking of bandwagon followers, with the exception of the Yankees I can't think of another team with more bandwagon followers than the Red Sox. Anywhere you go you'll find troves of people wearing Red Sox jerseys and ballcaps attempting to masquerade as true fans. Ask them who their five favorite players on the 25-man roster are and they'd be hard pressed to be able to name more than one player.

Since Wrigley Field was brought up, Fenway Park isn't any better.>>>

There's been a name coined in Boston for those type of fans - the "pink hats". You have to understand the magnitude of the 2004 World Series win to understand why there are so many pink hat Red Sox fans all over the country. Frankly, the true Red Sox fans are as annoyed with the pink hats as you are.

The bottom line is that the 2004 championship was SO huge that anyone with any ties to New England immediately grasped on to the Sox as "their team". Between the personalities on that team, the historic 0-3 comeback against the hated Yankees, the first title in 86 years, it is a very popular team. I can't think of a single championship in any sport that meant more to a group of fans than that one. (At least until the Toronto Maple Leafs win a Stanley Cup.)

Back to the OP's question - the fans are starting to starting to stay away from the ballpark this year, attendance is hovering somewhere around 85% capacity, down from the 90+% that the team typically enjoys, (with close to 100% a few years ago). There's a reason why the Cubs haven't won in so long, and part of it is the loyalty of the fans. When the ballpark is going to be banged out regardless of the team's record, there is no incentive for the management to put a winning product on the field. Looking at this year's team, there isn't a single player that is a "must see" attraction (Castro is good, but I wouldn't put him in that category yet). Hard to believe that a team with such a big payroll can be so bland.

halfcentman

The esteemed and highly respected poster from Boston has once again hit the nail on the head.

If someone tells you that it's not about the money - it's about the money.

Masochistic Cubs fan who like to fashion themselves as "loveable losers." keep coming to the park, and the fat cats make money - PERIOD! Loveable losers, are LOSERS.

When I go to the park, I go because I am a student of the game who enjoys watching his team kick the crap out of the other team within the rules. All of the allure of the ballpark dulls after a few times. The winning NEVER gets tired.

mccardguy1

<< <i><<<Speaking of bandwagon followers, with the exception of the Yankees I can't think of another team with more bandwagon followers than the Red Sox. Anywhere you go you'll find troves of people wearing Red Sox jerseys and ballcaps attempting to masquerade as true fans. Ask them who their five favorite players on the 25-man roster are and they'd be hard pressed to be able to name more than one player.

Since Wrigley Field was brought up, Fenway Park isn't any better.>>>

There's been a name coined in Boston for those type of fans - the "pink hats". You have to understand the magnitude of the 2004 World Series win to understand why there are so many pink hat Red Sox fans all over the country. Frankly, the true Red Sox fans are as annoyed with the pink hats as you are.

The bottom line is that the 2004 championship was SO huge that anyone with any ties to New England immediately grasped on to the Sox as "their team". Between the personalities on that team, the historic 0-3 comeback against the hated Yankees, the first title in 86 years, it is a very popular team. I can't think of a single championship in any sport that meant more to a group of fans than that one. (At least until the Toronto Maple Leafs win a Stanley Cup.)

Back to the OP's question - the fans are starting to starting to stay away from the ballpark this year, attendance is hovering somewhere around 85% capacity, down from the 90+% that the team typically enjoys, (with close to 100% a few years ago). There's a reason why the Cubs haven't won in so long, and part of it is the loyalty of the fans. When the ballpark is going to be banged out regardless of the team's record, there is no incentive for the management to put a winning product on the field. Looking at this year's team, there isn't a single player that is a "must see" attraction (Castro is good, but I wouldn't put him in that category yet). Hard to believe that a team with such a big payroll can be so bland. >>



My wife is a Red Sox fan but we live in Rural Wisconsin!! She like them because the...let me quote..... "the cute little pair of socks they have as a logo!" LOL Does this make her a pink hat??

cash4gold

jdip6 attendence is down this year maybe because April and May were very cold and rainy this year and June was also rainy. It was not a very nice spring this year. Rather watch them on tv and not take the day off from work to sit in a 50 degree windy, rainy day or a thunderstorm.

lanemyer85

- the fans are starting to starting to stay away from the ballpark this year, attendance is hovering somewhere around 85% capacity, down from the 90+% that the team typically enjoys, (with close to 100% a few years ago). There's a reason why the Cubs haven't won in so long, and part of it is the loyalty of the fans. When the ballpark is going to be banged out regardless of the team's record, there is no incentive for the management to put a winning product on the field. Looking at this year's team, there isn't a single player that is a "must see" attraction (Castro is good, but I wouldn't put him in that category yet). Hard to believe that a team with such a big payroll can be so bland.

So by your logic, your Red Sox wouldn't bother putting a competitive team on the field because they sell out every game. If they didn't care about winning they wouldn't run out a $135M payroll. ($145M last season). They'd follow the Cardinals ownership model of drawing 3+ million fans each year while pretending they can only afford a mid-market payroll - $88M, $94M, $109M over the last three years. Your numbers are also a bit off. Attendance is only down 2,548 fans per game. I don't know what you're going on, people who bought tickets who actually showed up, or actual ticket sales. Either way, a large portion of the empty seats you see on TV have already been sold, and the Cubs are still on pace to draw 2.9 million. You also forgot to mention the cost...since that's kind of the #1 factor here. Third highest average cost per ticket in MLB coupled with a team that has the 29th best record in MLB in a down economy with a poorly constructed team. Do the math. Most tickets have already been sold prior to the season, it's just all the ticket brokers (and they are a decent portion of the season ticket holders) aren't able to sell their seats for face value, or even 75% of face aside from key dates - White Sox, Interleague, Cardinals. The ownership inflated the ticket costs so high to try and combat the brokers, that the few thousand single game tickets that remain are of little interest to people due to the product on the field. Whereas before, a season ticket holder could attend 50% of the home games, sell the rest for profit, and then essentially attend 40 games per year free or at minimal cost. Everyone knows the team needs to be rebuilt. Aramis' $15M contract is up after this year, as is Kosuke's $13.5M, C.Pena ($10M) is a FA, Zambrano's $18M is up after next season, and all that will be left is Soriano's 3 year albatross. So outside of those who take their families to one or two games per year, the tourists, and the frat boys in the bleachers showing up to try to score skanks, why would you pay $80 face for a bleacher seat to watch that product on the field? A: you wouldn't. It's difficult enough to watch the Cubs play on TV, let along wasting three hours in Wrigley + parking cost ($20-30) for those not traveling via the L + traffic. The owner, Tom Ricketts, hasn't been shy about talking about the subject at hand, and the problem isn't the ticket sales. The problem is the Cubs aren't generating the revenue from concessions and souvenirs from the people who have paid for tickets, and no-showed.

jdip9

<<<<So by your logic, your Red Sox wouldn't bother putting a competitive team on the field because they sell out every game.>>>

The Sox selling out is only a fairly recent phenomenon (last 6-7 years), driven by the 2003-2004 seasons. Losing is punished in this town, and it shows in attendance numbers. Trust me, if the Sox started churning out mediocre teams, the fans wouldn't show up. If you go back through some of the more memorable moments in Red Sox history prior to 2003 that didn't occur at the end of division winning years, you'll see a lot of empty seats. It's why the Pats were often blacked out in the 80's and early 90's, and why the Bruins and Celtics played in front of a 3/4 filled (at best) Garden during the late 90's/early-mid 00's.

As for the Cubs, I was looking at the number of fans through the turnstiles, not sold tickets. Cash makes a good point that the weather had something to do with it. My only point is if the Cubs fans REALLY want to see their team win, the best thing they can do is stop showing up to the ballpark during seasons like this.

Goot

My friend from Chicago has said pretty much what Lane has said...it's basically tourists and the partiers that help prop up the attendance in the awful years. Tough to say too many bad things about that fan base after a long history of losing though. I'm sure Cardinals fans may disagree though, lol.








<< <i>
The Sox selling out is only a fairly recent phenomenon (last 6-7 years), driven by the 2003-2004 seasons. Losing is punished in this town, and it shows in attendance numbers. Trust me, if the Sox started churning out mediocre teams, the fans wouldn't show up. If you go back through some of the more memorable moments in Red Sox history prior to 2003 that didn't occur at the end of division winning years, you'll see a lot of empty seats. It's why the Pats were often blacked out in the 80's and early 90's, and why the Bruins and Celtics played in front of a 3/4 filled (at best) Garden during the late 90's/early-mid 00's.
>>







You have no idea how happy this post makes me. The morons that represent your fan bases outside of Boston seem to think every Boston team has been selling out for about 100 consecutive years now. Glad to know there are a few of you rational folks out there.

halfcentman

<< <i>As for the Cubs, I was looking at the number of fans through the turnstiles, not sold tickets. Cash makes a good point that the weather had something to do with it. My only point is if the Cubs fans REALLY want to see their team win, the best thing they can do is stop showing up to the ballpark during seasons like this. >>



I could not agree more. Watch them on TV.

stevek

Come on now...ya can't expect a losing baseball team to fillup a stadium or have high attendance for 81 games? That ain't gonna happen with any team, anywhere.

Football is different...even when the Philadelphia Eagles stunk, it's only 8 games a season, and there is the social event, tailgating factor that is popular regardless of who is gonna win the game...the stadium was always at capacity or near capacity for many years now, even during losing seasons.

lanemyer85

As for the Cubs, I was looking at the number of fans through the turnstiles, not sold tickets. Cash makes a good point that the weather had something to do with it. My only point is if the Cubs fans REALLY want to see their team win, the best thing they can do is stop showing up to the ballpark during seasons like this.

The owner is a lifelong fan of the team. He doesn't need further motivation to build a winner. This isn't the Trib Co. looking at the fiscal bottom line. Whether the Cubs draw 2.9M or 3.16M, it's not going to alter his business model which he has publicly stated several times since taking over last year, is following the Red Sox model with making gradual upgrades to the stadium, trying to build a young core through the farm system while plugging holes in FA, and waiting for their WGN TV contract to expire when in all likelihood he will start up his own NESN/YES network. The Cubs will have $40M freed up after the season, so they'll have the money to take a run at Fielder in FA, and I'm sure they'll pursue a younger #1 starter/ace when Zambrano's contract is up next year to pair with Garza, Cashner, and the other young starters like Trey McNutt who are on the way...and if this season continues on this pace, they'll have the #2 pick in the draft which will be protected if they do sign a Type A FA. So there's nothing for Ricketts to do with the team until all these bad Jim Hendry contracts run out, and 3 of the 4 will be off the books by the end of next season.

Dboneesq

Oh boy ... WILD PITCH in the bottom of the 10th and the Cubbies lose again.

coinkat

there is no place like Wrigley Field-

Sheamaster

Because Wrigley Field is more than just a "ballpark".

jeffcbay

In 2004 I took my best friend to Chicago (from Canton, Ohio) for a Cubs game for his bachelor party. There were seven of us. We're not Cubs fans, but we're baseball fans. We spent $120 per ticket just to be able to sit in the bleachers at Wrigley. You haven't lived until you ate a hot dog and drank a beer in the bleachers at Wrigley. That was a great day!

Groiny

THERE are few true fans left that go to all those games now - it's the new generation of wealthy that go now

coinkat

Wrigley is a National Treasure- the Cubs are too in a special way that whereby words just fall short in any effort to explain to others

jdip9

No doubt the recent troubles are due to awful big money signings....but I'm talking about a 100 year history of not winning, and not making a World Series since 1945, despite being a large market team in an economic system that they should be able to thrive in. Something doesn't quite add up there.

For Cubs' fans sake, I hope their GM does a better job with free agent signings than Theo Epstein has. Theo is batting under .100 on medium to big free agents (i.e. $6m per or more).

melvin289

Because they are good and true baseball fans and they Love their Cubbies.

I pulled for the Braves for many years while they were a last place team year after year. You stick with your team through thick and thin.

Ron

Connecticoin

<< <i>Since Wrigley Field was brought up, Fenway Park isn't any better. >>



Have you been to Fenway recently? It is leaps and bounds better than it was even 10 years ago. I used to think a new Fenway would have been the way to go, but the current owners have done an amazing job with the improvements over the past few years.

I am amazed how large the Red Sox bandwagon has become. And, I hate to say it, they have become the Yankees in terms of being able to throw money at free agents. I am sure other teams consider the Red Sox "Evil Empire II", but nothing will top the original "Evil Empire".

Estil

Indeed, the Red Sox can definitely no longer play the underdog card.